Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 6

Views and controversies
When merging stuff from the old V&C page, please do not attempt one-sided obvious POV statements of debates. Isarig moved a Jew-baiting quote from Karsh to this page without also moving the specific response Cole published to that ridiculous and incendiary claim. (The claim is, as Cole pointed out, "beneath contempt"). Isarig is well aware that the debate had two sides yet he only puts one side of the debate on the page - I think that if we're going to be merging incendiary claims that seem to violate BLP, we cannot censor the responses to those claims. This piece should not be turned into a character assassination, and quotes comparing Cole to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion do just that. If they are going to be included I will insist that responses to them be included. The other Isarig edit I changed had a link to something Cole published on his blog in 2003 -- it is unclear why Isarig would have included that link without including Cole's followup which specifically explained in 2005 what Cole meant. It seems to be just a way to try to make Cole look bad, though I won't speculate on Isarig's motives.

Also, I'd like to ask all editors to consider using edit summaries when making significant and controversial changes to this page. Thanks to all.csloat 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't even bother
...adding anything critical of Cole to this page. It will be reverted according to British standards for Libel. Please see Libel tourism to get a sense of this. Elizmr 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on British libel law, but I don't think that criticism of academic work by other academics would fall under it. I'm also not sure Wikipedia BLP policies require British libel laws as their model.  But I do think that obvious name-calling and scurrilous remarks is covered under BLP. BLP also warns that biographies must be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."  Specifically, it goes on:
 * Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
 * I feel this is certainly the case with regard to the Campus Watch crowd cited here as if they were in the mainstream of Middle East studies, when nothing could be further from the truth. Finally, BLP reminds us that not everything someone says about someone in a published source is encyclopedic.  Just because editors who are anti-Cole can go digging and find a quote from a published journal that says something negative about Cole does not mean it should be published here.--csloat 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about controversies
First, claims such as "Cole is a jewbaiter," besides being ridiculously false and more than a bit hysterical, do not belong in talk or in edit summaries.


 * That I agree with.

Second, the material Isarig keeps putting back in was removed specifically because it violates BLP. I made the case about this material above and in my edit summaries. The term "jew-baiting" more accurately applies to the quotes that Isarig keeps putting in, which are not, as he incorrectly states, from Cole, but rather from third parties who are attacking Cole. These quotes make false statements and illogical leaps -- specifically forbidden in WP:BLP -- in order to claim that Cole's blog comments are somehow like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is a scurrilous attack on Cole, one that he has responded to.

Third, if this scurrilous personal attack on Cole's character is to be included, so should Cole's response be included. I specifically asked above that editors not put stuff on this page in a one-sided manner, yet that is what Isarig appears to be doing. Cole has specifically responded to these charges. The response is on the V&C history page. Why would an editor pretend to be "merging" from that page, yet only include one side of the debate?

Fourth, Isarig put in other disputed content --specifically, the 2003 quote from Cole's blog that has been superceded by his comments in 2005. The only reason for making this particular edit as Isarig is doing would be to create confusion about Cole's position on Iraq, which he has been very clear about. I feel this is an invalid way of using a biography page to push a POV.

Fifth, I'd like to remind Isarig and others who want to violate BLP that enforcing the BLP is an exception to the three-revert rule. I mention this because Isarig has edit warred in the past. He is generally careful to make his fourth revert at 24 hours and five minutes or so in order to avoid 3RR blocking himself, but he is quick to report any user who goes over the three reverts. He has also been liberal about what he interprets as a revert when filing such reports. Therefore I want it to be clear that if I do go over the 3RR in reverting Isarig's edits, it is only in order to enforce BLP; such reverts are a specific exception to the rule. That said, I am going to refrain from enforcing BLP by reverting at this time, because I'd first like to hear what other editors have to say about the comments above. Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The people you call the "Campus Watch crowd" are notable and present an alternate view which deserves to be aired by WP:NPOV; it is not quite fair to disparage them and call them insignicant.  What you Sloat feel is libelous and scurrilous and should be out, Isarig and I feel is fair criticism which, neutrally stated, should be able to be in the article.  We have an honest difference of opinion on this.  Based on past experience,you, Sloat, pretty much guard the article against anything you disagree with on Cole staying in, and call in admins who take your pov when you get frustrated.   You raise BLP to defend your point of view, we on the other hand feel we are not violating BLP when we put in some criticism which we feel is fair and neutrally stated.  I raised the British libel standards issue to suggest that culturally you, Sloat, a British person, and I, Elizmr, an American probably have different views about what constitutes libel and freedom of speech based on the legal systems which are normative for us and our experience affects how we edit.  Elizmr 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also add, csloat, that accusing others of edit-warring is a pot-kettle-black situation and that there is a difference of opinion on what violates WP:BLP here. You aren't exempt from 3RR. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First, to Armon, if you are going to put the jew-baiting stuff back in, after it was reverted again, don't hide it in another edit ("splitting V&C"). If you cannot stand behind your edits you shouldn't be making them. Second, I continue to believe this section is a severe violation of WP:BLP and must be removed. Third, Armon, if you are going to put that junk in here, you must include Cole's response. Not doing so is a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.


 * You reverted the "jew-baiting stuff" against consensus (not that I'm suggesting there is one, but you're edit-warring over content and I'm not the only one who disagrees with you). Look back and you'll see that I've pretty much always advocated his views and the criticism be separate. Conflating them is less clear and actually makes it look as though everything the guy writes is controversial when it clearly is not. I didn't "hide" anything, and even if I wanted to, it's impossible on a Wiki. Finally, I don't know what you're talking about re: including Cole's response. I wrote Cole dismisses such claims as a misuse of the charge as a means of stifling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. which Lee Hunter has copy-edited to Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. (OK, it was tortured). If this isn't a fair summary of his response, then what is? Given the length of your responses here, it appears to be against your nature, but please keep in mind we're going for concision. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Armon, you put stuff in from the old V/C page that was disputed here with a misleading edit summary, and you excluded Cole's specific quoted response - which was on the V/C page - to the scurrilous attacks. I said you "hid" it because your summary mentioned nothing about putting in the disputed material.  The presumption is against such stuff in the article until you make an argument for it.  Now you are trying to claim that keeping it in has presumption, yet you haven't made an argument in favor of it (nor responded to the arguments against it).  It stays out until it is justified by consensus, or until a ruling regarding BLP issues comes from an admin.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr --first, if Cole made clearly anti-semitic comments (such as comments occasionally made by Louis Farrakhan or David Duke), I would agree with you. But he has not. The claim that someone is an antisemite is serious business; it is not a charge to be thrown around lightly. To base such a claim on a supposed analogy between a claim about members of the Bush administration and claims made in the Protocols of Elders of Zion is, as Cole rightly pointed out, "beneath contempt." It is in fact a scurrilous attack. Imagine if I were to pick up various sentences uttered by Elizmr, Isarig, or Armon, string them together and compare them to something I read in Mein Kampf in order to attack your credibility. I think such attacks would rightfully earn me a WP:ANI over NPA violations. This charge is no different, particularly when Cole has explicitly responded to it, but you censor his response. Even without his specific response, it is obvious from his comments about Mel Gibson that he does not hold the position being attributed to him by the Campus Watch crowd. So it seems like a poor attempt at slander to simply put that stuff in there and ignore all the counter-evidence against this scurrilous claim.


 * Sloat, pleaes show me where I "censored" Cole. Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't; Armon and Isarid did, and you are supporting those edits. To insert the (absurd) criticism  without the response is tantamount to censorship.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, Armon, Isarig and I are not working together as part of some Zionist conspiracy to smear Cole. Please stick to the facts and don't say I "censored" Cole if I didn't.  I edit following WP:NPOV and support having his reply in the piece.  I've been very clear about what I do want in the piece.  Elizmr 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never accused anyone of conspiracy. If you support having Cole's reply in the piece, all you have to do is say so -- I did not see that above, but I did see you support the reversions made by Armon and Isarig.csloat 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, your claim that this claim could be "neutrally stated" is false. How does one state neutrally charges of anti-semitism? Again, if the charges were based on actual comments against [anti] the Jews, I would not object, but such charges as these cannot be neutrally stated. They depend on POV logical leaps, and they are stated in the article as if they were accurate. What's more, there was no attempt by Isarig or Armon - who put them in - to state them in a neutral manner. Both put them in as statements of fact and without citing Cole's direct response, or mentioning the other evidence that clearly shows that these charges do not apply to Cole. I can't explain why, but it appears to me that you and Isarig and Armon want to believe that Cole is antisemitic. That is your right, but it should not pollute Cole's encyclopedia biography, even if you can find published sources to back it up. I also just don't understand why you cannot be open-minded with regard to Cole's response, or even with regard to Cole's other statements about antisemitism. You may not think the Gibson quote belongs in the article, but surely you can read that quote and see that it contradicts the view promulgated by Karsh and company. Here it is again: "'Jews' did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided." For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone could read this quote and still believe that Cole's rants about "Likudniks" are equivalent to attacks on all Jews. It boggles the mind.


 * Cole is not an antisemite who attacks all Jews. That is clearly not true.  The article should include all of the warm fuzzy things he has said about Jews and Israel.  But it should also include this:  "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." [19]. "  Why do you think I am not being open minded?  Elizmr 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I ever say Cole was an antisemite? No, I wanted to include critics who state that he buys into and supports and uses antisemetic-type conspiracy theories to discredit others.  There's a difference there.  This should be in the article right next to Cole's pro-Israel pro-Jew remarks.  I don't see why this could not be stated neutrally.  Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is miniscule -- the point is, it's still a scurrilous attack. If you think Cole's pro-Israel remarks should be included, why haven't you included them?  You haven't showed why we should include the voices of others whining that he is an antisemite.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What remarks do think are missing? Currently the Views section includes the following: However, despite his criticisms of Israeli policy, he has publicly opposed the movement in Britain to boycott Israeli academics.[6] He has also called Hizbollah attacks on Israel "war crimes", and stated that "[Israel has] every right to defend itself against Nasrallah and his mad bombers" while voicing disapproval for the "wholesale indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in which the Israelis have been engaged against the Lebanese in general." Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See above; Cole has specifically responded to Karsh's argument which is beneath contempt. The stuff in the Views section is presented as totally separate from the antisemitism junk, it is not presented as a response to that as you are aware.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Third, I object to this statement: "Based on past experience,you, Sloat, pretty much guard the article against anything you disagree with on Cole staying in, and call in admins who take your pov when you get frustrated." That's false. I have actually put up with a lot of personal attacks against me in the months we've been arguing about this. Sometimes vicious ones. I have also let many other violations of policy go. I finally posted a note at WP:BLP just to clarify the rules governing the V&C page. I did not ask anyone to delete it nor was I "calling in admins." I simply asked for clarification, but an admin did the appropriate thing on his own (and it is up to him, not me, to defend his actions if they need defending). I am not "guarding" this article. As you saw above, I left the tendentious garbage in the article even though I could have reverted it; I am doing the same now. I am making the argument for reverting it, but giving you a chance to argue for keeping it. It is telling that not one of you has yet made a coherent argument against the position I've taken on this, however, except to state that you have another opinion. Again, I think WP:BLP is pretty clear on this issue, and I am sure admins will agree if they get around to looking at this. But please do not attack me as some kind of guard dog for this page; if I am guilty of anything, it is of spending way too much time explaining these things carefully and considering the arguments on all sides of this.


 * OK, fine, if you're not guarding the page then show us by your actions. I similarly made the comment based on your actions.  I'm not into arguing with you on this.  Show us.  Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have; see above. If you're conceding the arguments about it, the disputed material will be removed.  For the moment I have not.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, you state "You raise BLP to defend your point of view, we on the other hand feel we are not violating BLP when we put in some criticism which we feel is fair and neutrally stated." I raise BLP when it seems to be clearly violated, as it is here. It is not a smokescreen, which is what I think you are implying. I do not think claiming that Cole sounds like the Protocols of Zion is or can be a "neutrally stated" position.


 * Then we should not use those words (I'm not actually sure we did use those words). We should work on NPOV language for anything you object to rather than censoring it.  My opinion.  You don't agree.  Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, then we agree the quote and discussion of Cole beinglike the Protocols of Zion can be removed.--csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. It IS neutral to quote Karsh directly .  The non-neutrality comes with the way the quote is PRESENTED.  If we said something like, EK, the eminent middle east expert, expresses the obvious truth when he says, "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," THAT would be non-neutrally stated.  If we said, EK, the fringe neo-con right wing racist, in one of his typical biased rants states that, "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," THAT would be non-neutral langage.  The quote itself can be presented neutrally.  Elizmr 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifth, you say "I raised the British libel standards issue to suggest that culturally you, Sloat, a British person, and I, Elizmr, an American probably have different views about what constitutes libel and freedom of speech based on the legal systems which are normative for us and our experience affects how we edit." A couple of things here. First, it seems pretty culturally essentialist to assume that a Brit would not understand the way an American might edit just because their legal systems are different. Second, I have not been raising libel concerns here at all, though it is a fair concern. I specifically noted above when you raised the british libel thing that I was concerned with BLP, not British libel laws. Third, and more importantly, this argument is weak because I live in southern California. I was born and raised in the States, I am an American citizen, I consider myself fiercely patriotic, and I have been to the UK only once in my life for about two weeks. I had a good time there and enjoyed the people; I found the weather dreadful and the food even worse. I suppose you could make the case that the southland isn't really the US, but it is hardly Great Britain (despite an unhealthy concentration of British pubs) :)... I was surprised to read this; I thought it was clear when I commented on the Libel shopping page about my personal experiences that I am an American who was threatened with a lawsuit in the UK.


 * OK, I stand corrected. I did read your thing on the libel tourism page, but it wasn't clear you weren't a brit from it (certainly brits can be sued in their own courts for libel?).  I thought there was something about you attending British universities somewhere, but of course an American can do this.  And the "commarder" name probably threw me off too.  Anyway, I don't consider being a Brit an insult at all, but sorry for the mistake.   Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "tourism" part implies that someone non-british is involved in the lawsuit. Consider that you are equally mistaken on the BLP issue.csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, I actually teach a course on "Freedom of Speech in the US" at a University here. I teach several different courses; this one I have been teaching on and off for almost a decade now, so I am quite familiar with libel law here in the US. I am familiar with all of the relevant Supreme Court decisions on the topic, and I've even read some of the opinions pretty carefully. I am far more familiar with "what constitutes libel and freedom of speech" in the US legal system than I am with the British (though as I said I have some familiarity with the British system too, and, like you, I vastly prefer the American). So I don't think you can pin this on my Britishness ;)


 * Great, so let us have some freedom of speech here on this page. How 'bout it????  Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a public blog. There is free speech on this page.  But stuff that is not relevant or violates wikipedia rules does not belong on it.-csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, folks, I know we have had some heated arguments on all these issues. But I also think I have been doing more than a reasonable job of listening to the other side and taking the arguments there seriously. I don't feel like the other side has been forthcoming at all on these issues. I am sick of fighting about this stuff - as I have said before, I'm not even that into Cole! But this anti-semitism thing rubs me the wrong way. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. If you want to call Cole names, do it on your blog. The fact that you can find an article in New Republic to back you up doesn't make the argument less scurrilous or less a violation of WP:BLP. Not everything printed in a WP:RS must be duplicated here on an encyclopedia.--csloat 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat, we know how you feel about the antisemitism thing. We are not calling him an "antisemite" but saying he uses an arguing style that antisemites have used.  You know logic.  That doesn't make him an antisemite.  Isn't there any way we can say this on the page without you deleting it?  It is important to some of us and we are reasonable fair-minded people too.  Elizmr 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You write "we are not calling him an "antisemite" but saying he uses an arguing style that antisemites have used." That's one of the most weaselly assertions that I've ever seen in WP (which is saying something). It's especially twisted since what we're really talking about is Cole's criticism of senior government officials who have actually played a very visible and active role in the government of another country to the detriment of their own. Cole says that's dual loyalty. Rather than debate the merits of his argument, a few people (also by coincidence with close ties to this other country) have labelled him as antisemitic. It doesn't matter whether the information is important to you. This article is not about you. The only question is whether the information is important to understanding Cole and one of the principles of BLP is that articles should not give undue attention to fringe, minority or partisan viewpoints. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Cole's critics are "fringe, minority, or partisan" is only your opinion, Lee. Why don't we just allow them to be quoted on the page?  Elizmr 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not just Lee's opinion, it is easily verified. These quotes do not appear in any serious studies of the Middle East that Cole has been involved with.  There are no academic discussions of Cole's arguments that would be caught dead citing these quotes.  We shouldn't quote them on the page because they are non-notable, scurrilous attacks, and they are blatant violations of WP:BLP.csloat 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on. We're reporting his critic's charges, we're not making any judgment about their veracity. Anything else, either sanitizing, or mudslinging on our part, is a violation of NPOV. This is the point of division between the two sides of the argument here. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. I wrote, "We shouldn't quote them on the page because they are non-notable, scurrilous attacks, and they are blatant violations of WP:BLP".  The fact that they are quotes from someone else is not something I am denying.  Should we start a section on the George Bush page entitled "Demonic Controversy" and quote Hugo Chavez as if there were a legitimate dispute about whether Bush is actually the devil?  Not every quote from every notable figure is encyclopedic.  This section is not because it is specifically enjoined in BLP.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

These quotes mainly refer to Cole's extraacademic blog type work. Why would someone go to discuss in a peer reviewed academic source? YOu can repeat yourself all you want, but it doesn't make what you say true. Elizmr 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it applies to his extra-academic work is irrelevant. They are still vicious personal attacks by a tiny group of people with a vested interest in the institutions and governments that Cole criticizes. Moreover the attacks are not based on any factual information but are only suppositions about Cole's motivations. In other words, if Cole criticizes a government official who happens to be Jewish he must be anti-semitic. Oddly the converse is NOT true. If he speaks positively of a Jew he's still anti-semitic. If he criticizes a government official who happens to be Christian he's not anti-Christian. --Lee Hunter 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to Sloats comment above. Could we please discuss each intended quote on it's own mertis here rather than just dismiss and sideline anyone who says anything bad about Cole?  Elizmr 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not dismissing "anyone who says anything bad about Cole." We're dismissing specific claims made by people with an agenda and based on false innuendo about what they claim Cole must be thinking. The disputed material is here:


 * Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.[17] [18] Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "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." [19]


 * The claims here, we have shown, are bogus. You have ignored most of the arguments about this above.  This debate is a wash.--csloat 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, My opinion is that the second quote is notable made by a notable person and should be in the article. Elizmr 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters to this conversation but I find Karsh's article to be a fascinating exercise in propaganda. For example he quotes Cole regarding a Zionist cabal using "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence". The quote is real, but if you read the quote in context you'll see that Cole was very explicitly and painstakingly referring to the Neocons in general and Dick Cheney in particular. Disinformation indeed. Later in the same article, Karsh makes the rather astonishing suggestion that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to Israel because "During Saddam's 25 years in power, Iraq killed not a single Israeli." I guess firing Scud missiles at Israel, financing the Intifada etc doesn't count. Karsh's article is cleverly written but doesn't amount to anything more than collection of half-truths, innuendo and misplaced facts. --Lee Hunter 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Karsh may be "notable" in some senses, but not for his illogical criticism of Cole. Again, Elizmr, you've ignored most of the arguments made on this topic and fallen back on a weak assertion.  I think it's appropriate to make the change to the article now, since nobody has made a substantive argument defending the false innuendo. csloat 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOT, and re-read WP:NOR. You are performing analysis regarding the veracity and nature of the criticisms, and/or the agendas of the critics. This is forbidden by core policies on WP. You need to understand that however strongly you hold your opinion, it's not relevant. Armon 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR says "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research." --Lee Hunter 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but who's the tiny minority in this case? Jews? Right-wingers? Neocons? Likudniks? Jews in total (left or right) are a tiny minority of the world's population, but I don't think that was what was meant by the policy. I don't think the other's POVs was what was meant either. The criticisms come from his ideological opponents, not flat-earthers. Armon 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Armon, that's ridiculous. Do you seriously believe that all Jews think Cole is antisemitic?  Most of us have never even heard of him.  The tiny minority here is Karsh, Joffe and Kramer.  The latter two are associated with Campus Watch and MEQ and have an open agenda opposing MESA (the main professional organization for Middle East Studies, which Cole presides over).  This is not my POV - they have gone as far as sponsoring proposed legislation in Congress attacking Middle East studies departments!  I haven't researched Karsh's view on the proposed legislation, but his opposition to Cole is more than just the disagreement of a fellow academic; he has launched a scurrilous personal attack on him based on whatever offended him about Cole's blog.  But my point is that Karsh and friends are in a tiny minority; their opinion about Cole's alleged antisemitism is a fringe view, and it is one that is vehemently rejected by Cole himself.  Again, I think that to make the claim that someone is "secretly" antisemitic is both nonencyclopedic and totally offensive.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Calm down. I never presumed to know what all Jews think. However, given his attacks on Zionism, Israel, and "The Lobby", it wouldn't entirely surprise me if, in general, Jews don't share your enthusiasm for Cole. There's also plenty of similar opinion which doesn't meet RS. That we don't present it here doesn't mean it doesn't exist but it does mean it's not just these 3 guys. Armon 13:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not putting this analysis in Wikipedia, so your references are irrelevant. This analysis shows why the passage you are so vehemently fighting for should not be in Wikipedia.  The odd thing is, you have not yet suggested a single reason why it should be here.  Until you do, there isn't even a debate here.  This isn't about my opinion at all and it never has been.  This is about scurrilous and illogical attacks on a scholar's character being inserted into his biography.csloat 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's about notable criticisms. Your rationale for removing them is OR. Armon 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No; there is no evidence whatsoever these claims are "notable" other than your insistence. An article in the New Republic is not enough to establish notability.  And you are totally misinterpreting NOR, which governs what may be put in the article, not what an editor may say in talk.  And these claims are not even rightly "criticisms"!  They are claims about what the authors think Cole is secretly thinking.  It's just completely bogus all around.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be a common line of criticism, but it may be best—it would at least minimize disputes here—to stick to secondary sources that describe the controversy, rather than articles and web posts that are engaged in the conversation. Even if it is not a major piece, there must be secondary sources on this issue and a minor summary in such a source would give a good baseline and grounding for the article here. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a common line of criticism; the only reason it appears that way is because some wikipedia editors are insisting loudly that it is. That's not enough.  If a notable third party source cannot be found describing the controversy as a controversy, it just isn't a notable controversy, no matter how many times a wikipedia editor insists that it is.csloat 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you give us some examples of what you mean? The problem, from what I've read and what's in evidence here, is that Cole is a polarizing figure so getting a source which isn't taking "sides" is a bit of a problem. Armon 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find one on Juan Cole, but examples of the sort of quality reporting that warrant being sources in encyclopedia articles can be found at and . Credible sources do write about things that happen on blogs, and there are tons of these secondary sources. If none of them have written anything on an issue, then you need to question whether it warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, or whether a properly verifiable article can be written on the issue, but I think reliable sources can be found on this issue, even if it something like "According to Juan Cole, who has been criticized for his views on Israel" (something a bit more specific), that's legitimate, but it does not give license to then cite a whole narrative of blog posts. Also, think longer term. Non-neutral non-well-sourced statements are not going to be found in the article in 6 months time, even if one were to have free rein over the article over the next week. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK but the content csloat objects to comes from the New Republic, WSJ, MEQ, and ironically, The NY Sun. These are all secondary sources even if they are "anti-Cole". There is also another secondary source, sympathetic to Cole, which discusses the same criticisms. The problem is not that the sources are "bad", it's that he doesn't want it reported, period. Armon 05:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Those may be appropriate, but beware that it is the New Republic magazine and not a blog on the New Republic website. As for the ones today, "Front Page Magazine.com" does not look to be even close to a reliable source, and the "Middle East Quarterly" may or may not be reliable, but that it is published by an organization that "seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East.", I doubt it; it's certainly not Foreign Affairs or Political Science Quarterly. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MEQ is extremely partisan and its editorial board - particularly Kramer and Pipes - have an open agenda of attacking the mainstream of Middle East Studies for being not pro-Likud enough. Armon's claim that I don't want this reported period is false; I just don't want a soapbox given to illogical views about what Cole secretly thinks when Cole explicitly states the opposite point. Even when such views are published in partisan rags like Frontpage or not-quite-as-partisan rags like TNR. I just don't think a big deal needs to be made of this anti-semite thing.  Indicate that Cole's views on Israel or on US foreign policy are controversial among a certain crowd and leave it at that.  I don't see the need or rationale for Karsh grandstanding about the Protocols of Zion.  I find it completely offensive as it makes a mockery of real antisemitism.--csloat 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MEQ, Kramer, Pipes, etc. are no more partisan than Cole himself. That you find Karsh "offensive" is entirely your prerogative, but I'm amazed that a person who claims to teach a "free-speech" course can't abide letting the reader make up their own mind regarding a notable criticism, from a notable critic, in a RS. "Cole's views on Israel or on US foreign policy are controversial among a certain crowd", great, how about "...controversial among evil fascist rightards who can't think logically"? Even better! Armon 11:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is it's faulty logic and it's not encyclopedic. You haven't established its notability anywhere.  Not once.  I have no desire to engage your hysterics on the issue -- you're the one talking about evil rightards, not me.  If you didn't personally attack me you might get along with me better.csloat 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK struck out. The shot about your job wasn't cool. 13:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry. Armon 00:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

MEQ is extremely well referenced and there is nothing non-notable about it. They are part of the dialog. There is more than one valid POV on the middle east. Elizmr 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean this as a personal attack, Sloat, but honestly I was also quite suprised to find out that you are interested in the freedom of speech. It seems quite ironic. I know that you are argue that the criticizers are non-notable, the only three people in the world think what they think, are mouthpieces for "likud" party policics (which seems to be the code word for anyone who thinks Israel has a right to continue to exist as a Jewish state), etc. But why not loosen up and let a few critical things be on the page? What difference does it make? I just don't get it. Elizmr 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MEQ is blatantly partisan and represents a fringe view of "scholars" who have an open agenda of attacking Middle Eastern Studies. I'm not saying it is inherently non-notable, but it is not the same sort of publication as, say, the Canadian Journal of History, to take a totally random example.  Claims and articles from MEQ should be treated with scrutiny as claims from other sources; they do not get to bypass WP:BLP just because they are in a journal that some people think is scholarly.  As I have said before, not everything published should also be published in an encyclopedia.  I never said there was only one valid POV on the middle east, so I assume your comment there was not directed at anything I said.  By the way, the discussion has gotten away from the antisemitism stuff, so I'm assuming Elizmr and Armon have accepted the arguments against that material.  It's clear that the debate is a wash, and that they have forwarded no arguments defending those quotes, so it is probably time for the admin to remove that paragraph.  If I am incorrect about that, it would be nice if Armon and/or Elizmr would address the arguments above rather than focusing on side issues like my view of freedom or the validity of scholarship in MEQ.


 * As for your second claim, it may not be meant as a personal attack, but it is quite absurd. Being interested in "the freedom of speech," as you put it, does not mean I am supportive of anything possible being said in any forum whatsoever.  I am not in favor of the "free speech" of painting swastikas on synagogues, for example.  I think WP:BLP specifically enjoins fringe attacks on subjects of biographies, and that's exactly what we have here.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or public park.  I do not object to you posting whatever scurrilous attack on Cole you want to post to your blog, or sending a letter to the editor, or whatever.  But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  That is not a free speech issue.  Your comment about the meaning of "likudnik" is both irrelevant and illogical.  "Likudnik" is not a code word for anything; it is a word for someone with a devotion to the policies of the Likud party.  No reason to speak in "code"; its meaning is out in the open.


 * As for your final question, "why not loosen up and let a few critical things be on the page?" I'm not sure who that's directed at. There are already critical things on the page and I'm not objecting to "a few critical things."  I'm objecting to incendiary charges of racism that are non-notable and violate WP:BLP.  I have no objection to valid criticism from reliable sources.  My objection is to a bogus and ill supported claim about what Karsh thinks Cole is really thinking even though Cole says the opposite.--csloat 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like the following to stay in the article, as I have said before:

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." [19]. I think this is an important crit of Cole and is made in a good source by a recognized academic. No one called Cole a racist.  This is a much more nuanced point.   Elizmr 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it is incumbent upon you to respond to the reasons why this quote violates BLP, is not notable, is illogical, and is in no way an "important" criticism of Cole. You're just repeating yourself.--csloat 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This quote does not violate BLP. You seem to be under the false impression that every negative comment about an individual violates BLP, but that is not the case. As WP:BLP tells us: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This particular allegation meets all the requirements - it was notable (notable enough for Cole to respond to it, and for a mainstream publication to publish it), it is relevant, and it is well documented. Whether or not the allegation is "logical" is something that we as editors are not allowed to touch - that would be OR. You are welcome to your opinion that this notable criticism of Cole is in no way improtant, but realize that this is just your opinion, and other editors disagree . Isarig 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the false impression that I am against any critical quote. I am against this quote (and statement of the issue as one that is factual), I am not against any criticism.  It would be as if we treated seriously the claim that Bush is the devil.  Logic is an issue in BLP as you are aware; BLP specifically cautions against "positive or negative claims that rely on association," for example.  This is not my opinion; it is a fact.  Again, you have not established notability; the fact that Cole responded to it does not inherently make it notable.  Shall we include that Cole responded to Lewis' view of 18th century Arab nationalism?  This is not a valid viewpoint about which there is honest disagreement; this is speculation about what is in Cole's head by someone who has no way of knowing that.  It's not encyclopedic; it is libelous, and it is a violation of BLP.--csloat 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I a under that impression, it is because you have consistently opposed any criticism of Cole. The article does state as fact that Cole is  an anti-Semite. What is stated is that he has been accused of echoing antisemitic canards by notable academics - and that is factual - he has been so accused, and that accusation was printed in a mainstream, reliable source. That is enough to make the claim acceptable without violating BLP. The accusation does not rely on association- it does not claim Cole is an because his friends are antisemitic - it make the claim that his writings directly echo common antisemitic canards. As for notability- I repeat: This was a claim made by a notable academic, in a WP:RS,  which was subsequently reprinted in many other outlets, and became prominent enough for Cole to publicly address on his blog and in other reliable sources. The onus is on you to show why it is not notable, and to meet that burden, you need to do more that assert that to be the case. By th esame token, if you wnat to add that Cole's response to Lewis in Notable, I won't object. Isarig 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The onus is actually on you to show that this scurrilous attack is notable. A third-party commentator from something like the Chronicle or the NYT discussing the allegedly notable dispute between Cole and Karsh in a neutral manner would suit me fine.  I'm sick of arguing the point -- find that sort of source to quote and I won't object.  Otherwise you are taking a ridiculous charge about what Cole is "really thinking" from someone who has no way of knowing it and elevating it to the status of encyclopedic content.  It's as libelous as your claim that Cole is a "jewbaiter."--csloat 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We have shown it to be notable. If you're sick of it, then stop being intransigent. Repeating yourself and gatekeeping for what, 6 months, is going nowhere. There are two fundamental ways of biasing and article, via inclusion, or exclusion. Whether you intend to or not, you are attempting to bias it by the latter means. You have failed to show that the source is not a RS, that Karsh is non-notable, or that the criticism itself is. Wikilawyering about BLP, when it clearly meets the criteria of what's allowed, hasn't worked either. The only valid points I'm interested in, are only those which insure that it is presented in an agnostic, NPOV, manner. Armon 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agnostic and NPOV sounds great to me. Your John Fund opinion piece is neither.  Stop personally attacking me, Armon, it has gone beyond abusive.--csloat 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. Armon 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's bogus. If there was a legitimate debate on this issue, some third party would have commented. We have third parties commenting on far more polarizing figures (e.g. Bush and Chavez) in a dispassionate manner.  You're making excuses in order to turn this into a smear piece.-csloat 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloat--You are making up conditions that don't exist for inclusion of something in Wikipedia. You said somewhere above that criticisms of Cole's non-academic bloggery had to come from peer reviewed academic literature, and now you say that there has to be third party criticism of any criticism we include in the article. This is all complete b*llsh*t. I want to include this sentence: "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." This sentence does not break any Wikipedia policy and is not racist. It is a fair criticism of Cole's extraacademic work made by a prominent academic. It is not accusing him of racism. Please stand down stop censoring this sentence out of Wikipedia. Elizmr 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing me of censorship and there is no need to curse at me. You are incorrect about making up conditions.  Wikipedia shouldn't be publishing non-notable scurrilous attacks like this one.  If no neutral third party has commented on it before ever, why should Wikipedia be the first?csloat 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)