User talk:Will314159/Archive 2

3RR
You are making bad faith 3RR reports. Precis has not violated 3RR, and you know it. You can be blocked for this disruptive behaviour. You have been warned. Isarig 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported your recent 3RR violation on the Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole article. Please stop your disruptive behavior.Isarig 17:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your email, to request a review by another administrator, put on this page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

that had been protected for a while b/c of its controversy and had attracted the attention of Jimbo Wales and some national blogs. He is obviously an interested friend of Isarig to act so quickly on his complaint before I had a chance to defend myself. Especially since I had a prior unacted on complaint on Precis who was acting in concert with Isarig in deleting the Joyner quote that I was restoring. That was the subject of my alleged reversion- undoing their vandalism on the Joyner quote. The length of the block for a first offense speaks for itself- 24 hours. Moreover, he said please discuss before acting. ??? Please review the discussion on lTalk page for Juan Cole Views and Controversies page to see history of James Joyner quote. Obviously Mr. Harris acted extremely percipitously w/o doing the least cursory inspection of the volumes of discussion. Also see for my discussion of Joyner quote on that page Reliable Source Talk Clarification needed

Does the policy on excluding blogs as sources for quotes apply in case it is explicitly stated that the quote is an opinion of the writer? If this is the case, then many political articles on wikipedia will require change, since so much of what is political argument in the United States now takes place in blogs. --CSTAR 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea of blogs as not being reliable sources needs to be adjusted, if not otright changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) For what reason? Do you have any effective rebuttal to all the arguments given above and in other parts of Wikipedia that blogs, like personal Web sites, are inherently unreliable as sources for anything other than the personal views held by the author? I doubt it. --Coolcaesar 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the guideline needs some refining. Look at these articles for instance: Ben Domenech, Cindy Sheehan. I'm sure we can pile on more examples. These articles mirror political controversy in the United States where blogs are now playing a more important role. If we enforce the no blog guideline, many of these articles are largely reduced. I'm fully aware of the dangers here. But this needs some thought.--CSTAR 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS differentiates between facts and opinions regarding blogs. The mischief the guideline strives to avoid in unverified facts. In mainstream media, there are mechanisms for checking and verifying facts. Reporters tradition, reputation, editors, newspaper reputation. Opinion is different. Everybody has an opinion, they are like buttholes. If the blog is notable, the blogger is notable, the opinion is in his relevant field, then the opinion should be admissable. In quotes and verbatim- straight out of the horse's mouth would be my prefernce. The case in point that set off the discussion comes from the controversial Juan Cole article views and controversies page. He has earned the interest of the Israeli lobby for his interest in the plight of the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran and has been criticized heavily, inter alia for his blog "Informed Consent," for allegedly having poor scholarship, and for being too polemic. The best quote in his defense comes from James Joyner who is a sometime critic of JC but comes to his defense as far as the blog, academic expertise and publishing. i believe it is crucial to the article. There is no other way to make the point that needs to be made of the function that Juan Cole's blog has served in society- a role that educates the public in an expert way more beneficial than pedantic nit-picking. Here it is in context.

"Zachary Lockman, a Middle Eastern studies professor at New York University's, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, says "It's fair to say he is probably among the leading historians of the modern Middle East in this country."[2] Joshua Landis, an assistant professor of Middle Eastern Studies at University of Oklahoma, says that Cole is "top notch." Landis continues: "He was the wunderkind of Middle East Studies in the 1980s and 1990s. He can be strident on his blog, which is one reason it is the premier Middle East blog.... [But] Juan Cole has done something that no other Middle East academic has done since Bernard Lewis, who is 90 years old: He has become a household word. He has educated a nation. For the last thirty years every academic search for a professor of Middle East history at an Ivy League university has elicited the same complaint: 'There are no longer any Bernard Lewises. Where do you find someone really big with expertise on many subjects who is at home in both the ivory tower and inside the Beltway?' Today, Juan Cole is that academic." [2] Efraim Karsh 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." [3]. Other critics, including Washington Times columnist Joel Mowbray have described Cole as having "a résumé thin on recent scholarship and a long track record of highly inflammatory and often inaccurate statements"[8], and stating "Mr. Cole has written considerably little in academic publications since launching his blog in early 2002". Frances Rosenbluth, a Professor of Political Science at Yale University, has stated that within "the field of contemporary Middle Eastern studies", Cole "is very highly regarded as a scholar."[4] Critics have characterized Cole's extra-academic work as promoting, "polemic over scholarship" [5][6] [7] [8] Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School, James Joyner argues that "While there’s no doubt Cole is polemnical, the idea that he has “abandoned scholarship” is rather absurd. For one thing, one could argue that interpreting current events through an expert lens for the mass public is scholarship and provides a greater service than writing obscure articles read by a handful of other experts, mostly to cite in their own obscure articles. Moreover, Cole has continued to publish at a more than reasonable rate for a tenured full professor. If one looks at his CV, one finds nine book chapters or articles written since 2005."[9]" Take Care! --Will(talk) 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC).'''

from the Juan Cole Views and Controversies Discussion Page.''' " Academic Expertise

Added some rebuttal material by James Joyner. Take Care! --Will(talk) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunmately, that material comes from a blog, which is not WP:RSIsarig 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: the policy you cite is a guideline. The mischief the guideline is directed against is unverified FACT not OPINION. In the instant case, the author is known and the subject matter is opinion. Kindly please read WP:RS again and then keep your cotton-picking hand off the James Joyner quote. I know it does not agree with your POV, but that is no reason to keep counterbalancing verified opinion prejudicial to your POV that is helpful to JC of HIS biographical page. Take Care! --Will(talk) 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig Please note that the policy clearly draws a distinction between reporting about facts or opinions, In particular, about opinions it says Reporting about opinions: use of direct quotes When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote or embedded link if the source is online. However, policy on use of blogs as souces for opinions may be another matter. The policy you cite is Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

Though in my opinion, use of well-known blogs (well-known based on some access rating) for opinion should be acceptable, I have requested clarification on this matter, on the talk page of the policy page Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --CSTAR 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. The page is a guideline not a policy as per the page's own header. --CSTAR 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You will recall, I'm sure, that a few weeks ago, before this article was forked from the main Cole article, there was heated debate over the use of material from the blog of Jeff Weintraub, an Ivy League professor. The concensus of that debate, edorsed by all the pro-Cole admins was that "the source is unacceptable" and that "Blogs don't normally meet the requirement of reliability. There are specific circumstances, based on the author of the blog being a subject-matter expert, under which a blog posting can be considered a reliable source." But I guess when we want to include some cheerleading for Cole, we can relax those standards just a bit. Isarig 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently Isarig is not acquanted w/ the famous Dr. Joyner. A google search on "James Joyner" produced 323,000 hits including

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyner "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Joyner (born November 16, 1965) is best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of the weblogOutside The Beltway and a frequent contributor to TCS Daily (formerly Tech Central Station).

He is a management analyst at Lanmark Technology, Inc., a Washington, D.C. area defense contractor and works at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in Falls Church, Virginia. From January 2004 to March 2005, he was also Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the [Naval Postgraduate School]. Previously, he was acquisitions editor for international affairs at Brassey's, Inc. (now, Potomac Books) a Dulles, Virginia book publisher and a political science professor at [Troy State University], [Bainbridge College], and the [University of Tennessee at Chattanooga].

He has published academic articles in International Studies Quarterly and Strategic Insights; five book reviews; fourteen encyclopedia articles; over two dozen conference papers; and numerous columns for Tech Central Station. A more-or-less complete listing can be found here.

James served in the U.S. Army from 1988-1992 and is a combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and numerous service medals and ribbons. He is a graduate of the Airborne and Air Assault schools.

He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Alabama (1995) and B.A. (1987) and M.A. (1988) degrees in Political Science from Jacksonville State University. [edit]

External links Strategic Insights / Outside The Beltway If we can't use Dr. James Joyner then whom can we use?????????" Take Care! --Will(talk) 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig No, I don't recall the incident you mentioned, though this sentence about blogs may have may have indeed been uttered by someone at some point (since it is the guideline statment). I certainly don't recall it nor do I think I emitted any opinion regarding Jeff Weintraub, his blog or any blog for that matter, nor do I recall having "voted" or expressed an opinion for anything like this. Are you suggesting I did this? Let's be clear. --CSTAR 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory, then, with |this. No, you weren't one of the editors who participated in that particular exchange. You were an active participant on that Talk page, at that same time, but on other sections and I'm willing to WP:AGF and accept that you somehow did not see that heated exchange, or simply forgot about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy we've relaxed our standards a bit, and will be providing much criticism of Cole from various blog sources over the next few days. Isarig 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't refresh my memory because it was never part of my memory. There was a lot of exchange on that talk page. Most of my activity on May 10-12 (when that seemed to have happened) was dealing with your accusing me of bad faith in blocking you for reverting as per WP:3RR.--CSTAR 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig is running free, character assasinating JC all over the article. That's O.K. any fair reader can see through what's going on. The character and intellect of the mild mannered courageous professor will shine through the slime being heaped on him. Take Care! --Will(talk) 00:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here, I am unfortunately busy with non-Wikipedia stuff these days, but blogs are not really appropriate sources for WP and it is fair game to remove them -- see specifically here WP:RS#Reliability_of_online_sources. I do now know what you guys are talkinga bout when you say that wikipedia has relaxed its standards -- it hasn't -- you guys are just making up your own article-specific rules based on local consensus of waring parties. --Ben Houston 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'Reply to Ben Houston I am certainly not making making up any new rules. I just asked whether it is reasonable to excludes blogs as sources of opinion. Since so much of what goes on in political opinion in the United STates at least, happens through blogs, the blanket exclusion seems unreasonable. I just asked a question here and on the WP:RS talk page (and expressed an opinion.) Isarig seems to have assumed that somehow I provided imprimatur to citing blogs, as if I had some power to approve anything.--CSTAR 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't make up rules here. Blogs are pretty shitty sources since they are not peer reviewed or even under the responsibility of an editor. If we lower the standards then we get into ewhat can be in essence rhetorical wars between blogging blowhards -- bloggers can dedicate excessive time to such a subject where as a peer-reviewed journal or an edited commercial publication must consider the value to their readers. Just because bloggers have time and strongly felt agenda does not mean we have to honor their opinions in Wikipedia. I honestly can not see the value in including these blog sources. --Ben Houston 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, both "Middle East Quarterly" and "FrontPageMag" are very partisan sources and should be treated with caution as described here 10. Andrew Sullivan's blog does not belong as a source. Neither do the blog postings of Martin Kramer. Juan Cole's blog can be treated somewhat differently since he is the topic of the article -- see WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. --Ben Houston 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben. I think James Joyner passes the smell test. He's a reputable notable academic and known in the "real" world. He's even handed on Cole. Isarig's sources are as partisan as he is. I"m waiting on CStar. Take Care! --Will(talk) 05:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Martin Kramer is much more likely to qualify as an acceptable blog source than Joyner - Kramer is a published Middle East expert, writing about material relevant to his field. Joyner's expertise seems a lot broader, and most of his publications are on online sources like TCS. TheronJ 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Both individuals are writing on self-published blogs. Wikipedia guidelines state that "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published." These are self-published blogs. Martin Kramer is also very self-interested in his blog statments. I see no major loss by removing both James Joyner and Kramer. While Kramer is published middle east expert but here he is criticizing a fellow professor on his blog -- Kramer is very pro-Israel and Cole isn't -- the motivation here for Kramer's writings is base, it is not at all to do with expertise, and thus I do not find his blog posting to be reliable or notable. Currently we do not use Cole's blog postings as sources on any other articles -- thus why are Kramer's acceptable here? Kramer's blog is also not used as a source in the main article The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy -- could it be that it wasn't found notable or reliable in that context either? Also, reading through Kramer's talk page, it appears that he has not been a model Wikipedian either -- that doesn't seem all that professional -- see: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F. --Ben Houston 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm only saying that if Joyner is an acceptable source, then IMHO Kramer must be, because Kramer is closer to the blog exception you quote. (Also, Kramer seems to have been cleared of inappropriate conduct in that discussion). In the longer run, I'm wondering if this page shouldn't incorporate the Kramer and Pipes stuff. (And Cole's buddy, Joshua what's his name). In an article on "controversies" about Cole, we're leaving out some of the clearest stuff if we leave out other ME scholar's on-line postings and just rely on letters to the editor or whatever. TheronJ 18:58, 21 June 2006(UTC)

Ben. Are you talking about Joshua Landis of www.syriacomment.com fame. He's already in the article already somewhere. Probably quoted in a newspaper article. I say let it all in. Cole's head will pop up through the slime. After all, he says over and over again, he's being slimed for his views. But identify the Karsh's and Pipes for their affiliation. The proof is in the pudding. If he wasn't so effective, he wouldn't be so hotly and diligently pursued on this page. But all the non-partisan Mid-East experts, that don't have an iron in the Israeli camp, say he's one of the best! Cole is not a Salafist or a Shiate, He's a non-mainstream Baha'i for goodness sakes. Take Care! --Will(talk) 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's just great. We will "identify the Karsh's and Pipes for their affaliation" (which is what? Are they, too, part of "Likud"? the "Cabal"? operated by Israeli Intelligence?), but Cole's cheerleaders, like Landis, will be described as "non-partisan Mid-East experts". Do you even know who Landis is? Aside from being Cole's buddy, Assistant professor Landis has been described as the best apologist for Assad, claiming in many of his blog posts that Syria was framed for Harriri's murder, finding rationalizations for every extreme action by the Assad gov't and repeating conspiracy theories that blame it all on Israel. Isarig 22:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I am talking about reputable sources. When Kramer, Landis, Pipes, Karsh and others are published in reputable media then we can cite them. This is the way Wikipedia works. When they self-publish partisan positions, especially attacks on others, these are not material for the encyclopedia. All quotes that I included, such as the one from Landis, were from reputable sources -- a Nation article republished on Yahoo News -- not self-published blog entries. --Ben Houston 02:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and very willing to live by that rule. This exchange started with Will inserting Cole cheerleading from a blog, which I twice removed. At that point, Will started threating me with 3RR violations, and CSTAR voiced his opinion that blogs are ok as sources for "opinions" vs. facts. I am very willing to live by that rule, too, and have added my own blog sources, which are not quite so full of fawning praise for Cole (that, of course, started the chorus of "they're partisan sources"). So either all blog sources go, as per WP guidelines, or they all stay, but it is unreasonable to add praise for Cole from his buddies' blogs, but censor blogs critical of him. Isarig 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig. If you were to read Joyner instead of be so Kneejerk, you would see that Joyner is fairly critical of JC on many points. Oops, I've given the Lobby ammunition. He is supportive on mainly the academic research crap. However, your lobby sources are critical uniformly on all points b/c of their motive, interest, and bias b/c JC is a chamption of human rights for all including Palestinians and an impediment to their project of a Greater Israel. Take Care! --Will(talk) 16:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that blogs are either acceptable by WP standards, or they're not. What you're proposing is that blogs that you like - those that are either uniformly supportive of Cole, or at least not uniformly critical of him - be allowed, while blogs that you don't like - those that are uniformly critical of him - be disallowed. That's a POV-pushing double standard. Isarig 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

of your blog spree. I think any reader can see thru all that self-serving lobby stuff and it actually hurts your cause. I have not problem w/ opinion even if it comes from a blog it it's counterbalanced by other opinion. what matters is verifiablility. Is it a noted blog? Do we know who the author is? Is he well known in the blogosphere? Opinions are like buttholes, Everybody has one. Facts are different, Everybody is entitles to his own opinion b/ not his own facts. Facts have different evidentiary standards. Now using expert opinion to establish facts is a different can of worms. We"ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Take Care! --Will(talk) 17:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * U propose a nice rule Isarig, b/ that's not what I proposed. I hadn't reverted any

OK, I expressed concern here since the blog exclusion guideline is not completely ironed out in my opinion. Specifically, I can give several WP examples where blogs have been copiously cited as sources of opinion (and blog related "facts.") But bringing up this concern here on this page where so many other battles are being fought by proxy was a bad idea. My bad.--CSTAR 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Landis is married to an Alawite, a member of the minority sect ruling Syria. Alawites are halfway between Xtians and Muslims- not doing the five prayers but celebrating Xmas and Easter. When they controlled Lebanon, they got the senior Shiite cleric to declare them a Shiite sect. He gives the Alawites a fair shake. He is sympathetic to Assad and not hostile. It is a valuable POV when everybody else is patently hostile. He also gives the Syrian Muslim brotherhood and the exile groups a hearing. I did not particlarly have him in mind. But Joyner does not have a dog in the fight. But for sure Karsh, a former Colonel in the IDF, Pipes & Co. are very partisan and should be so identifed. In fact their rhetoric self-identifes them- labeling anybody and everybody not agreeing with a greater Israel as AS or NAS. Take Care! --Will(talk) 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV that being "sympathetic to Assad" is a "valuable POV", but let's not pretend he's non-partisan. Karsh, like most other Israelis, served in the IDF (he's a Major, BTW, not a Colonel). What does that tell you about his partisanship? Weren't you the one promoting to us Uri Avneri, yet another ex-IDF Israeli? Are we going to start identifiying every Israeli on WP by their former rank in the IDF? Are we going to stop there, or should we give the rank of every former serviceman (or woman), of every country? Pipes is already identified in the article as associated with Campus Watch, why don't you add the identification of Landis as presenting the pro-Baathist Assad POV? Isarig 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig. The most telling thing about Karsh is that he wrote an article titled "What Occupation?" That tells me everything I need to know about Karsh. He is an "occupation denier!" On the other hand Syria is a closed mystery regime and Landis is married to a daughter of a retired Admiral and gives the inside scoop of what's going on in the internal power clique. I didn't say I agreed with him, but he has a valuable POV and a feel for the regime.

You obviosuly did not understand the message in Karsh's article. i suggest you reread it. He did not deny any occupation, he argued that when Palestinians talk about "occupation" they do not make the distinction between lands occupied in the six-day war vs. land "occupied" by the creation of Israel. As I said, You are welcome to your POV that being "sympathetic to Assad" is a "valuable POV", but let's not pretend he's non-partisan. Now, are you going to address my question regarding the relevance of Karsh's IDF service? Isarig 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben. There are Blogs, then there are Blogs. They are not all created equal. For instance there is jauncole.com !!!!!! james joyner's blog has a mention in WP. you have to face it, people increasingly get their opinion online. I, personally, don't even subscribe to a print newspaper except for local news. you should read Maureen Dowd's column on the Daily Kos annual convention for the blurring b/n msm and online media. Take Care! --Will(talk) 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Alawites are a bit more complicated than that. WP has a hell of a good article on them learnt a lot by reading it. They have become a lot more outwardly Muslim conforming. Their inward religion is very sophisticated- has to do w/ star transmigration of souls. The Alawites and Druze religions are both very, very interesting! The Alawites also have a Bab lilke the Baha'i. I have added the video streaming link of the Mershon Center Ohio State Juan Cole lecture of Shiite Politics in Iraq to External links section. Take Care! --Will(talk)01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)~

ben wrote: "I am talking about reputable sources. When Kramer, Landis, Pipes, Karsh and others are published in reputable media then we can cite them. This is the way Wikipedia works. When they self-publish partisan positions, especially attacks on others, these are not material for the encyclopedia." just to clarify, Karsh published the stuff quoted in this article in the new republic online. This is not self-publishing. Karsh's article is a well thought out analysis--not an "attack". It is more than fine as a source. I think we all have to be careful here of dismissing stuff as "bad source" because we don't agree with it. That's not what wikipedia is about. Elizmr 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

............

Blogs

After sleeping on it, here are my thoughts. This is an article about criticism of Cole. IMHO, we should accept on-line criticisms and defenses from any published middle east scholar. This would include Cole critics like Karsh and Kramer and Cole defenders like Landis. (I propose that we table the more difficult question of whether Pipes qualifies as a middle east scholar until we set a baseline rule). Here are my reasons:

1. The relevant section of WP:V states "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. Karsh, Kramer and Landis are all published middle-east scholars. 2. In this case, the publication distinction is a little silly. If the Nation publishes an article that says "Joshua Landis says that Cole is the new Bernard Lewis,"[11] I don't see how that's one whit more reliable than a posting on Lewis'sLandis's blog stating "In my opinion, Cole is the new Bernard Lewis."

Thanks, TheronJ 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think Pipes is quoted in the article at all. That being said, I don't think it is even debatable if he qualifies as a middle east scholar. Read his WP page - he is described as a "scholar of Middle Eastern history. The author or co-author of 18 books, which have been translated into 19 languages" - If the author of 18 scholarly books on the ME does not qualify as a ME scholar, who does? Isarig 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Theron. Did you mean to say " don't see how that's one whit more reliable than a posting on "Landis's" blog stating "In my opinion, Cole is the new Bernard Lewis." Edit. That was the whole point and distinction between Opinion and fact Take Care! --Will(talk) 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope JC is not the next Bernard Lewis! Many Jews, while emphasizing the Shoah, slight what happened to the Armenians. The lobby in the U.S., desiring to keep good ties w/ Turkey has been strong in shooting down an Armenian remembrance day. from his WP "In a November 1993 Le Monde interview, Lewis said that the Ottoman Turks’ killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 was not "genocide", but the "brutal byproduct of war".[10] Lewis meant that it was not part of a plan to exterminate the entire Armenian race - not that it was justified or that it did not happen. Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and fined him one franc. [11" Take Care! --Will(talk) 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ wrote that this is an article about criticisms of Juan Cole. That's his original interpretation of what this article is about, it is actually about the "views and controversies concerning" Juan Cole. Thus it is not supposed to include all criticism no matter how light or basely motivated. If there was no disagreement on notability the self-published information then it could be included but there is a disagreement and thus remember the last sentence in the above passage you quoted. --Ben Houston 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was overstating it, but I think if a blog post by a qualified author is relevant to a notable "controversy," let's put it in. TheronJ 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment, that you are making up your own rules here. These rules are not applied to other articles. Also, Isarig is contradictory -- on the Fox News Channel article he doesn't feel that Tim Turner's criticism published in the BBC is noteworthy because Turner is associated with CNN's competitor: [12], [13]. But here on Juan Cole's article all criticism, even from blogs, is fair game. I strongly question whether Isarig picks and choses which rules are applicable based on whether or not the sources of information support this viewpoint. --Ben Houston 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm not making my own rules - I quote the relevant rule above. (2) This section is my proposal. Isarig hasn't expressed a preference between admitting all blogs from ME scholars or excluding all blogs, as long as the standard is consistent. TheronJ 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of "contradiction". I am happy to either include all blog sources, or exclude them all. What I am not prepared to accept is the inclusion of some blog sources (those supportive of Cole), but the exclusion of less favorable ones. None of this has any relationship whatsoever to my position that one competitor's badmouthing another is not, in and of itself, noteworthy in an encyclopedia article. That criticis, BTW, was made and quoted in a WP:RS source. Isarig 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You position that you are "happy to either include all blog sources, or exclude them all" is irrelvant. Your position that you are "not prepared to accept is the inclusion of some blog sources (those supportive of Cole), but the exclusion of less favorable ones" is also irrelvant. Blog sources, as self-published sources, if they are disputed do not belong in Wikipedia. While I appreciate your attempts at being creative, the results are not appropraite for Wikipedia.

You are referred, once agian, to what I wrote earlier: I understand WP policy on blogs, and very willing to live by that rule. This exchange started with Will inserting Cole cheerleading from a blog, which I twice removed. At that point, Will started threating me with 3RR violations, and CSTAR voiced his opinion that blogs are ok as sources for "opinions" vs. facts. I am very willing to live by that rule, too, and have added my own blog sources, which are not quite so full of fawning praise for Cole (that, of course, started the chorus of "they're partisan sources"). So either all blog sources go, as per WP guidelines, or they all stay, but it is unreasonable to add praise for Cole from his buddies' blogs, but censor blogs critical of him. So, if we are going to edit according to accepted WP guidleines on excluding blogs, I am all for it - feel free to remove all my recent blog-sourced edits AND the quote from Joyner, which started this. Isarig 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 18:54, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner outside the beltway Cole's expert blog provides public service)
 * 1) (cur) (last) 18:54, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner outside the beltway Cole's expert blog provides public service)

Thank you for your attention Take Care! --Will(talk) 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

}}

{{unblock|This was the report on Precis prior to Isarig's report that has still not been acted on. my reverts were to correct his vandalism and Isarigs prior vandalism. Reverts to correct vandalism shouldn't count. Ironic when the reporter is the Vandal. He shouldn't be alble to profit from his miconduct. Kind of like a burglar suing a homeowner for inflicting an injury on him while defending himself.

[[User:Precis] reported by Will314159:Will314159

Three revert rule violation on Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Precis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

* Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime * 1st revert: [67] * 2nd revert: [68]

Time report made: 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The 3RR is just not about punishing people who make 4 reverts in 24 hours. It is also about sensless reverts even though it is only One. In this case TWO sensless deletions qualify for blockage. Precis has engaged in two sensless acts of vandalism just like a teenager would. In fact, I suspect he is a teenager on a lark! Briefly the background is, I introduced a quote from James Joyner explaining that Juan Cole had not abandoned his academic research and that indeed his public blog performs a more valuable public educational function than dry academic papers read by other academics published in obscure journals read and then commented on by other academics in other obscure journals. User Isarig objected it was a violation of WP:RS. I pointed out that the guideline was oriented toward unverified fact and not opinion. Isarig retaliated by including numerous other blog posting in the article which I did not delet nor object to even though he had himself deleted the Joyner quote several time. I had done a 3RR report on him but had copied the current instead of the last field on the history. Administrator CSTAR provisionaly agreed on the distinction b/n fact and opinion in WP:RS and is the author of this post " I've requested a clarification on the talk page of WP:RS. That's about all I can do. As I said before I would argue: if an opinion can be supported by a blog then it's reasonable to include it. It's best to do it by paraphrasing the opinion and puting the direct quote in footnotes. Several opinions which say the same thing should be collected into the same paraphrase. I'm not sure how to avoid frivilous opinion (e.g. Blog BLAH writer thinks Juan Cole eats live cockroaches.) --CSTAR 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)" In the meantime Precis who has been on vacation shows up and makes the following two deletes accompanied by the following comments in the edit histories

1. (cur) (last) 10:14, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides) 2. (cur) (last) 09:56, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV) 3. (cur) (last) 07:39, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - "polemnical" is not a word)

Therefore, I am asking that he be blocked for a considerable amount of time not for making for 4 reverts in 24 hours but for making two egregious acts of outstanding bad faith vandalism. The WP Juan Cole Article is of some controversy having been blocked for a period of two weeks and having had attracted the attention of Jimbo Wales and mentioned in national blogs. Take Care! --Will(talk) 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ))

Still waiting on acting on complaint on Precis report. What has happened in this case is the equivalent of a burglar suing the homeowner for stopping his vandalism and the police officer agreeing w/ him. What a travesty! And the block keeps the homeowner from making a police report on the burglar. Look at Isarig's and Precis reverts. You reckon the burglar has a 3RR violation, yet the vicim is blocked from making a report on the mis-representer. Go figure- Thanks Tom Harris. I just wish you were a little more diligent. I hope your "real life" job is not in real enforcement. your "investigative" abilities are lacking.

• (cur) (last)   20:08, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - the Lobby doesn't like it when only one side gets to use blogs) Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides) • (cur) (last)   09:56, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV) • (cur) (last)   07:39, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - "polemnical" is not a word) • (cur) (last)   23:16, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Isarig and Ben Houston do not make a Consensus) • (cur) (last)   22:56, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Consensus was "no blogs". See Talk. Joyner was removed along with other blog sources by B. Houston) • (cur) (last)   22:54, 22 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - removed double post) • (cur) (last)   22:51, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - no record of Joyner deletion?) • (cur) (last)   22:48, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - no record of Joyner deletion?) • (cur) (last)   22:00, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Landis is wikilinked. No need for his home page here) • (cur) (last)   21:59, 22 June 2006 Isarig m (→Expertise and professionalism - rm extrenous '>') • (cur) (last)   21:58, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Landis's home page is irrelevant as a ref here) • (cur) (last)   18:47, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - corrected Isarig vandalism on Joyner, more Landis, pro before con, this is JC;s page NOT KARSH's) •  (cur) (last)   18:26, 22 June 2006 Isarig (reversed order of criticism and rebuttals; Joyner is most wellknown as a blogger; rm offensive screed from non WP:RS source) • (cur) (last)   03:08, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Lockman president elect of Association) • (cur) (last)   02:43, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - more about james joyner's experience) • (cur) (last)   02:40, 22 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - former managing editor of Strategic Insights James Joyner) • (cur) (last)   02:34, 22 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - No, Joyner was not a prof there.) • (cur) (last)   01:23, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→See also - grammar) • (cur) (last)   01:18, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→See also - Mershon Lecture) • (cur) (last)   01:02, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→Expertise and professionalism - Naval PostG School) • (cur) (last)   00:59, 22 June 2006 65.184.213.36 (→Expertise and professionalism - undoing Isarig vandalism pro before con, prof Joyner) • (cur) (last)   18:29, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - more from Mowbray) • (cur) (last)   18:24, 21 June 2006 Isarig m (→Expertise and professionalism) • (cur) (last)   18:23, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - this is ther "criticism" section, so critics come first) • (cur) (last)   18:21, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner is not currently a professor.) • (cur) (last)   16:38, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - first the proponents, then the opponents- that's the normal course of things in a bio, unless it's an indictment) • (cur) (last)   16:31, 21 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - Professor James Joyner) • (cur) (last)   16:20, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Faculty position at Yale University - final thought by Cole on affair from inside higher ed) • (cur) (last)   16:14, 21 June 2006 Will314159 (→Faculty position at Yale University -Z. Lockman opinion quote inside higher ed news) • (cur) (last)   23:10, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - more blog commentary) • (cur) (last)   23:08, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner WP link) • (cur) (last)   22:17, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - more blog criticism) • (cur) (last)   22:12, 20 June 2006 Isarig (→On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - Now that the blog standards have been relaxed a bti, we can add more commentary) • (cur) (last)   21:53, 20 June 2006 Will314159 m (→Expertise and professionalism - reformat) • (cur) (last)   21:45, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Isarig Don't Revert until there's consensus This is opinion not fact, you are mis-reading the policy!) • (cur) (last)   21:33, 20 June 2006 Isarig (your source is not WP:RS thiswas explained in th edit summary and on Talk. Please do not re-add it before reaching consensus on Talk) • (cur) (last)   21:28, 20 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Undoing Perfunctory Revert) • (cur) (last)   20:19, 20 June 2006 Isarig (blogs are not WP:ES)

Take Care! 11:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Block expired
Your block has already expired. However, do not violate WP:3RR again. Sasquatch t|c 18:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith 3RR report
The reason no one has acted on your bad faith report is that you don't understand the nature of 3RR blocks. They are not punitive, but preventive. It makes no sense to report someone for an alleged 3RR violation that occured days ago, when that editor has not been editing the article in question at all recently. Get over it - I reported your vioaltion in order to make you a better editor, not to "punish" you. Sadly, it seems you have learned nothing from it. Isarig 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are so full of it Isarig. Best Wishes. You are the incarnation of bad faith. Will314159 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)