Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 2

Sandbox
I set up a sandbox where the article can be worked on to address the issues that resulted in page protection. It is located here Sandbox. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 10:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers techniques
I'm new to Wiki editing, but am an admitted fan of Prof Cole. The Cole detractors editing this page are using a lawyer's technique of putting up scurrilous charges like anti-semitism that are based on conjecture in order to tarnish Cole in the eyes of the "jury" (ie a casual reader not familiar with the subject). Whether or not others post defences of Cole is immaterial, the charge has been made and it will stick in some minds. Just as judge saying "the jury will disregard that comment" doesn't really erase it from their memories, the presence of accusations that are far from being provable in court will tarnish Cole. We can write "Cole has not denied beating his wife" which is factually true, but clearly doesn't belong here either.

None of that stuff belongs here. Stick to verfied facts, as I'd rather the article was dry and descriptive than what it is now, which is far from the tone and feel of what an encyclopedia would say. It isn't WP's place to relay every exchange between Cole and a critic or repeat every charge by those offended at his positions. If a Judge wouldn't let it stay on the record in a trial, it doesn't belong here.

George W. Bush's wiki entry doesn't include charges of him being an anti-semite, or a racist, or a criminal or the many many things that many very well and widely read critics of him have said. Rightly so, say I - it does mention Alcohol and drugs because he is an admitted alcoholic and has reputable quotes tying him to drug use. Short of Cole being tape recorded admitting to someone he can't stand Jews or making an off-colour joke about them, his scholarly criticisms of Israel are not enough to substantiate the charge even to include it here. It is conjecture on his motivies in critisizing Israel. Sure it isn't a huge leap to assume someone who critisizes a Jewish country as hating Jews themselves, but it is still an assumption. Not a fact.

I'm not trying to say no criticisms should be here, but they need to be substantive ones like "expert X disageed with his translation on this noteworthy subject" or noting he has not lived in Israel or Iraq or whatever country despite his comments on it. Labels like anti-semitism go to motive which is almost impossible to prove, and the anti-semetic label itself is such a loaded charge it really should only be reserved for the most eregregious cases where actual hatred of Jews is clearly established. For all I know, Cole might be an anti-semite, but so might I, or anyone else. From a logical standpoint, critisizing Israel cannot be used as proof of that any more than critisism of Wikipedia should indicate one hates encyclopedias or community populated knowledge bases.

It also is not the responsibility of Cole's fans to go and "balance out" the criticisms with responses from Cole or whatnot to every charge. If his detractors find someone accusing him without factual evidence of being a child pornographer, must we defend Cole from that charge too? If you are adding a section, it should be able to stand on its own, not require someone else to come add "balance" or defence. In fact, that one is only willing to add critiques of Cole but unwilling to invest time finding responses to those critiques is a strong indication of bias and that the editor should recuse himself from the subject.

Scanning the sandbox, it is shaping up exactly like the current main page: a hit piece, not worthy of wiki.--FNV 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because no one has edited it. Everyone seems to be more keen on arguing, than on resolving the issues that led to page protection.  Why not be the first to make an edit.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --FNV 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no point in edit wars in the sandbox either. As long as there are editors who insist on equating criticism of Likud policies with anti-semitism, I'm not sure if this piece will ever move beyond being a vapid hit piece.  It's all ridiculous.  Cole is very critical of Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, for example, yet not a single one of the self-righteous conservatives who have attacked him have ever suggested that he is anti-Muslim.  Anyway I agree we should start changing the article and see what happens, so perhaps I'll give a first crack at it.--csloat 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've given it a start by deleting some material, but there is a lot to go. Then there is much to be added.--csloat 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey FNV, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia! I really enjoyed reading your well-reasoned and interesting comment above.  I hope you enjoy editing and participating here.
 * As you get acclimated, there's a page that I would suggest you take a look at, if you haven't already, WP:NPOV. There are some differences between editing on Wikipedia and legal work/writing.  For example, your statement that, "It also is not the responsibility of Cole's fans to go and "balance out" the criticisms with responses from Cole or whatnot to every charge.  ...If you are adding a section, it should be able to stand on its own, not require someone else to come add "balance" or defence.  In fact, that one is only willing to add critiques of Cole but unwilling to invest time finding responses to those critiques is a strong indication of bias and that the editor should recuse himself from the subject," while it may be completely reasonable, is actually not currently true vis-a-vis established Wikipedia policy.  The NPOV policy states that everything must be written from neutral point of view.  Conflicting views should all be presented in a fair neutral tone.  The article doesn't come down on any side; the reader is left to judge for his/her self.  The article should not be overtly sympathetic or negative towards the subject of the article.  We should describe the debate that exists regarding Cole here as fully as we can.  One of the great advantages of Wikipedia to a single author source, is that we can have different individuals or "camps" describing different sides of a debate.
 * Elizmr, with all due respect, this is a mockery of what Wikipedia stands for. The original statement, which you say is at odds with Wikipedia, is a far more accurate summary of NPOV.  NPOV is not about warring camps adding POV bits to an article and hoping against hope that it comes out ok in the end.  It is absolutely correct to say that it is not the job of Cole's fans to balance out the article, and also absolutely correct to say that if you or anyone else is unwilling to invest time finding responses to critiques, then they should recuse themselves from the article.--Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding your earlier statement, "The Cole detractors editing this page are using a lawyer's technique of putting up scurrilous charges like anti-semitism that are based on conjecture in order to tarnish Cole in the eyes of the "jury" (ie a casual reader not familiar with the subject)," I would refer you to another Wikipedia policy, WP:AGF. This policy asks us to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we are all working here for the good of Wikipedia, eg, on this article, to present a full multidimensional view of Juan Cole.  Working under the assumption that "Cole detractors" are "putting up scurrilous charges like antisemitism" in order to "tarnish cole" is kind of assuming bad faith on the part of the "Cole detractors", isn't it?  Assuming good faith would be to give other editors the benefit of the doubt that they are putting this stuff in because they consider it a relevant piece of the dialog on Cole.   But remember, just because a scholar says that Cole is "x" for reasons "y" and "z", that doesn't mean Cole is "x" or not--that is left to the reader.
 * Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and as you begin to edit on pages like this where emotions are high I hope you can begin by remembering that we are all on the same team here--we are Wikipedians--not Cole supporters or Cole detractors. Elizmr 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is important, of course. However, it is pretty hard to read the version of the article being complained about and characterize it in any other way.  Note well: I am not a fan of Prof. Cole.--Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Elizmr, I absolutely agree with neutral point of view. Thanks for the links to the Wiki policies, don't want to put too many feet wrong here. It's when I read sections like the sandbox "views on Iraq" which tries to portray Cole as a hypocrite, even though he has specifically addressed the question of his changing view on Iraq.  A [quick] Google search easily found his [response] and I can't help but question why the paragraph was written that way excluding his response.  Even the use of "Cole portrays himself" is loaded phrasing leaving an impression of falseness on Cole's part.  Better would be "Cole opposes the war in Iraq, however in the past made a contradictory statement of support for it in saying BLAH"


 * Having read through most of the notes here, I've seen numerous calls from one of the detractors that others should go and find Cole's rebuttals - I'm saying that's not right, whether or not the section is written in NPOV, it needs to be self-contained and reasonably complete in terms of research on whatever aspect of Cole the editor is addressing. I wouldn't go write a section on Cole being considered for tenure at Yale and not mention the strong opposition from conservatives to that - It's selective bias.


 * Besides, it seems to me a lot stuff is being included that really isn't worthy of note in Wiki - too much blow by blow of every dispute or argument Cole has had. I'm also saying criticisms of him need to be more grounded and substantial before they warrant inclusion.  The section on his Iraq war view is valid, because Cole's position seemingly has changed by the quotes, but then many other things are just opinions of various critics - it isn't NPOV to include every bad thing everyone has said about the guy and "leave it to the reader to decide" - It's a form of character assassination.  The reader will be wearied by all the bad press in any case.  I'll just go back to George Bush's wiki page, if a controversial character like that can have a quality write up, a much more minor yet controversial character like Cole should be able to also.  --FNV 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * THe nice part about Wikipedia is that this is a work in progress, so the article can change and develop. I hear your comments on writing self contained stuff; it is reasonable and ideal, certainly, but things don't always happen this way.  (A complication in this particular case is that a few of us recently cleaned up a very virulent "attack page" that had been created by some of the "Cole supporter" folks here.  Complaints that this was an "attack page" seemed hypocritical in this particular context).  We have been very bogged down with interpersonal issues which have impeded things. Elizmr 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? This page was quite reasonable until you and others came and turned it into an attack page.--csloat 18:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, WP:BLP disagrees. FNV is right that generally both sides need to be presented, or neither can be -- criticism cannot overwhelm the article, as it has here. You can call it censorship if you'd like. But Wikipedia aims to be an impartial and respectable encyclopedia, and it can't be if its biographies are written primarily by those who intend to criticise. There are also other realities to the situation: namely, that biographies have been challenged by their living subjects in the past, often in the form of a lawsuit for libel. (When that does happen, by the way, the article is completely censored per WP:OFFICE.) Were any of those lawsuits to succeed, Wikipedia would be done for. -- bcasterline • talk 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) An additional point: a biography is just that, a writing of the person's life, warts and all. However, if you look in a standard encyclopedia, biographies are never presented as attack pieces, even if the biography is on someone whom an overwhelming majority of the encyclopedia's readership might think is a despicable swine.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with WP:BLP and personally do not want this article to be an attack piece.  BLP does not say anything about what any one individual contributes which is why I disagree in part with FNV.  For this reason, I have repeatedly asked those who know it better to add content about Cole's academic work, etc.  I started to try to work on this myself, but I don't have the background necessary to do it.  This needs to be a collaboration.  At the risk of assuming bad faith, I would guess that if  half of the energy that has gone into attacking me had gone into writing something up about one of Cole's books we would have gotten a lot closer to achieving balance here.


 * Also, of note, BLP reads:

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out."


 * There are several points reputable notable critics of Cole have raised that as an editor here I feel are important to a honest presentation of him. I feel these issues can be presented neutrally and non-judgementally but they should be aired, and BLP does not disagree.  I think there is some disagreement among the editors on this page about relevancy, and we should discuss this and come to consensus and we have begun to do so I think.  Elizmr 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this section is one of the more relevant passages of WP:BLP for this article:
 * "Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies generally warrant coverage of criticism, while biographies generally do not unless the subject is a controversial public figure. When criticism is included, it should in most cases be incorporated into the article text rather then being in a section for criticism alone. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics."
 * I think we can all agree that this article is insatisfactory according this paragraph. It not only contains a section on criticism (or Controversy, more or less the same thing), it is the largest section of the article. I question Juan Cole's status as a "significant public figure", so I wonder whether any of this criticism is warranted. In any case, since adding material has not been able to balance it out, we should be cutting the irrelevant or improperly sourced stuff. -- bcasterline • talk 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree. I have been trying to move the article in this direction but certain editors do not seem to want to permit that to happen, nor even to want to reason about it.  I am trying to assume good faith here but it is very difficult.--csloat 04:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would very much agree on the improperly sourced stuff going---this is quite clearly stated. I think that Cole is sufficiently enough of a public figure of significance to include some controversy, does anyone disagree?  Of course it has to be neutrally done and the page as it stands is not there.  But please stop catastrophizing and remember that the page as it stands is not a final product.  New content is being added by FNV, and the page is beginning to improve already.  As far as what is relevant (excuse me for bolding Jim, I could not help myself), that is really a matter where there is core disagreement.  The attitude up until now has been to be dismissive about this disagreement (at the risk of CSTAR again accusing me of playing good cop bad cop, I'll say bilaterally dismissive), but we really need to have some dialog on this to get the page written.  We can avoid mediation or arbitration if we can bring ourselves to do this in a non-judgemental and open minded way and treat each other like reasonable human beings instead of enemy combatants, idiots, or objects of ridicule or derision.  I very much appreciate Sloat's willingness to begin this with me, CSTAR's call for "coolness" and Jim's attempts to reign in his wit.  Elizmr 14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A proposal
Pick a section and write it. For example, Cole and Israeli academics. The section should clearly state Cole's (public) position, for example as stated in his blog. Criticisms (by notable critics- hopefully we can agree on who these are &mdash; Efraim Karsh is a notable critic, some grad student probably isn't) should be formulated in the form: According to So and so BLAH;. If 6000 critics say the same thing, we can say, something like it is "claimed by many critics that BLAH"

Is this too naive a proposal?--CSTAR 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not too naive if we can just leave the word "BLAH" in place instead of actual content. That is where we seem to get into trouble. :=)  Elizmr 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably there are critics that say more than BLAH. Note that none of the sections previously had this structure (the section on Cole and Israel, began with Karsh said BLAH, until I changed it to actually state Cole's position. Actually I took a quote direct from Campus Watch (not noted as a Cole cheerleader).--CSTAR 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS There's an ample supply of sarcasm on this page. I don't think we need more.--CSTAR 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but that was supposed to be comic relief, not sarcasm. Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way.  Elizmr 23:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSTAR has a good point: less sarcasm (which is not easy for me) and just get down to brass tacks and get a valid NPOV article written. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I already said that this wasn't intended to be sarcastic and apologized. Elizmr 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know...I explained on your page.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit in sandbox, removing dicsussion of Cole's relevance to modern middle eastern studies
Commodore Sloat just removed this entire section:

====Subjects of extra-academic commentary vs. areas of academic expertise==== + - Professor Efraim Karsh, who has published widely on modern middle eastern affairs has challenged Cole's expertise on subjects he addresses in his blog: "Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world." . John Fund, in the Wall Street Journal wrote that: "[Cole's] scholarship is largely on the 19th-century Middle East, not on contemporary issues.

Sloat's edit summary says this, "rm red herring. Cole is an expert in the Modern Middle East, including 20th century and present". I have a problem with removing this passage. It is made by someone who is clearly part of the dialog, it is referenced, and it is relevant. One editor's opinion of the truth of the statement is not a criteria for including this in the Wiki article. If it is felt that it needs to be phrased more neutrally to conform to NPOV, then this should be changed, but the wholesale deletion is very problematic. Elizmr 23:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fighting in the sandbox...Anyway, one thing that does need to go is the title of that section, it is clearly POV. Once again, looks like we're back to the blog issue asnd WP:RS.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Second point: I see nothing that indicates Fund is an expert on anything.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Karsh is a definite authority. Don't know about Fund, but if he's published in WSJ, it's worth being mentioned.
 * A typical whitewash method: call it "red herring" and fake appeal to authority. JC is a highly controversial figure who has been widely criticized. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is false; Cole is only controversial among certain members of the far right. Again, when he speaks on NPR, writes in Salon, or is interviewed by AP, NYT, and other mainstream media outlets, the so-called "controversies" don't even come up.  They never come up when he lectures publicly or participates in academic conferences.  They only seem to come up in the pages of right-leaning political magazines, and they almost always are brought up by people who ignore 90% of his arguments and all of his scholarship.  I still have not seen a credible reason to take any of this stuff seriously.-csloat 01:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the WSJ is no more an arbiter or sanctifier of expertise than the NYT. Both are in the business to make money, and if a columnist pulls readers, the level of expertise -- especially on political matters -- is pretty irrelevant.  BTW, look at Fund's biography...it's really not all that impressive, and certainly gives him no cachet on the subject of Middle-Eastern studies.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated two paragraphs censored by CSloat. I don't feel too strongly about Fund and (I think) I have not restored his phrase. He is mentioned as "other critics", hope there is no problem with that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that Fund's personal expertise is immaterial. He is quoted in the WSJ, which meets the requirements of WP:RS. Isarig 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me of censorship again. I have no power to censor anything.  I do not think any of this antisemitism nonsense belongs here.  If you like we can have one sentence indicating that Karsh or whoever thinks he is antisemitic, but two paragraphs of this stuff is just ridiculous, especially when the argument is so absurd.  Again, if you find photos of Cole painting swastikas on a shul, perhaps you have more of a case.--csloat 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't need your permission to be "entitled" to anything. My POV is simply not relevant here.  What is relevant to this page is spelled out here and here.  I suggest that we stick to these guidelines rather than this entry into a name-calling piece that tries to turn a respected academic into some kind of synagogue-burning Klansman.--csloat 01:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat, please, no one is trying to turn anyone into a "synagogue-burning Klansman". Karsh is a respected academic in a relevant area talking about the subject of the article.  If his quote is presented in a neutral way, there is nothing wrong with it being on Wikipedia.  Also, I believe we are talking about the quote from Karsh here regarding Cole's area of expertise, which has nothing even remotely do to with antisemitism.  I agree about the Fund quote, it can certainly go.  Jim--what do you think for an alternate title for this section?  Elizmr 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the paragraphs I was accused of "censoring" above which focused on his alleged antisemitism. The paragraph on Cole's expertise was removed because it is nonsense.  Perhaps it is from a respected academic; if so, it is one who has not done his homework.  Cole's expertise is in the modern middle east and as I pointed out over and over on this page, a simple glance at his list of publications will show that he has written on twentieth century and current topics as well as the 19th century; also, the argument is bogus, since a background on middle east history gives Cole more, not less, credibility when addressing current events.--csloat 03:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On WP, we are not arbitrers of truth. Whether or not Karsh's criticism is from "one who has not done his homework" is irrelevant. Karsh is an expert, and was published in a verifiable source. end of story. Isarig 03:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So should we have equal time for holocaust denial on the Holocaust page? How about representing the flat earth society's views on the earth page?  This isn't even the Karsh page; are we obligated to include every moronic thing published about anyone on their biography page?  If you want a sentence mentioning that Karsh thinks he is antisemitic I have not opposed that, but I see no reason for an extended rant describing this untenable position.  I don't see why that is so hard to understand.--csloat 08:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Now I'm embarrassed.  I am ranting about the antisemitism stuff, not Karsh's critique of Cole's expertise.  I think Karsh is wrong there but I don't have a problem leaving that quote in.  Sorry.--csloat 08:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Humus used the word "censoring" because you took stuff out, or maybe it was because I used the word above first in regard to something else. I think Isarig is right when he frames the issue in terms of Wikipedia.  We are not arbiters of truth, and Karsh is notable and quotable in a good source.  Do you really think it is really reasonable to take this out, even though you personally disagree strongly with it?  Please remember, it is not saying that this is true or not true--that is for the reader to judge.  It is just saying who Karsh is and what Karsh says about this.  Think about it.  The reader can agree or disagree, right?  (PS--I agree that the background on middle east history is relevant and helpful--you said this before a few times and I don't think anyone noted that this is a good point) `Elizmr

No offense to him, I'm sure he is an intelligent person, but he just cannot see clearly on this issue for some reason. This is not about me disagreeing with it; this is about it being totally illogical. I am also not saying we have to take Karsh's "criticism" out completely, but I don't see any reason to report it beyond a few words. It is totally insignificant to this page. That has nothing to do with whether I or you or anyone else agrees with it. I am not opposing the inclusion of legitimate, or even illegitimate, criticism here. I just don't think we should turn a biography into a soapbox for third parties. Look, the mainstream media are not wasting a breath debating the issue of whether Cole is antisemitic. This is not a big issue for anyone interested in Middle East Studies or Cole's work. This is not an issue in the newspapers when they quote Cole on the Iraqi insurgency, for example. This is not an issue that comes up when Cole is asked to speak on NPR. This is not an issue that comes up when Salon decides to publish his opinion pieces. I am not saying it should not be mentioned here at all; I am just saying it should not be treated as the main issue surrounding Cole.--csloat 08:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See above, and again, my apologies here... I am still stuck on the anti-semitism thing, but I am commenting on the wrong issue. Keep the Karsh line in if you think it's so important.  I think it is pretty meaningless but it is not as much of an embarrassment to wikipedia as the antisemitism stuff.  Sorry folks I will try not to be so quick on the keyboard....-csloat 08:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, I must say that it was wise of you to cross over that text.
 * Then you wrote: "I think Karsh is wrong there but I don't have a problem leaving that quote in", and "Keep the Karsh line in if you think it's so important." - and still you removed his quote. For the second time today, I am restoring it. Please try to tolerate opinions that differ from your own. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat: Thank you for striking those comments and apologizing and also for agreeing to content you strongly objected to yesterday. Humus: thanks for putting the content back on the page.  Elizmr 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is we are talking about two different Karsh quotes. I am ok leaving the above Karsh quote in.  I am not ok with the Karsh quote calling Cole anti-Jewish.  We can leave the opinion itself in but I don't think we need to turn this article into a stage for Karsh to grandstand.  This was the quote I was talking about in the struck out part.  I'm sorry but this sandbox piece is still a hit piece and quotes like this are the problem.  If you want to include the information that some morons believe Cole is anti-semitic I will not oppose that, but if you want to turn this into a page explaining the morons' argument over and over, I think it is degrading to Wikipedia.  As I have said over and over, our guidelines are here, and a series of meditations on Cole's alleged antisemitism do not meet these guidelines.  This is also simply not an important issue to anyone actually interested in Cole's work.  To repeat the comments I struck out, making clear that they apply to this Karsh quote and not the one where Karsh takes stupid potshots at Cole's expertise: Look, the mainstream media are not wasting a breath debating the issue of whether Cole is antisemitic.  This is not a big issue for anyone interested in Middle East Studies or Cole's work.  This is not an issue in the newspapers when they quote Cole on the Iraqi insurgency, for example.  This is not an issue that comes up when Cole is asked to speak on NPR.  This is not an issue that comes up when Salon decides to publish his opinion pieces.  I am not saying it should not be mentioned here at all; I am just saying it should not be treated as the main issue surrounding Cole.--csloat 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but in future, it might be a good idea to replace descriptors like "morons" with "folks", it'll help you to better make your points and avoid any potential WP:NPA problems.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right of course. I am not attacking anyone here as morons but I was using that term to refer to the people being quoted here like Karsh.  However, that is inappropriate too.  Karsh is no moron; he is just using moronic arguments when it comes to Cole.  But I guess it doesn't help anyone to identify them as such.-csloat 20:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, stop censoring relevant quotation from a distinguished scholar that does not align with your political agenda. As for your POV exercises, please see what WP:TALK pages are for. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please pay closer attention to the talk page, Humus. This has nothing to do with my "political agenda."  I have explained why this quote does not belong above.  You made an argument for the other Karsh quote, and I have withdrawn my opposition to it.  But you have not made any argument justifying this quote, esp. when my edit preserves the information conveyed by it.  Again, why do you insist on long lectures from someone who is not Cole, and whose argument is manifestly illogical?  I'm not demanding you remove his argument, but I don't see why it needs to take center stage on this article.  Again, please review WP:BLP for further information before editing this again.  Thanks.--csloat 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On long quotes. I generally think long quotes are a bad idea for WP. See the very contentious dispute starting here Talk:Quantum_indeterminacy (having nothing to do, thankfully, with anything remotely associate with this article) and continuing for several sections on that talk page. However, given the highly charged nature of this article I won't try to argue removal of long quotes here. Nevertheless, as a courtesy to the reader of this encyclopedia, could you please summarize in a sentence what Efraim Karsh is saying? Thank you.--CSTAR 03:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I think the following principle, though not WP policy by any stretch of the imagination, could be considered a useful conclusion of that long dispute:


 * The other contentious issue is the inclusion of long quotes in an article, preceded with little explanation. By that I mean, (as I have repeated at least 3 times in the above discussion), that a quote should be brought in to support an identifiable claim. An identifiable claim is one which already exists in the peer-reviewed scientificliterature, preferably has a name (such as "local realism", "instrumentalism") and can be summarized in a few phrases.
 * --CSTAR 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address this issue with the Karsh quote but I don't think certain other editors will allow such changes to stand. Unfortunately, this page will remain at a standstill for a long time until these editors cease their agenda of turning it into a hit piece (or until the rest of us give up on it).  As such, it will remain an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--csloat 04:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest at this point you refrain from editing it or at least reverting since it is leading nowhere, except to an edit war. Make your objections here on this talk page. This article is clearly a problem, it is widely known that it is a problem and may very well end up in some kind of mediation or arbitration.  There is a clear policy in WP on WP:BLP which this article has to meet. The fact that something is written (in a sandbox) should not be considered a fait accompli. Let's please try to keep this cool. --CSTAR 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the plea for "coolness" on CSTAR's part and agree we need dialog on talk before we can bring ourselves to edit some sections here. See my remark in "Lawyer's techniques", above.  I really think we can avoid problems if we talk to each other and hear each other a bit.  Elizmr 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

sandbox: On the influence of Zionism in US foreign policy
I've made a number of small edits to this section in the sandbox, mostly trimming awkward and repetitive sentences. I've also deleted yet another cite of that Badran the Blogger. Folks, I know you love him to death because he says the things you like to hear but he is, after all, only a grad student. --Lee Hunter 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK by me re: Badran. Elizmr 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole on Iraq
I have edited that section to reword the section on Cole's apparent change of stance on invading Iraq to include his rebuttal/explanation. I also added more specifics to his viewpoints. Does it need more references to his writings to back the fact that he makes those claims? (ie Iraq is in a civil war, or that the Interim constitution was problematic etc etc)

Without addressing the right/wrong of Cole's actual position, I do believe it is logically consistent to say "I would have supported a UN authorized invasion, and my support ceased when such authorization (in the form cole would have accepted, an explicit SC resolution) was not obtained." So I feel his defence is a valid one to make, though I'd be just as happy not including the whole section on his alleged flip-flop on the war.

Actually, I'm not comfortable with the wording "interim constitution" Wasn't it called the "Transitional Administrative Law" or something? I'm speaking of the constitution the Provisional Authority handed to the Iraqis as a starting point for their eventual constitution.

There's much more one could say about his critisisms of Post-invasion US policy - I don't want to drag it into minutae of every decision of Bush or Bremner that Cole questioned, or his disputing the success /failure of the insurgency, the percentage numbers of foreign jihadists/terrorists in the insurgency.

Thinking about it now, a mention of his concerns over the Fallujah campaign might merit mention as came back to that move frequently as a cause of a major upswing in insurgent violence and Iraqi dissatisfaction with the US precence.

Also, Cole has analyzed many of the choices the Iraqis themselves made, but I suppose his views on various iraqi politicians are not so controversial/noteworthy.--FNV 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Thanks for doing the hard work to tease this out!  Elizmr 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks FNV but I would agree with you on something else - I too would be happy simply not including this sideshow.--csloat 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Explainations like this on the Iraq are why I read Juan Cole:

From Informed Comment 05/21/06:

There are now four distinct wars going on in Iraq simultaneously

1) The Sunni Arab guerrilla war to expel US troops from the Sunni heartland

2) The militant Shiite guerrilla war to expel the British from the south

3) The Sunni-Shiite civil war

''4) The Kurdish war against Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk province, and the Arab and Turkmen guerrilla struggle against the encroaching Peshmerga (the Kurdish militia).

~ JB~
 * There can be no doubt by any informed person that Cole is one of the most informed persons alive on the middle east, in particular the Iraq War. But we have to face the fact that this article has taken a partisan hit and it has been frozen in an attack mode. The problem is how to unfreeze it. Since the people that have left it in the biased moded that it is in are given equal weight and quantity and not quality of argument is to prevail, the question presented is how to get out of this circumstance. The anser is clear. Just make this an article on Cole. Just the bare essentials. Cole can take care of himself in his own blog. The quality of his reasoning shines through. There he is not blocked or locked by administrators and can reply and defend hiself. All the crap the detractors want to talk about here, the Karsh quote, the minutae of Feith, the Iraq War, the occuption vanishing from the history of time, Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad, Walt & Mearsheimer, they all have or should have their own WP pages. Why must they all be fought over in a locked Don Juan discussion page while a hatchet page is presented to the general public. I have toned my comments down. And I don't know how to make my signature a hot link. All I do is hit the signature icon up at the top. Four tildes gets the same result. Take Care!--Will314159 11:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whenever you say something like "no one can doubt...", or "everybody agrees that..." it is something that is either extremely dubious or controversial, so yes, there can be some doubt by an informed person that Cole is the most knowledgable person alive on the middle east.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Superficial non-responsive response to the main point. More Ammo for a stub article. Take Care!--Will314159 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox edits to Iraq section: added Turkomen, Jihadists, drawn into, contradictory views. to make it flow better. I stll favor the stub idea. But i am not going to stand idly by and let the sandbox article be edited by cole opponents. the turkomen are the forgotten group in Irak, indigenous Turks that may be the excuse Turkey needs to grab the oil rich city of Kirkuk. Changing one's mind is a virtue not a failing, contradictory views need explanation. I will proceed in my sandbox edit. Take Care!--Will314159 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Career
Added a paragraph on Cole's participation in the translation project which is working to translate all the primary US founding documents and philosophy into Arabic, Persian and so forth. --FNV 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war - Karsh quote
Isarig, it isn't a question of whether Humus agrees; it is about whether he is able or willing to respond to the arguments against including that quote. Please read my last few edits to this page which presented several arguments about why the quote should not be there. Once again review WP:BLP for further information about Wikipedia policy. Please read the contributions of others to the discussion above who also recommend against long quotes devoted exclusively to criticism. This has now been addressed over and over. I realize I caused some confusion because I had removed both Karsh quotes and really should have only removed this one, but neither Isarig nor Humus have responded to the arguments against using this quote. Please revert back to my version of that paragraph so we can continue editing in good faith. Thanks.--csloat 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, I have no idea where you got this from: "we did talk about this, and you conceded the arguments". Care to explain?
 * The invocation of WP:BLP is another tactics to stifle legitimate scholarly criticism of a highly controversial figure.
 * As a compromise, I considerably shortened Karsh's quote, hope it is OK with others. Now it is no longer than adjacent quotes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote does not belong at all; this section is absurdly long as it is. As for where I got the above from, please re-read the commentary on this talk page.  You defended the other Karsh quote but never responded to my arguments about this one.  Perhaps it was due to my confusion of the quotes, but I never saw a response to these concerns.  This has nothing to do with stifling "legitimate scholarly criticism" -- there is nothing legitimate about name-calling, and there is nothing scholarly about it.  Also, the argument was not "stifled"; it was simply shortened.  Your "compromise" version is still far too long; save it for the page on Karsh.--csloat 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP is in fact a legitimate concern, and was initially raised by an admin not involved in this process. Legitimate scholarly criticism does not include libel.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure it is a concern, but it should not be used to whitewash a controversial conspiracy theorist and blogger. "Libel" is exactly what Cole is doing, and that is exactly why he is being criticized. An objective encyclopedic article would adequately reflect such criticism based on reliable and verifiable sources, and not sweep it under the rug as some of his fans here are trying to do. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effort to compromise, but I agree with csloat that the quote does not belong. From  [WP:Opinions of Critics] we have: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations." - looking at the Karsh quote you left in, we have: "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." and further: "Cole is of course not the first nor the last to argue that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by the Jewish state" (emphasis added by me) - The phrase "Jewish State" is not of course how Cole refers to Israel, and is inflammatory to add the implication of Anti-semitism to Cole's writings on Israel.  Besides which, Karsh is relying on guilt-by-association of "similarities" he purports between Cole's writings and other things he considers Anti-semitism.  It is analogous (though less in degree) to "Oh you like dogs?  Well, you know who else likes dogs?  Hitler." style of Colbert-esque guilt-by-comparison.  Please, no Godwin references, not calling anyone here a Nazi or anything! (trying to be funny).
 * It doesn't belong, even if Karsh is respected. The criticism doesn't stand under its own weight.   I could also make a case that it violates the guideline against Advocacy_journalism, but I'll stop here for reactions to the above.


 * I suggest we continue to dialog before jumping ahead to decisions on this. Let's continue the dialog I started with Sloat above.  We need to adhere to policy, but silencing a full professor from a more than relevant field on a relevant topic in his sphere of expertise (my opinion; and Sloat is also entitled to his, but let's ALL keep an open mind) is quite concerning.  The BLP guideline states clearly that this is against its intention (I quoted above).  Has everyone here discussing the Karsh article read it?  It is a thoughtful well-written well sourced critique.  Elizmr 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dialog as a verb? The horror, the Horror!  ;)  Anyway, Elizmr is correct, the issue needs to be worked through (patiently, and with an ability to compromise).  Cole supporters need to accept that as Cole has made "controversial" statements, some criticism is merited; by the same token, Cole opponents need to understand that the criticisms cannot overtake the article.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I retract my use of "dialog" a verb! How could I have done that???  Hopefully, it was only a momentary lapse.  Please forgive.  Elizmr 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be other parts of that article that could or should be quoted here, but I maintain my objection to the existing one on the grounds stated above. Cole's writing having similarities to those of anti-semites does not make him one where the similarities are not themselves inherently hateful to Judaism.  Further, a well-respected professor can be wrong about things and quoting him anyway would be akin to an appeal to authority fallacy.  Perhaps propose something else from the article.--FNV 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear you on all your statements, but want to underline that according to one of three core Wikipedia editing guidelines, it is not up to us to judge whether Karsh is right or wrong if what he says is relevant and we can quote it in a NPOV way as Karsh's stated opinion. It is the role of the reader, not the editor, to decide what is true or not true.  This is stated clearly in WP:NPOV and BLP does not disagree.  I am reading the article again (and will send it to anyone else interested) and will give some thought to what it would be reasonable to include and how to couch the language.  Elizmr 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true. If Karsh states Cole is a child molestor, I think we can safely ignore that here as absurd.  And I did find guidelines indicating that we should avoid that particular piece from Karsh as it relies on comparing Cole to other anti-semetic things.  He isn't even disputing anything Cole has said, he's really poisoning the well.  Find a passage of Karsh saying "Cole is wrong because incident X shows America works against Israeli interests and Doug Feith even advocated for it" etc etc.  Substantive criticism, not "Cole sounds like an anti-semite and thus we should ignore him." (paraphrasing).  I point out below that Karsh's own Wiki page, and Hitchens' do not include mention of Cole and his criticisms of them.  I just checked Doug Feith's page too and Cole is not in it.  It seems clear to me the types of things being included on Cole's Wiki are incongruent with other people's biographies and we need to rethink their inclusion.  Goldberg has a minimal mention of his disputes with Cole.  None of the blow-by-blow we find here.


 * I really would prefer Cole's page was a lot like Karsh's. A few paragraphs on his career and publications, mention of his blog and its popularity/awards.  A line about the disputes he's had with Karsh, Hitchens and Goldberg and that's it.  Start a page on his blog itself to discuss all the controversy and challenges to his writings.  I'm growing increasingly confident we are not under any obligation to present some kind of for/against case on Cole here in his bio page based on what other Wiki bio pages on controversial people look like. Man, I go on and on.  I will stop here.--FNV 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but although they share the same academic rank, Cole differs from Karsh in one respect. He puts a huge amount of energy into his role as a blogger.  Most if not all of his writing on the modern middle east is self published on this blog.  Some is published in non-peer reviewed pop journalism like Salon.com, etc.  On his blog, he does not use the language of academic discourse.  He is provacative, confrontational, and says some very controversial things.  Isarig mentioned this elsewhere and he is right.  Again, we need to be NPOV, we need to focus on what is relevant and not on blow by blows of small incidents, but I don't think  you have made a case for leaving all well sourced relevant criticism off the page.  Elizmr 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel section Sandbox I didn't see a section for it so I guess this is. The Karsh quote is bullcrap and doesn't belong in the article. If you want to represent Cole's views on Israel- he favors justice for the Palestinians, a comprehensive Middle East Peace, peace treaties among all the nations, and trade. Now let me ask, isn't that more important that a stupid butt Karsh quote. Take Care!--Will314159 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual Standards Section
I started by deleting the bit about "Hitchens took issue with Cole's characteristic ad hominem style" (emphasis added) for 2 reasons: 1) What Hitchens takes issue with is a bit far from being necessary to a biography any more than listing all the things Lady Astor didn't like about Churchill would be relevant. and 2) "characteristic ad hominem style" is a violation of NPOV.

I'm going to add a point that Cole's eventual page should look something like either Efraim Karsh or Christopher Hitchens neither of which spends much time quoting their critics or discussing every controversy they have been a part of. In fact, Karsh has no criticism whatsoever listed, possibly because no one has bothered to add any, but for example there is no mention of his exchanges with Cole (nor on Hitchens' page). Goldberg's page does mention Cole, but no one quoted Cole's slam on Goldberg's Middle East credentials. If these people's pages don't include criticisms from Cole (a respected academic) I don't see why Cole's page should include theirs.

I suggest such things should be included on pages that deal with the Iraq War, Iraqi politics, Israel, the Likud Party - issue pages where battling scholars can be quoted more extensively.--FNV 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a page similar in nature to Christopher Hitchens is the right way to go. I like how his views are presented separately from the criticism section.  This makes both sections readable and concise as I mentioned above.  --Ben Houston 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a page similar in structure, and content, to the Hitchens page is a desirable outcome. Cole's fans should not that on that page there is a section dedicated to criticisms of Hitchens (it is titled "praise nad criticism of Hitchens", but the ratio of praise to criticism is roughly 1:3) This is in addition to criticisms of Hitchens that appear in other section sof the article, some of them no more then simple verbal abuse (such as the Galloway slur that Hitchens is a "drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay".) I think it is unreasonable to expect a page similar to the Karsh page. Karhs is an academic, who gained his publicity primarily as a result of an academic debate with Israel's "New Historians". he does not blog, and is not a controversial figure. Cole and Hitchens gained thier publicity primarly because of their controversial non-academic writing. So it's no surprise that thier pages are filled with criticisms of those positions. Isarig 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitchens is not an academic. Love him or hate him, he is a provocateur, he was even when he was a left-winger, but he was never a scholar.  He has always thrust himself in the middle of controversy, and he has always been open and unapologetic about his alcoholism, so it's no surprise to see such comments as Galloway's there (and, to be fair, that passage describes a notable incident, whether or not there was any truth to what Galloway said).  But Cole, like Karsh, is an academic, who gained his notoriety primarily as a result of decades of research into Shiite history and Middle Eastern Studies as well as commentary on current events (both academic and non-academic).  I realize you think he is only notable because of his blog, but you are simply wrong, as I have explained a few times here.  It is the other way around; his blog would not be notable if not for his academic expertise and notoriety.  He was sought out as an expert by media outlets before he ever started publishing his blog; while it has obviously added to his notability, it is not the source of it.  More to the point, these so-called criticisms are focused on one small aspect of Cole's activity.  His position on Feith and Franklin is certainly interesting and notable, but a sentence or two about it should be more than enough.  It should certainly not be the focus of an extended meditation on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The same is true of his disputes with Hitchens and MEMRI -- these are at best mere footnotes to Cole's biography, and really need not be dwelt upon to such an extent here.--csloat 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and we disagree. I don't think Cole had any notability outside the small academic circle of Middle Eastern Studies prior to starting his blog. His primary publicity came as a result of the blog, and the controversial nature of it. In that respect, he is much closer to Hitchens than he is to Karsh. Isarig 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion; it is a question of verifiable fact. Look it up yourself; either Cole gave interviews to reporters prior to 2003 or he didn't.  I believe he did.  Either Cole's 1986 book was cited in the mainstream media in the late 1980s or it wasn't (FYI, this was mentioned above on this page a while ago).  Either Cole has an extensive list of academic publications on his web page or he doesn't.  Cole has nothing in common with Hitchens -- Cole is a respected academic (whether you think his academic circle is "small" is beside the point) and he was long before his blog.  Cole is not a media hound like Hitchens, and he does not appear to be a drunk.  They really don't have anything in common.  Please re-read the rest of my arguments above if you missed them; otherwise I will assume you are conceding them.--csloat 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole started his blog in 2002. Giving interviews to reporters in 2003 makes my case, not yours. Cole's academic output is also not in question - I concede he may have been considered an expert on 19c Shiites within the small cricle of ME history academics - but he was not known outside this circle prior to starting his blog. This is indeed a matter of verifiable data, so here's a piece of it for you, from folks who are quite supportive of Cole in general, writing in Foreign Policy: "University of Michigan history Professor Juan Cole had a lot to say about the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Problem was, not many people were listening. Despite an impressive résumé (he’s fluent in three Middle Eastern languages), Cole had little success publishing opinion pieces in the mainstream media, even after Sept. 11, 2001. His writings on the Muslim world might have remained confined to academic journals had he not begun a weblog called “Informed Comment” as a hobby in 2002." And if that's not enough for you, here's COle himself, in the same article acknowledging that the academic journal Middle East Journal invited him to contibute in 2003 as a result of his blog As a prominent expert on the modern history of Shiite Islam, Cole became widely read among bloggers—and ultimately journalists—following the outbreak of Iraqi Shiite unrest in early 2004. With his blog attracting 250,000 readers per month, Cole began appearing on media outlets such as National Public Radio (NPR) and CNN to provide expert commentary. He also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “As a result of my weblog, the Middle East Journal invited me to contribute for the Fall 2003 issue,” he recalls. As to the similarities with Hitchens, they center not around whether Cole drinks or not, but on what made him a public figure - and that is his controversial positions taken in his blog. Isarig 21:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cole has been quoted in the media going back to 2001. I said *before* 2003, but I stand corrected, let's use 2002.  Also, as I said, his edited collection was considered important enough for favorable reviews in nonspecialist media back in 1987.  I also never denied that his blog increased his popularity outside of ME Studies, but that was never at issue, so please do not distort this debate any further.  My point stands - his blog became popular because of his acknowledged expertise.  Finally, please stop distorting the debate with the false claim that Cole's only expertise is 19th century -- I have dealt with this argument above with a link to his list of publications, many of them about current issues.  He is an expert in the modern ME - which begins in the 19th century but did not stop there.  In fact, his knowledge of history makes his comments on current affairs more authoritative, not less; again, that is the reason for the success of his blog.  The fact that you found a qwuote that dates his popularity to 2004 is interesting but beside the point -- again, you can look up his publications, or those that cite him, yourself.  As for Hitch, Hitchens is not a public figure because of blog controversy, so your analogy to Hitchens is totally ludicrous.  More importantly, once again, Hitchens is not a scholar.  Additionally, the so-called controversies about Hitchens, MEMRI, and Israel are a tiny footnote even to Cole's blog!  Over 90% of his blog, I must repeat for the umpteenth time, is devoted to other subjects.  The so-called controversy is only a controversy for Cole's attackers.  It is totally ignored by the plethora of media outlets who cite Cole.  Finally, please read WP:BLP and follow these guidelines when contributing to this page in the future.--csloat 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, I must say that it is wrong to assume that if some of your confused/confusing (as you admit yourself) comments somewhere "above" were left with no response, that means somehow that your opponents "conceded the arguments". Every time you do these little dishonest tricks, you lose credibility.
 * This page is way too long. It would help 1) to archive it and 2) for all of us write consisely and do less politicking. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored Karsh's quote (again, and still you've assumed that I was talking about some other quote), and made another compromise by removing yet another sentence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing dishonest about it; I have repeated my arguments over and over again for those who were confused by my earlier error. Please assume good faith, especially when I have given you no reason for assuming otherwise.  I have reverted your restoration of Karsh's quote again since you again have chosen not to respond to the arguments.  Now that we have cleared up the confusion, I see no reason to continue with the charade - if you are unable to respond to the plethora of arguments detailed above against the use of this quote, please stop reverting it.  Also, please take a look at WP:BLP for guidelines as to dealing with this page in the future.  Thanks.--csloat 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat, Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true and doesn't make it accepted and doesn't close the case. You wrote above, "Finally, please stop distorting the debate with the false claim that Cole's only expertise is 19th century -- I have dealt with this argument above with a link to his list of publications, many of them about current issues.  He is an expert in the modern ME - which begins in the 19th century but did not stop there."  A few points: 1) when you use phrases like, "please stop distorting the debate with the false claim" you are not following WP:AGF and this is completely unacceptable on a contentious page.  Please consider yourself warned on civility for the second time in two days.  2) On Cole's modern middle east expertise, we have a source who states that he does not have this expertise and it is a good source and a relevant one.  This aside, I have looked at his CV and don't see any peer reviewed ACADEMIC publications that are on the modern middle east.  So you're really going to try to make this point, you're going to have to be more specific than a link to his CV and a statement that the case is closed.  3) Similarly, refering Humus to a wikipedia policy without saying exactly what your point is is not helpful.  Elizmr 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, thank you for repeatedly sending me to read the policies. You broke 3RR and since you haven't self-revert for a while I have reported you. WP:BLP does not prevent the inclusion of legitimate well-sourced criticism. It is wrong to paint JC as a preeminent academic figure. Removing the criticism and accusing his critics of libel is misleading, because it is JC who alleges the libels and conspiracies in the first place. Compare his "Likudnik" plot with Doctors' Plot and Rootless cosmopolitanism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) "Broke" 3RR where? In the sandbox?  I'm not so sure that that's actionable.  On the other hand, it's pretty damned sad that an edit war breaks out in the sandbox.  At this rate, this article will stay lockedeither until Wikipedia ceases to exist, or the article is deleted.
 * Personally, I think everyone is taking Cole, Karsh, Hitchens and the rest way too seriously -- we're not talking movers and shakers here. Are they notable?  Yes.  Will anything they say have a lasting impact on the world?  I seriously doubt it.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. You've been presented with a chance to show your even-handedness and to enable everyone to AGF WRT to your past behaviour, and you've failed with flying colors. WP:3RR is extremely clear on this issue: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.. there is no exception for sandbox pages. Even user pages, listed under "exceptions" are not strictly exempt from this policy, it is just "not enforced" there. My only surprise  here that you are brazen enough to challenge such a clear-cut WP policy. I assumed you'd just let it slide and pretend you were not informed in time. Isarig 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I thought I counted two reverts but I was wrong. If you guys want me banned for twenty four hours, fine. Second I have not been "uncivil"; if Elizmr feels the word "silliness" is uncivil, I suggest she or he grow thicker skin. Third, please re-read Cole's list of publications and you will see several peer reviewed pubs from twentieth century materials; realize again that he is a "modern middle east" expert despite what your quote from a blogger says. Fourth, I have still not seen a coherent defense of this silly Karsh quote on this page. Comments claiming that Karsh is notable are beside the point -- not everything a notable figure writes is encyclopedic. This defamation is certainly not. Fifth, nobody has yet addressed the other issue that Cole's "likudnik" theories are less than 10% (probably less than 1%) even of what is on his blog, much less of his work as a whole. Anyway, my apologies for violating the 3RR; have fun defaming a well-known academic. I am going to take a self-imposed break from this page whether or not I am actually disciplined.-csloat 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, I find it inconsistent that you would laugh off this 3RR when you recently strongly condemmed Isarig for similar. Sloat--calling another editor's work "silliness" is a personal attack and also a very unhelpful edit summary.  Whether I need to grow thicker skin, or you need to improve your professionalism is probably a matter of opinion.  Also, there is no need to argue with you over your interpretation of Cole's CV.  If you want me to look at something, then please reproduce it here and clearly describe why it supports your point.  Otherwise, it won't help to repeat it. Finally, why call someone a blogger who isn't a blogger (Karsh)?  It doesn't make your characterization of Cole look more reliable when you make such glib distortions in your characterizations of others.  Elizmr 02:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) The 3RR has not technically been broken. Perhaps I am still miscounting but I see only three reverts in 24 hours. It doesn't matter, though, I should never revert even that much. Again, I apologize for breaking the rule and I am self-imposing a break from the sandbox. (2) I'm sorry you are so offended by learning that I believe Karsh's view is silly. Once again, I suggest a little thicker skin if you are going to edit controversial articles. Calling the word "silliness" a personal attack is, umm, silly. A personal attack is more on the order of something like "you are a stupid idiot and a fucking jerk." I have not and will not use such language in these discussions. But please don't cry wolf when there are no real personal attacks going on. (3)I don't see it as my job to walk you through Cole's list of publications; we are not talking about "my interpretation" of it -- the facts are manifestly obvious. But since you insist on hand-holding, here we go; what follows is a partial list of refereed publications that deal with the modern middle east (excluding the 19th century stuff). I'm copying and pasting and I'm only including a few of the most obvious ones; he has quite an extensive publication list:

"Empires of Liberty? Democracy and Conquest in French Egypt, British Egypt and American Iraq." In Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power. Ed. Calhoun, Craig, Frederick Cooper and Kevin W. Moore, eds. New York: The New Press, 2006. Pp. 94-115. .

“A ‘Shiite Crescent’? The Regional Impact of the Iraq War.” Current History. (January 2006): 20-26.

Juan Cole et al., “A Shia Crescent: What Fallout for the U.S.?” Middle East Policy Volume XII, Winter 2005, Number 4

“The Reelection of Bush and the Fate of Iraq,” Constellations, Volume 12, no. 2 (June 2005): 164-172.

"The United States and Shi‘ite Religious Factions in Post-Ba‘thist Iraq," The Middle East Journal, Volume 57, Number 4, Autumn 2003, pp. 543-566.

"The Taliban, Women, and the Hegelian Private Sphere," Social Research, Volume 70 No. 2 (Fall 2003).

"The Iraqi Shiites: On the history of America’s would-be allies," Boston Review, Fall, 2003.

"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community." Review of Religious Research, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217.

"Millennialism in Modern Iranian History," in Abbas Amanat and Magnus Bernhardsson, eds. Imagining the End: Visions of Apocalypse from the Ancient Middle East to Modern America (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp. 282-311.

“Race, Immorality and Money in the American Baha'i Community: Impeaching the Los Angeles Spiritual Assembly.” Religion 30, no. 2 (2000):109-125, 141-147.

“The Indian Subcontinent,” Iranian Studies, vol. 31, numbers 3-4 (Summer/Fall 1998 [1999]), 583-593.

"Religious Dissidence and Urban Leadership: Baha'is in Qajar Shiraz and Tehran." Iran: Journal of the British Institute for Persian Studies 37 (1999): 123-142.

“The Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 37, no. 2 (June 1998): 234-248.

"Power, Knowledge and Orientalism," [Feature Review Article], Diplomatic History 19, no. 3 (Summer 1995):507-513.

Again, I've only chosen the examples that seem most obvious to me to be dealing with more recent events; certainly one could find others. As for the blogger, it was not Karsh but someone else (Fund?) who was whining that Cole's expertise was in the 19th century and not the present. The Karsh quote just attacks Cole's scholarship for being vapid (clearly a matter of opinion and interpretation, quite unlike the question of whether Cole wrote about the 20th century). (4) Nobody has yet dealt with any of the arguments I have made against the Karsh antisemitism quote. I'm going to stop removing it but I hope that somebody sees the light here eventually. (5) I'm just curious, what is it you guys have against Cole in the first place? From what I've gathered, none of the people insistent upon defaming him -- Elizmr, Isarig, and Humus -- has any experience or expertise in Middle Eastern history or politics. None of you seem that aware of anything Cole has done beyond the fact that he has been criticized by Hitchens, Karsh, Joffe, and Goldberg. None of you seem familiar with his academic work, and you only seem familiar with his blog through the eyes of his critics. None of you seem familiar with the material that takes up over 90% of his blog, and instead you focus obsessively on a few statements (primarily the likudnik stuff and the translations). At least one of you freely admits to having come here to start a POV war because you were mad about something somebody did on the MEMRI page, as far as I can gather. And this whole thing started with some blatantly false comments on this talk page about "hagiography" and about Cole's reasons for being a well-known scholar having something to do with erasing comments on his blog. None of this stuff seems important at all in the scheme of Cole's work. Isn't this just one long elaborate example of a WP:POINT?--csloat 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your above post is excessively long and basically consists of rambling accusations of defamation against Cole. Furthermore it is all extremely rude and incivil.  Besides the fact you have thoroughly misrepresented the editors that you are criticizing for not being knowledgeable (which is ridiculous considering that they have consistently cited the reputable and reliable sources which you have claimed they haven't touched), but even if you were right its not like there is some rule that editors have to be acknowledged experts in the field that they are editing in.  I have also found that having little previous knowledge about a person prevents the editor from carrying the bias with them to an article, while someone who may be more familar with the person probably will bring.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CSloat, again you make wrong assumptions. Don't know about the others, I am not a part of some plan or plot against Cole. I've never been in contact with Isarig, for example, but I don't believe that anyone here is to "defame" Cole. Cole made some controversial allegations and was widely criticized. We need to adequately reflect that based on reliable sources. Now to your points:
 * "Cole's alleged antisemitism ... simply not an important issue to anyone actually interested in Cole's work" - As I said, that's your POV. You might not like it, but obvously some scholars morons (as you call them) believe it is important. The article doesn't have to align with your POV. Don't make it Karsh et al. vs. Commodore Sloat because that would be too easy.
 * "mainstream media" - is this an encyclopedic discussion or a watercooler chat about what's on TV or in newspapers?
 * "it should not be treated as the main issue surrounding Cole" - it is not the main issue and to allege this is a strawman. You repeatedly tried to completely delete the quote - no compromise was good for you. How about some reciprocity?
 * BLP - please show me how a few lines quote of legitimate referenced criticism is against our policies.

Finally, we all may have different backgrounds and come from different cultures. A little tolerance please. Try to focus on arguments and not on editors. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Sloat, Your comments on anyone's motivations here or experience are completely unfounded and not expecially relevant to our mission.  For example, no one ever said that the came here to edit because of the MEMRI page.  I used the MEMRI page as an example of 1) a very libelous and smearing page penned by some crying about Libel and slander against Cole on this page---ie, and example of hypocracy and 2) an example of how to turn around a smear page by working with people and making positive contributions.


 * As for your contributions here, you haven't shown me any evidence that you've even read the Karsh quote under discussion (re modern expertise) carefully, or are following this discussion (we decided to take out Fund (who you call "the blogger") awhile back.


 * Finally, since you are taking it upon yourself to define what is and what is uncivil, you might want to offer some insight on these comments of yours on this talk page since its inception. This does not include your pithy and highly insulting edit summaries:


 * "Klonimos you are talking out your *ss. ... Sorry but "AFAIK" doesn't cut it as "evidence," particularly not for such an obviously ignorant claim."--csloat 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * == Hitchens nonsense ==(to Isarig) WTF is a "Muslim apologist"? That's crap, and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia headline, even if it came out of Hitchens' pen.  …-csloat 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)…[reply from Isarig:  A Muslim apologist is someone who seeks to minimize and whitewash aspects of Islam they find politically inconvenient. … Isarig 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)](to Isarig) Again, WTF is a "Muslim apologist"?  -csloat 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you have translated the text yourself? I didn't think so.  csloat 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your POV is ridiculous here….:Your changes to the Hitchens section are equally intellectually dishonest. (note, he was again referring to changes NOT made by this user)   … This is insane.  Why do you feel the necessity to turn this into a hit piece on Cole…--csloat 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * your edits make it clear that your intention is to turn this into a hit piece. --csloat 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment about Cole doctoring his blog is ridiculous csloat 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * == latest Isarig edit ==: Finally, Isarig, why are you continuing with this silliness csloat 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly you are capable of seeing that? --csloat 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * …thanks to a couple of editors who are clearly only familiar with Cole because of right wing attacks on his weblog.--csloat 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would actually read Cole, rather than just reading right wing critiques of Cole, you would see that he actually knows a few things. ….Your comment "by his own criteria" Elizmr is total BS.  …Finally, Elizmr, you have a lot of nerve to talk about anyone else's editorial integrity.  I have yet to see a single edit by you here that even pretends to try to take Cole seriously as a scholar or commentator.  All you have contributed is attempt after attempt to give voice to criticism of Cole from the right wing blogosphere.--csloat 20:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you guys are really so interested in editing the article about Juan Cole, why don't you do something useful, like read one of his books, and post a summary here?--csloat 09:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First, what the hell are you talking about? … Every edit you have made has had a single purpose - to defame Cole.  --csloat 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be distorting something there. …Again, my only claim here is that your edits have a consistent purpose - to make Cole look as bad as possible.  That is not a legitimate use of an encyclopedia.  Good day.--csloat 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite a track record, isn't it? Perhaps we could get a halfway decent article written if you were to let those who are actually interested in writing a decent Wikipedia article write one, rather than keeping all of us busy deflecting and responding to your agressive statements.   Elizmr 12:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

elizmr. OK, those remarks of sloat are uncivil, but you are dredging out stuff from way back (in WP timescale May 6 is way back, and december 2005 is prehistory). There has been a lot of incivility here, enough to go around for everybody, I think.--CSTAR 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a few individuals have been responsible for most of it and Sloat is rather prominent among them. If we are going to be able to work productively, Sloat has to tone it down, and if we are going to follow Wikipedia principles, Sloat has to tone it down.  It does not make sense for you to dismiss this criticism, especially when his incivility and unwillingness to work with other editors is impeding work on this article.  Do you really disagree?  Elizmr 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of seeming like I'm picking on you again Elizmr, bringing up sloat's previous behaviour again and posting it on an article discussion page helps nothing, it merely adds fuel to the fire. I am hardly defending sloat, as I think we all agree that his comments were not proper.  However unless you're intending to file an RfC on his behaviour, the past is best left in the past, and most certainly does not belong here.  Let's move on.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, I have moved on, and quite honestly the one you need to be talking to here is Sloat. He has been/is being obstructive and continues to fail to follow the behavioral standards of Wikipedia.  He berates me and others over and over again for intent, calls everyone he doesn't agree with ignorant and the like, while doing nothing productive for the article.  Has he even added anything recently?  All I have seen him do is delete stuff and pick fights.  I have moved on, and am trying to edit the article productively and to address his concerns in a reasonable way.  Could you please consider giving me some credit?  If you and CSTAR really care about this article, you should really be concentrating on pulling him into line rather than picking on me.  Elizmr 20:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll move on if we won't repeat the same mistakes (and I admit that I made my fair share). I totally agree with Elizmr here: if you moderate the discussion you have to do it evenhandedly. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, sloat's behaviour was improper...and I suppose I could have said that in a number of cases it remains so. But, if I remember correctly, I pointed out to him that calling Cole detractors "morons" was not in any way beneficial.  In any case, if everyone deals with the subject at hand as if it were trigonometry -- i.e., just another dry subject -- the article just might get somewhere.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I apologize again for violating the 3RR and for any perceived incivility. I do not agree with Elizmr's representation that the list of items above are all examples of incivility, but I don't see the point in debating them. My frustration stems from the fact that certain editors here seem very insistent on turning this piece into a character assassination; it is even more frustrating that none of those editors seem familiar with much of Cole's work. His controversial comments on the Likudniks constitute less than 1% of his blog; his comments on Israel in general less than 10% (and I'm being generous; it is probably far less). His blog is a minor part of his work; I have detailed some of his work in the list above (the list only focuses on work on the 20-21st century Middle East). He also writes articles for Salon.com and serves as a media commentator for CNN, NPR, etc., and in this capacity his commentary focuses on Iraq and Iran far far more than Israel. Looking at his blog today, searching for the word "Israel," I find a passage about Iran's President, I find criticism of a European boycott of Israeli professors, I find a passage about Iraq, and finally I find something about the Mearshimer and Walt piece. The latter quotes an article in the Jewish opinion magazine Forward, not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is hardly the stuff of antisemitism, whether or not you agree with it, and it hardly constitutes the majority of Cole's work. Again, I apologize for my frustration with other editors here, but I do wish these points were taken more seriously rather than sloughed off by people who think that any quote they find defaming Cole is encyclopedic.--csloat 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you that if you will stop insulting and attacking other editors than I will stop asking you to stop doing this; it is really simple. I've worked on other pages where people don't agree with each other and still have not found it necessary to treat each other badly.  If you stick to comments of substance we can have a discussion.  To answer your points, we have told you that we do read Cole, so please stop asserting that we don't becuase we come away with a different opinion than you do.  OK?   Secondly, you have multiple times offered percentages of the amt of Cole's work that concerns Israel, amts spent on his blog, etc. I'm not saying that what you say is not true, perhaps it is, but this is really your own OR.  Cole is quite openly outspoken and highly opinionated about the Israel issues.  It is a part of what he thinks and is and does.  If he didn't want to have the statements he makes about Israel associated with his name, then quite simply he would not make them.  I hear you that you disagree that any of this stuff is important in creating a portrait of him, and I have tried to discuss with you to at least help you to see another side even if you don't agree.  You are dismimssive of having the discussion and have ridiculed me for trying to have it.  I think that you are probably going to have to make peace with having a few of those statements on the page.   I have attempted to shorten them considerably, to make them NPOV, to remove extraneous stuff, and I will continue to work through the rest of the translation stuff--which now takes up over 1/2 of the controversy section--to this end.  Thanks for posting the list of Cole's recent pubs that have to do with modern stuff; it looks like you have a point although I can't speak to the content of any of the papers (ie--I don't know if they are orig research or editorials and opinion pieces) as one in the field like Karsh would be able to.  Interestingly, the last time I looked at his CV, which was maybe two months ago, I didn't see most of this stuff.  Now, please don't say I haven't taken your points seriously, I have an have made edits on the page to reflect that I do.  Elizmr 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop asking me to stop "insulting and attacking other editors." I have publicly apologized for losing my cool several times now.  You say it is "really that simple" yet you continue to bring it up (even on my talk page).  Can we agree to let the matter drop?  Or do you believe I am insulting you simply by stating that you are incorrect?  If that is the case, we cannot have a debate.
 * Second, I have never claimed that Cole's comments about Israel should be deleted here. The substantive issue here is whether we need a long lecture by Karsh as to why he thinks Cole is an antisemite.  I brought up percentages because this page makes it seem like Israel is all Cole ever talks about.  There is no need to dwell on Cole's comments on Israel when his reputation is based on his comments about Iraq and Iran!  Certainly, when NPR does an article about Israel, Cole is not at the top of their expert list in terms of people they would call for comment, but he is if they do a piece on Iraq.  But please do not take me for saying that Cole's Israel comments are not notable -- my point is that they represent a tiny portion of his work.  It would be as if the George W. Bush page had an entire section devoted to his thoughts on Intelligent Design that took up half the page.
 * Third, as for Cole's publications, those all seem pretty clearly to be peer-reviewed journals, but I did not look through them to weed out book reviews and comments (I'm pretty sure none are "opinion pieces" however).--csloat 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat, I accept your apologies and am more than more than willing to let the matter drop. I welcome your disagreement, as long as you are making substantive points.  In my opinion it is more civil and true to phrase as, "I believe you are wrong because of x, y, and z", rather than just, "you ARE wrong."  I hear you on the percentages.  If there is someone published out there making the point that you make it would be a nice thing to have in the article, don't you think?  As far as the article as it stands currently, I have done a few edits and am really attempting to trim things and achieve balance while still remaining true to the dialog that is out there.  (As far as your comments on W, I have not looked at his page, but I think that comments on some of the less evidence-based ideologies that are driving his policymaking would be more than appropriate).  I agree that the CV stuff you provided from Cole does look peer reviewed (although I don't work in that field and don't know the journals) but as I said I'm not sure if any of them are orig work.  Please note that I did say that you have a point, but I don't think your point trumps Karsh.  (i'm not doubting any expertise you may have, but i don't know who you are).  Karsh has a professorship at an excellent university in a relevant field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizmr (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not saying that the percentages should be mentioned in the article, only that the article should not misrepresent Cole's work as it currently does. My comment on W was not that Intelligent Design is not mentioned, only that it isn't half the article.  Cole's "controversial" comments take up roughly half the article here whereas they represent less than 10% of his work.  As for the peer reviewed journals (look them up if you doubt it, it's easy information to find, and I checked a couple of them myself), what do you mean by "original work"?  In comparison to what?  And who said anything about comparing me to Karsh?  The question with regard to Karsh is another matter, which is whether we need a lecture from him on his theoriesof Cole being antisemitic in this article.  I have consistently argued that we do not need this lecture here and nobody has presented any response to those arguments.  I have not disputed Karsh's credentials to critique Cole.--csloat 10:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, it's your OR vs. prof. Karsh. This section is way too long, let's start a new one. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No; this has nothing to do with my OR. I haven't done any OR!  Nor am I presuming to debate Professor Karsh.  I really don't care much at all about Professor Karsh.  My point, consistently, is that we do not need an extended lecture from Karsh about antisemitism.  As others have noted on this page, the quote is mere well-poisoning with no substance.  Nobody has yet offered a reason that this quote should be hilighted on this page.  Everyone agrees the page is too long.  What does this quote contribute to this page?--csloat 10:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea, why not put Karsh's quotes on his own article? Or, put some of Cole's quotes on Karsh's article?  Karsh's kvetching is as biased as is Cole's ranting.  Neither man is  very impressive, but they are entitled to their opinions.  If it weren't for the fact that adding a criticism section to the Karsh article would likekly be seen as violating WP:POINT, I'd add it.  After all, turnabout is fair play.
 * BTW, this page has been protected for 11 days now, and all I see is animosity. Sad.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not like that idea. These comments about Cole by Karsh are relevant to Cole and belong on the page.  Sloat, I understand all of your points and have edited to address them (shortening controversy section, etc), but would respectfully maintain that it should not just go away.  It can be done respectfully and is part of the dialog on Cole.  Please let's make peace with that and get this page finished and up.  Elizmr 22:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out above WP guidelines above that recommend against the Karsh quote re:Antisemitism. You have not addressed those points (yes you did reply, but it was a call for more debate if I recall).  WP guidelines tell us to be wary of critisism that relies on guilt by "association" which is all Karsh is doing.  He says in effect Cole sounds like many anti-semites do, so he considers him one.  This is not encyclopedic whatever authority Karsh has as an academic.  We cannot quote anyone calling Cole an Antisemite unless they can attest to something Cole has said or done which is, in itself, antisemetic.  It isn't a question of the relevance of another academic critiquing Cole's work, what we have is another academic critisizing Cole himself, and doing so in a libelous manner.  Find a better Karsh quote and we can revisit this.  --FNV 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't, and that was my point. Karsh is every bit as POV as Cole, and given his background, possibly more so.  Are there not academics and scholars who agree with Cole?  Why not add their comment to balance out the barrage of attack quotes by Karsh?  Based on what I know of Karsh, his comments are every bit as valid as those of Dick Cheney's on the threat posed by Iraq.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, I have done what I could to address everyone's concerns in a balanced way according to wikipedia policies. If you see omissions here, please add the content.  Elizmr 12:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Create "Views" subsection in "Controversy"?
I'd like to create such a subsection and populate with some criticism on Cole's views from reputable sources. We can trim the "views" section above. Elizmr 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We should model the page on the Christopher Hitchens article -- a views section that presents his views accurately and balanced and a section of criticism -- the criticism can be focused but it should not overwhelm the article. Thus two sections should exist "Views" and "criticism" -- your above suggestion does not seem in keeping with this generally accepted practice.  --Ben Houston 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * why don't you see what I did and then comment?Elizmr 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. You are not pushing the article to something that is within Wikipedia standards -- rather you ignore my comments.  --Ben Houston 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben, I actually shortened a lot of the controversy sections--ie closer to Wikipedia standards. I am not ignoring your comments, but find them overly directive.  Elizmr 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are so confrontational? I simply disagree with you -- this is allowed.  Views should be presented separated from Criticism like in the Hitchens article.  This is different from your "Views" within "Controversy" section idea.  The idea of following the Hitchens' article precedent was suggested above by someone else - because he is also a controversial character.  Your claim that I am "overly directive" is nonsensical -- I am just trying to follow WP standards.  --Ben Houston 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I said I found your comments directive--you didn't say my plan was good or bad for any reason, just disagreed with it because it didn't follow the "generally accepted practice" of the Hitchens article, which is not a Wikipedia standard. (Also, note I said I found "your comments" directive, not that I found "you" directive. You, on the other hand, seem to find it important to say that I "am" confrontational). How would you or anyone else feel about an "on Israel" section in "views"? Elizmr 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation disputes
Are the necessary? The second one is really long, out of proportion to the rest of the article. What are the main points that various editors are making there? Maybe we could trim this down and keep the essentials only if we decide that the translation disputes should stay. Elizmr 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If they need to stay, two paragraphs (of no more than 3 or 4 sentences each) total is more than enough to cover the issue. Unfortunately, Arabic is not one of the languages I know, nor do I know anyone fluent enough in Arabic to translate the text in question.  However, if you had the original text, you could go here and request a translation, .  In this way, you'd have an impartial translation.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you (or any one of us) need to know Arabic (Farsi, actually)? That would be OR. We already have impartial translations - from the AP and the NYT. We also have the official Iranian transaltion, from INRI. And we have Cole's. All we need to do is provide his unique take on it and contrast with the others. Isarig 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No it is not OR for the purpose of adding it to the article, it is a way of verifying the Arabic and Farsi. You might find out that given the complexity of both languages (Arabic is extemely complex and nuanced, Farsi is one of the oldest continuous languages on the planet) that both translations are legitimate.  Also, as I am fairly competent in Italian, I can assure you that both the NYT and AP mangled the crap out of the translations when JPII was dieing last year -- why the hell should they be any better at Arabic or Farsi?  Also, INRI's translations into English are notoriously crappy.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * it is the very definition of OR. If you doubt the translations by AP, NYT, Al-Jazeera etc... - you need to find a WP:RS that says this. Translating it yourself, no matter how proficient you are in Farsi, is the very definition of OR. I am shocked that I have to explain this to an admin. Isarig 00:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * re-reading your comments, I see you may have intended to say that while it is OR, it will not be added to the article, so it's ok. If that's what you meant, I agree, but then what would be the point, other than to satisfy the personal curiousity of Elizmr as to who is correct in the debate between Cole and the rest? It certianly would not further the improvement of the article which is our goal. Isarig 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig--what is your main point re: the second translation? Sloat--what is your main point re: the second translation?  I can try to shorten it and tighten it but I don't want anything to get lost in the shuffle.  Elizmr 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My main point is this: In contrast to the official Iranian transaltion and to the impartial translations of AP and the NYT, all of which translated the phrase in question as meaning Israel will be destroyed, Cole alleges the meaning is that Israeli occupation of Jerusalem needs to end. Cole is alone in this interpretation, which caused the controversy with Hitchens. Isarig 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the above. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the above. I see an admin advocating that editors should perform OR to resolve issues on which there is disagreement. I refer you to No original research Isarig 00:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is the admin and what is being proposed?--CSTAR 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig -- when one is sourcing an article, performing research to find reliable sources, one is, de facto, performing "original research" in the sense that one is, I hope, determining the validity of the sources, and questioning those sources that just don't seem to ring true. Thus, as I explained, I am not suggesting you ask for a translation for the purpose of adding it to the article, but to ascertain, for yourself, which translation is more likely.  It's really rather simple.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Isarig is incorrect about the translation dispute. Cole's argument is that "bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad" translates literally as "must [vanish from] from the page of time" rather than the more common "must be wiped off the map." The latter phrase apparently makes no sense in Persian. The reason this is important is not, as Isarig asserts, because of something to do with Jerusalem as opposed to all of Israel, but rather because the Cole translation suggests the Iranian president is referring to a grand historical process rather than making a direct threat. Cole explains himself here: "Although Peres says that Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, he did not in fact menace Israel with a military attack. Ahmadinejad views Israel the way President Gerald Ford viewed the Soviet Union. He wishes it would vanish as a regime, but he is not prepared to launch a military attack to accomplish that goal. Since Iran sits in the United Nations with Israel, Ahmadinejad is in contravention of the UN charter in rejecting Israel's legitimacy. But wishing a regime would fall is not the same thing as militarily attacking it."

The problem is that Hitchens (who, by the way, does not translate Farsi himself) misinterprets Cole's translation, focusing as Isarig does on the Jerusalem issue, which Cole never suggests is important. It is notable that the AP and NYT translators never argue with Cole's translation at all; this dispute is misrepresented as a dispute between Cole and other translators when in fact it is a dispute between Cole and Hitchens, only one of whom actually reads Farsi. It is also notable that MEMRI's translation is the same as Cole's: "'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'" It is also notable that Hitchens elsewhere agreed with Cole that Ahmadinejad did not mean any kind of military threat, and in fact it is also notable that Ahmadinejad is not in charge of the armed forces of Iran.--csloat 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent entry from Cole on this topic clears up pretty much that there is no dispute from Cole's end over the distinction between Jerusalem and Israel: "This affair is similar to the attribution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the statement that 'Israel must be wiped off the map.' 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." [emph. added].-csloat 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Csloat -- that "must be wiped off the map" makes no sense in Farsi is irrelevant. When translating properly, one translates into the idiom of the target language.  This does not mean that Cole is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean he is right.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but what is at issue here is not whether Cole is right or wrong. The WP page need not take an explicit position on that.  What is at issue is what Cole's argument actually is; it is this that Isarig, following Hitchens, gets wrong.--csloat 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Translate this page into Arabic
While we are on the subject of translation, Cole has announced a new project to translate important Western works into Arabic. So, could someone translate the Juan Cole page here into Arabic? Greg Kuperberg 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let'S GET THIS ARTICLE UNBLOCKED
The article is grossly unfair as it stands. It reads as if it's written by a couple of Israeli Likud NeoKons. Really Seriously. It can't be left life this. World Peace hangs in the balance. We are already in one war. And there are people trying to start another one. It really needs some BALANCE!!!!!!!!--Will314159 01:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a HUGE NPOV warning on it so the unexpecting casual reader is given a clue to the extreme bias of the article until it can be straightened out. That seems a fair enough request --Will314159 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have yet to present any logical reason for the tag. All you have said is that the article was written by "Israeli Likud NeoKons" which by the way is a personal attack ant not to mentioned extremely rude.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * writing a very, very, biased article and then getting it blocked without an NPOV tag is the epitome of rudeness MOSHE.What keeps Wikipedia honest is that anybody can edit an article and we all have equal power. Being shut out keeps a sorry article out there for the general public. Let's at least put a NPOV warning out there for it. You must at least admit that the Israeli lobby has gotten America into the Iraq war and is now agitating for an Iran War and Professor Cole is in the front line in the War for Peace and that is the reason for the hatchet article on him. I mean that in the sincerest possible way.--Will314159 03:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moshe is one of many editors on this article and has nothing to do with getting anything blocked without a NPOV tag---please refer to WP:AGF before you make further statements like this. Elizmr 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would not agree that the Israeli lobby got the United States into the Iraq war, in fact I would say that is an incredibly ignorant claim based on prejudice and people's misconceptions about Israel. Also Juan Cole really is not at the "front line of peace" no matter how you look at it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many other WP articles your Likudnik hit team has vandalized.--Will314159 21:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) And the above is a perfect example of why the article is unlikely to be unblocked any time soon.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we agree this was a pretty decent article before the Neokons vandalized it, it's going to take a long time to rewrite it, and it's going to stay blocked for a while, why don't we do a REVERT to a time before they got their hands on it and it was in a pretty neutral state. Leaving it like it is just doesn't pass the smell test. The article even has words like "shit" in it, for goodness sake.--Will314159 22:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please avoid use of epithets. (Neokon in this instance or Likudnik previously)
 * I think the only possibility of revert that will fly will be to replace the article with a stub, saying that Cole is a professor at U Michigan. From there, rewrite it section by section (as I proposed earlier) by carrying over from the sandbox. --CSTAR 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly agree to that. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too.--csloat 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a stub is heads and shoulders better than the attack piece presently there. Will314159 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) --Will314159 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it 0149Jim, go to a stub, say he's a professor and build it back up piece by neutral piece. User:Will314159--Will314159 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you all could look at the current sandbox and see what you think. If we wipe it away and start again we are likely to get to the same issues we are dealing with now, and there has been a lot of work put into the current page. Please see the sanbox version, not the locked version, and comment. Elizmr 02:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I would propose is a very minimal stub, plus a section from the sandbox. Currently On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy seems to be in the best shape. I have a number of comments about that section. An example (I have a few more as time permits I'll add them)
 * Cole has been a harsh critic of a group of current and former US government officials, which he alleges have ties to the Likud Party, and who he feels are responsible for bolstering the case for war in Iraq[12]. 
 * Why not say Cole is a critic. Period. If he critizes the Neocons, why not say Neocons, rather than a group in the Pentagon. Why not say "he says", rather than "he alleges." After all, Karsh "writes and says", and I don't see the "Karsh alleging" in the artilce. Shouldn't we find the place Cole originally made the dual loyalty remarks that in turn prompted Eli Lake's remarks? (I tried doing various quick searches on Proquest without avail) The blog is a secondary source, and in my view, is less nuanced, and it may not clearly say what Cole originally said.
 * Whatever his motives for saying so, I believe Cole has said that American Jews are not responsible for American foreign policy in Iraq. He said this


 * American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general US population. So no one should blame "the Jews" for the Iraq War. Mainly they should blame Bush and Cheney and Delay and Frist. But the case for an Iraq War was significantly bolstered by American supporters of Ariel Sharon (by no means all of them Jewish) high in the Bush administration.


 * He may have said other things that cast doubt on his sincerity, and of course this should be rightfully pointed out.
 * Some more perspective on Karsh's mentioning Protocols of Zion at all. This seems to me to be a little tendentious. So that should be preceded I think more directly by something that Cole said that Karsh is responding to.--CSTAR 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What Cole says about the American Israel Lobby is not unique. It is echoed by Mearsheimer and Walt. A column by de Borcgrave and others. the Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery gives the best dynamic, it's a little bit of the tail wagging the dog and the dog wagging the tail. The oil lobby (Dich Cheney) using the tail to further its agenda. Iraq is out of the bag now. the lobby is working on Iran. Nobel prize winner Stiglitz has given an analysis of the staggering economic cost of the Iraq war- trillions. Get off the subject easy. The sandbox article is on the whole just as tainted as the main article. Let's build it up piece by piece in a neutral way. It's the only way. Take Care!--Will314159 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Re What Cole says about the American Israel Lobby is not unique. Well it's probably true and and therefore, you can very likey find a statement by a notable person that says so and can be put in the article. For all I know, Cole may have said this in his own defense against these critics. Your other comments are not relevant here. There are lots of blogs that you can post these comments to. It's not helpful here. If you want to cause aggravation and bickering, on the other hand, I think that has a name in internetese. --CSTAR 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A word from a visitor attracted by the hubbub - this page does look quite peculiar and non-Wiki-ish in its current frozen state, and a stub would be far better as a stopgap. I think when one encounters mention of any sort of controversy on WP one tends to grasp quickly that there are strong views on both sides, and it isn't necessary to beat it to death to make the point. If WP can handle Krugman and Negroponte it should be able to handle Cole, though I understand it's not a simple matter. Does the fact that Cole is a comparatively minor figure somehow complicate the process? In any case, it seems to me that you do need to fix this page on a purely temporary basis, presumably by going back to a stub or close to it, and then put it back together at leisure. Abu Amaal 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)