Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 7

Views section
We need to merge and/or add more content here. So let's list his notable views here so we can agree on what is and isn't. Armon 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) On al-Qaeda's "Doomsday Document"? -from old V&C page, not mentioned here yet Armon
 * 2) On Islam and terrorism? --from old V&C page, also not mentioned Armon

Controversies and criticism section
Same here for this section. Let's discuss what to add from the old V&C page. Armon 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've refactored this section for clarity -hope no one objects. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed inclusions, please add more- (other than the antisemitism stuff, see above):


 * Yale appointment: See hereArmon


 * There is already enough mentioned about the Yale thing on this page.--csloat 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why am not surprised that's your position? There's no mention of the storm of controversy surrounding his Yale appointment. Armon 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised you have a snarky comment about my straightforward statement on this issue? There is in fact a mention of it:  "In 2006 Cole was nominated to teach at Yale University and was approved by Yale's sociology and history departments; however, the senior appointments committee overruled the nomination."  With a link to this article, which mentions the alleged "storm of controversy" if anybody really cares about what goes on at faculty meetings.  Honestly, Armon, this is already old news; it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia biographies are going to get pretty lengthy if we need to go into long analyses of jobs that the subject of the biography didn't get.   If you're going to open up this can of worms any further than this, as you know, you have an uphill battle to go that will result in a very long entry on the ridiculous topic of "Yale considered offering Cole a job that he did not seek and then they chose not to offer it to him."--csloat 10:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not every potential job someone is up for creates enough controversy to become the subject of a round table discussion at the The Chronicle of Higher Education. I also take a dim view of your threats to disrupt the article. Armon 11:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to including a link to the Chronicle instead of the Jewish Week article. I take a dim view of your making stuff up.  I never threatened anything.  If you can't discuss this in good faith, I'd prefer not to.  Good day.csloat 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did the Commodore "threat[en] to disrupt the article"? I think the article already contains a pretty good synopsis of the criticisms of Cole. Indeed, there is far more critical information than can be found in other articles about pundits with controversial views (e.g., there is no "criticism and controversy" section in Charles Krauthammer's article). Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given his past behavior here, I took his "can of worms" sentence as a not-so-veiled threat to filibuster, gatekeep, editwar, etc. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * though there is the counter-example of the virulent criticism that appears on Christopher Hitchens page. Admittedly, he is more of a journalist-provocateur than a serious academic, as JRC is. Wachholder0 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The nature of Cole's blog, where 99.9% of the controversies stem from, can't properly be called "seriously academic". Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A valid point. I think he still tries to maintain a (slightly) less polemic tone than Hitchens. Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is Hitchens is not an intellectual or academic; he is a pundit seeking media attention. Cole arguably seeks such attention as well, but as an academic commentator, not as a star or center of controversy in his own right.-csloat 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hitchens came in as #5 on the The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals list. Your opinion is not a RS. Armon 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Did someone delete my response to this? To reiterate, this is what Foreign Policy stated about its own poll:  "The poll was in one sense a victim of its own success. Word spread around the Internet very quickly, and at least three of our top 20 (Chomsky, Hitchens and Abdolkarim Soroush), or their acolytes, decided to draw attention to their presence on the list by using their personal Web sites to link to Prospect’s voting page. In Hitchens’s and Soroush’s case, the votes then started to flood in."  So, I will concede that Hitchens' blog was popular enough for him to skew the poll results on this issue, but that does not make him a scholar.  Where did he get his PhD?  What faculty positions has he held?  What scholarly journals has he published in?  Your citation proves my point - Hitchens is a pundit who seeks to be a center of attention, not an intellectual in the scholarly sense. He is no match for most of the other public intellectuals on that list, and he is certainly not the type of intellectual Cole is.-csloat 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean the type that didn't even make the list they voted from? Maybe someday -after all, he's got a PhD! Armon 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean the type capable of doing sustained and serious research. Not the kind who doesn't even know what that is.  Please stop mocking me Armon, it is really annoying.-csloat 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I understood you because apparently I do that a lot. So "The difference is Hitchens is not an intellectual or academic" means he's "not a researcher". Armon 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hitchens is not an intellectual; he is someone who seeks media attention in his own right. That was established above. You cited a web survey as evidence otherwise and I showed you he stacked the vote, adding more evidence to my own claim.  The stuff about Cole's PhD is a side show you started that appeared condescending and sarcastic.  Hope this clears it up. csloat 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You've not "established" anything, merely shifting the goalposts again, and simply asserting your opinion. By your logic, Noam Chomsky is an even bigger "stacker" and "attention seeker" because he came in as #1 on the vote via his "acolytes". Though I suppose that because Chomsky is a Prof at MIT, and not a crummy stonemason like Socrates, it's OK. Armon 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to what point you're trying to make here. I also reviewed carefully and could not find anywhere above where I wrote a single word about Chomsky.  Since you brought him up, however, the article makes clear that in Hitchens' case and not in Chomsky's, there was a flood of votes after the self-promotion.  So Chomsky is not quite as big a stacker-of-the-vote as Hitchens, according to the Foreign Policy article, if you're interested in reaching such conclusions.  But what exactly are you trying to prove here, and what the heck does it have to do with "shifting the goalposts"??  You're the one who posted this rating of public intellectuals as if it had some sort of significance in the real world.  I simply pointed out that your "evidence," as it were, was totally flawed, and that if anything it helped prove my point because it showed that Hitchens was a shameless self-promoter.  If you want to say the same of Chomsky, be my guest, but I think we're dealing with intellects that are worlds apart.  Again, I'm not sure why you're continuing this argument -- the one piece of "evidence" you brought to bear in favor of Hitchens' intellect has been shown to be flawed so now you are attacking me.  Are we through here? csloat 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm done. It's utterly OT and I've made my point even you don't see it. Armon 03:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Baha'i break? Armon


 * Why would JRC's personal religious issues belong in the "controversy" section? It's mentioned earlier in the article. Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Biographical background? It was included before so I'm asking. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it could be addressed in more detail, but I am uncertain that his split with the Baha'i faith is controversial.Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, his "split" is from the Baha'i religious authorities, not from the faith, and was controversial within that community. I think we need to establish either; how much of a "schism" it was within Baha'i -in which case it's notable, or; if not, whether his break had a notable effect on his personal/intellectual development. It seems that his earlier work was more focused on Baha'i than now. Ideally we'd have a RS discussing the significance of that. Armon 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms as part of larger socio-political conflict.
I have been thinking about this, and these criticisms are not unique charges being made against Cole, but rather part of a larger socio-political conflict. Thus many of the more hotly disputed points could be partially addressed by putting a see also section at the end guiding readers to: - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - New antisemitism - Anti-Zionism Also, I am not sure that eliminating the controversy page was such a good idea, since it acted as a honey trap for the more outrageous partisans. Wachholder0 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point but I don't think it's the role of an encyclopedia to set up honey traps. If the material is not encyclopedic it doesn't belong here, whether or not it is sequestered in a bogus page created to avoid the rules.--csloat 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True. It did create a pleasing period of stability on this page, but I admit that is not a suitable justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm in favour of offloading as much of the "larger socio-political conflicts" to other pages as possible, without obscuring Cole's participation in them. The notable controversies should be as succinct as possible without degenerating into quote-wars and soapboxing like the V&C page did. Armon 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Elizmr 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-notable controversies, such as jobs Juan Cole didn't apply for and didn't get, or incendiary claims of racism against Cole by a fringe minority, do not belong on any page on Wikipedia. Save them for your blogs, folks.--csloat 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A controversy that has made it to The Chronicles of Higher Education, as well as to numerous other notable media outlets is clearly notable. Allegations of antisemitism, made by notable academics and published in mainstream media are equally notable. Isarig 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So shall we have a section on the George W. Bush page entitled "Controversy over diabolical nature" with a quote from a notable source that has been published in many reliable sources indicating that there is controversy over whether George Bush is the devil? We've been through this before.  If you can't refute the arguments that have been presented, or offer a single reason why this charge benefits the page (or explain how it is consistent with WP:BLP), then please stop repeating the assertions that have already been refuted.  Again, this debate is a wash.-csloat 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Isarig. And, yes, by all means, please edit GWB's page.  Elizmr 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're joking? Or you really believe a discussion that takes seriously the question of whether George Bush is the devil would be an appropriate use of an encyclopedic biography?--csloat 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you bring that up, because as it happens, there is an entire WP article dedicated to Criticism of George W. Bush. The page is full of allegations that Bush is stupid, that he is a threat to global peace etc... - claims at least as offensive as the allegation that Cole's writings are conspiratorial and echo some well-known antisemitic canards. The sources for those claims include such notable and reliable sources as the extremist partisan ImpeachPAC blog, and the "Wonkette - DC Gossip " blog. Surprisingly (or not), when you look at the page's Talk page, it is not tagged as a BLP (nor is the full page criticism article of Tony Blair, for that matter). So it seems we are faced with an interesting double standard here: Cole, the darling of certain editors, is to be immune from any criticism, and heaven forbid that we dedicate a page to an expose of his views and criticisms thereof, and any hint of criticism of his controversial views is censored, often under false pretexts of 'unreliable sources' or 'violations of BLP'. At the same time, Cole's political opponents can be smeared with impunity, and have whole pages dedicated to criticisms of them, from blogs. To your actual argument - as Elizmr  wrote, by all means, go to the Criticism of George W. Bush page and add a section that Hugo Chavez has claimed that Bush is the Devil. That was a notable event that received worldwide coverage, and is certainly worthy of mention in the article. And likewise, when the head of Mideast studies at a prestigious UK university claims that Cole's writings echo antisemitic canards, and such criticism is printed in a WP:RS - there's no reason not to include it in this article. Isarig 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, quit the pathetic grandstanding; some of us are trying to engage a rational argument on these issues. We're talking about a specific charge of racism, not all criticism; Cole is nobody's "darling," and nobody is advocating censorship.  I agree that there;s a lot of BLP problems with the criticism of Bush page, and I'd support them being addressed.  I am vehemently opposed to a section of the biography that treats seriously the claim that Bush is the devil.  It's nonsense that nobody in their right mind should take seriously, and it should certainly not be entertained in an encyclopedia.  The same is true of this jewbaiting nonsense.  Have a nice day.-csloat 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling your interlocutor's arguments "pathetic grandstanding", and implying that they are irrational is not only a violation of WP:CIVIL, but is unlikely to convince anyone of your arguments. The charge of racism is no different from any other charge (of stupidity, or threat to peace) as far as BLP (and incidentally, Bush is also accused of racism on that page). I did not suggest that we treat the claim the Bush is the devil as serious - I suggested that the accusation the Chavez made is a notable event that can be mentioned, without violating BLP, just like the accusation by a rapper that Bush doesn't care about black people, or the accusation by a notable academic that Cole's writing echo anti-semitic canards. Isarig 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those arguments were pathetic grandstanding; it's a fact that they were irrational, not an implication, and there is nothing uncivil about noting the irrationality of irrational arguments. I don't disagree with you about the Bush page.  I agree, we can point out that Chavez made an irrational claim, and if you want to point out that Karsh made an irrational claim, that will be fine once the Karsh claim gets the attention that the Chavez claim got.  I'll wait to hear about it on FOX news.  Seriously, even a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal would do the trick.  I'm  really bending over backwards trying to treat this nonsense as potentially legitimate, but other than your vehemence, you have no actual evidence to back up the point.-csloat 06:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the Wall Street Journal
 * ''Mr. Cole says that he is often unfairly attacked for being anti-Semitic, when in reality he claims he is only critical of Israeli policy. But Michael Oren, a visiting fellow at Yale, notes that in February 2003 Mr. Cole wrote on his blog that "Apparently [President Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass." Mr. Oren says "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy." (Exit polls showed that 74% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry.)"
 * Now let's move on. Armon 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's the oddest bit of supposed "anti-Semitism" I've ever seen. Cole is talking about what he believes the neo-cons told Bush. In what way is this "anti-Semitism"? If Cole simply said "I think that kissing Sharon's ass would impress Jewish voters" then yes, it might be vaguely anti-Semitic because that would be Cole expressing a low opinion of the intelligence of Jewish voters. In fact, he is simply discussing the strategic thinking of the neocons in the Bush administration. Does believing the Bush crowd are incompetent fools makes a person anti-Semitic? --Lee Hunter 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, these guys don't seem to care about faulty logic; the goal is to slander Cole, so any quote they can find to do it will do the trick, no matter how ludicrous the content. As long as there are three editors willing to fight tooth and nail to keep the slander in the article, it doesn't matter how flawed the logic is.  Personally I'd want to see a third party objective source talking about this as a controversy before it goes in here; otherwise, Wikipedia is the only such source.  That's a really bad position to put wikipedia in, and it smacks of WP:NOR.  All they can find are openly partisan sources who clearly take one side of the issue.  I'm sure I can find many sources saying Bush is the devil, but that does not make it a serious dispute worth taking seriously.  It's amazing though, they are so focused on slandering Cole nothing else matters - so when I make that argument, their reply is, go ahead, put an "Is Bush the Devil?" section on his biography.  Editors should be here because we're committed to Wikipedia as a project, not because we're committed to legitimizing a certain POV.  It's my bad for including the WSJ in my list of possible sources; Armon used that to misinterpret what I was asking for (which is a neutral third party account, not another opinion from another partisan on the issue -- this one even a bigger hack than Karsh.  It's obvious the logic is faulty; Fund even admits it when he acknowledges parenthetically that the neocons were dead wrong about the Jewish vote.csloat 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. It didn't take you long to attempt to shift the goalposts. In any case, it's obviously not OR, and your opinions of his critics are irrelevant. Please stop filling up this talk page with immaterial comment, either about Cole's critics, or other editors supposed motivations. Armon 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. It didn't take you long to ignore the arguments and mischaracterize my position. In any case, it's obvious that you are unable to find a third party commenting on this alleged dispute and that Wikipedia should not be the first third party to do so. Please stop filling up this talk page with immaterial comment, either about Cole's alleged antisemitism, or other editors supposedly shifting goalposts. csloat 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in the WSJ, I'll give you that. It's an opinion piece that takes one side of the dispute and not a third party statement of the conflict, which is all I've been pushing for.  Apparently such a statement either doesn't exist or you are not willing to find one?  At this point I will back off deleting any mention of it since you have shown the WSJ is willing to publish this scurrilous attack, but we'd be remiss in excluding Cole's response to the attack.  If there's going to be a discussion of Cole's alleged antisemitism here, it must be written (as you state above) in an agnostic and NPOV manner.-csloat 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We have already mentioned that Karsh called JRC anti-semtitic, but I agree that the controversy surrounding JRC's remarks could be addressed in greater detail, but it must be carefully phrased and balanced. A clinical attitude is in order. Wachholder0 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we need any greater detail than what we already have. Please comment below. Armon 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Since the article is currently locked, could the admin who did so please tag it? Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wachholder0 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on "allegations of antisemitism" passage
The currently protected version of the page contains the following passage:

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.Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - DarlingJuan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies 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." Juan Cole's Bad blog Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. The Misuse of Anti-Semitism''

Csloat's objection to the inclusion of this passage is noted. I think it's fine the way it is because it's concise and simply reports the criticism. Comments? Armon 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is good and addresses Sloat's position which I agree with that we should include Cole's responses to criticism. Elizmr 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. First, scurrilous attacks should not be on Wikipedia even if they are sourced.  Armon has been asked to provide a neutral third party source discussing this and he has come up dry.  But if we are going to include this smear, Cole's response should be included more clearly.  It would require a quote from Cole specifically responding to the claim.  Another sentence may be enough to do the trick, but if more is added to the smear, more will likely need to be added to the response (as you know, Cole has indicated his thoughts on this in a number of places).  If this goes up, I will help with the process of adding the response, but I think it's time for some kind of RfC or admin ruling on whether this smear belongs here at all.  It would be nice if the admin who protected the page entered the discussion.-csloat 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then please propose the sentence. Armon 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already proposed a solution - remove the scurrilous attack. If the attack is going to remain up, I will help work on a response.csloat 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're unwilling to participate, that's fine. As I said, your objection is noted. Armon 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For your convenience I have hilighted my comments indicating my willingness to participate. Please stop mischaracterizing my comments - it is highly annoying.  And please stop condescending to me - it is a WP:NPA.--csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is fine as it is. Every one of csloat's objections has been addressed - including the final one that a mention of the dispute be provided from a source such as the WSJ. It is amusing that on the one hand csloat claims this is not a notabale dispute, and at the same time maintains that more of Cole's response to this allegedly none-notable dispute be provided, since "Cole has indicated his thoughts on this in a number of places" Isarig 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will let you know when my objections have been addressed. You are well aware of my problems with the WSJ citation - please stop distorting my comments.  Thanks. csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your problem with the WSJ is that it quickly met your stated requirement - "even a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal would do the trick."- which forced you to move the goal posts. Your objections were noted, but since you keep inventing new objections every time we meet your previous ones, they are rightfully treated as disruptive POV, rather than a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. Isarig 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make false claims about my motives. I did not move the goal posts nor invent new objections -- you are well aware I was asking for a neutral third-party analysis, not a smear piece from someone with a horse in the race.  True, my bad for using WSJ as an example, because it allowed for the mischaracterization of my claims, but it was nonetheless clear what I meant (and, if it wasn't clear, I explained it after the ludicrous Fund article was cited).  Stop condescending to me and stop personally attacking me.  You may wish to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA for details on wikipedia's policy in this regard.csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not making false claims about my motives - I am accurately describing your actions. You did not ask for a "neutral third-party analysis, you asked for a "a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal" - and you got it, at which point, by your own admission above, you realized you had made a mistake in asking for a WSJ article, and changed your request to "a neutral third-party analysis. That is defined as moving the goal posts, a term you are apparently unfamiliar with. You have some nerve to ask people not to attack you, when every single one of your edits is either a personal attack, an uncivil comment, or a condescension, and more often than not, all three. Isarig 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please. If you read the comment in context you can see that I meant a neutral third party analysis but even if you don't, you can see that I explained that afterwards.  That is not changing the goal posts; it is re-explaining something to someone who claimed to have understood it incorrectly the first time.  I have attacked the arguments here, not the person, so stop characterizing my claims as personal attacks.  Thanks.csloat 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that csloat, at this point, is simply being disruptive, but let's keep things on topic. Armon 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks Armon. What am I disrupting exactly?  It takes a lot of nerve to personally attack me after making phony charges of personal attacks on my page.-csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article disruption
Regarding csloat's disruption:

Regarding this supposed personal attack: Article talk pages are for discussing the article. They are not chat-rooms, Usenet groups, or blog comments, in which to fill with off topic cruft and silly tit-for-tats. Despite meeting all of your requirements, you've quite clearly shifted position in order to invalidate it. That is your prerogative. It is also the prerogative, and quite reasonably so, for others to view that as a less-than-good-faith position, especially as you haven't shifted your objection to the passage one iota. Rather than submit the improving sentence you alluded to, you are instead flailing around for another means of scrubbing the section, and impeding any progress forward on the article. Your position has been repeatedly shown to be untenable, so now you want an argument about NPA. Stop it. Armon 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am discussing the article, specifically, the attacks on Cole that you wish to put in the article. Why must you make this personal? I have not shifted position; as explained above, I was reexplaining my position because it obviously was not clear to you the first time. If you read my comments in context it should be clear what I was asking for -- but what's the difference? The editing on this article should be done in accordance with WP:BLP, not in accordance something you happen to catch an individual editor saying. Please assume good faith when arguing about this. Your characterization of my motives is incorrect and demeaning.csloat 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your motives aren't my concern, your behavior here is. Cut it out. Armon 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We agree on something - my motives are not your concern. Please stop commenting on them.  And do not order me to "cut it out" - as I have explained, I have done nothing to "cut out."-csloat 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh* I made no mention of your motives. OK, keep it up then, it'll just be more evidence at some future RfC or arbcom. Armon 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, I have highlighted where you mentioned my motives (feel free to remove the highlighting once you have seen it; I highlighted only for your convenience, and not to make it seem as if you had done the highlighting). Also, RfCs are procedures that are in place to help improve wikipedia, not to be used as threats against other users.  Please don't threaten me again.  Thank you. csloat 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the content of the article, not other editors. Do not accuse other editors of personal attacks for minor slights, do not threaten other editors with consequences. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)