Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Changes agreed to in mediation

What I agreed to in the mediation page was 'I have no problem with allowing Cole to respond, providing that the response is more than just name-calling. The article currently has Cole's response (it says Cole claims that those who accuse him of antisemitism do so in an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy), sourced to an article of his. If csloat insists on an actual verbatim quote from Cole, saying the same thing, I would not object to it." The recently added comment by csloat does not meet that requirement, as the jist of it is Cole saying "it's not true" and calling Karsh names. Thus I have removed it. Again, if you want to quote Cole saying something to the effect that those who accuse him of antisemitism do so in an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy - feel free to do so, but I will not agree to name calling and denails. Isarig 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The response is more than "just name calling," certainly more than the name calling by Karsh that initiates it. Cole specifically responds to Karsh, notes that his claim is a scurrilous propaganda technique, attempting to insinuate something that is clearly false. If you want to remove the phrase "beneath contempt" -- the only thing that comes close to mere "name-calling" in the quoted passage -- I might be persuaded to agree to that, but as it is you are simply handicapping one side of the debate while allowing the other side to fight freestyle. Please leave the material up while this is in mediation, and deal with it there. Thanks.csloat 02:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to leave the article unedited while it is under mediation, then we'll have to remove ALL of your recent edit, not just the piece I already removed. You don't get to be the only one editing under mediation. To the meat of your argument: Karsh's criticism is not name calling, it is an observation that themes found in The Protocols are repeated in Cole's writing. Cole may object to that and you may find it objectionable, but it is a statement of fact (which could be true or false) about Cole's published work, not name calling. On the other hand, Cole's quoted response consists of saying "Karsh's charges [are] "beneath contempt" (name calling) ;"Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques" (name calling, again); "attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. (a paraphrased repetition of Karsh's argument, but not a rebuttal); and "No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." (which is "no, the charge is false') - in sum - name-calling and "I didn't do it". If you want to quote Cole actually replying to Karsh , with something that resembles arguments in a debate - go right ahead. But this just doesn't cut it. Isarig 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine going back to the way the article was prior to the beginning of mediation, i.e. prior to Armon's revert, which deleted the same passage you deleted. To charge me with editing under mediation is mendacious, as you know. Cole's criticism is not "name-calling"; he refers to Karsh's arguments (not Karsh) as "beneath contempt" because they are. He correctly describes Karsh's propaganda techniques as scurrilous. They are propaganda techniques, as I have explained over and over countless times in discussions that you were a participant in. Karsh makes a bizarre insinuation about what Cole thinks based on a fallacious extrapolation from what he said. Cole is right that this is a propaganda technique and to censor that is ridiculous. You may disagree with Cole and that is fine but to censor him just because you don't buy his position is ludicrous. This is, after all, a page about Cole. What you want is for Karsh to take ridiculous potshots at Cole on this page but then refuse to allow Cole to defend himself. Even more execrable is the fact that you want to do this while the article is under mediation, falsely accusing me of wanting to be the only one editing under mediation, when all I did was restore that section to its state before mediation (and, if you read the exchange above, I pointed this out when Armon made the edit, but stated that I thought he should be the one to restore the section in order to show good faith. He chose not to). csloat 10:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, it's necessary to point out that you are already quoting Karsh verbatim, so I'm not sure why you imply that it is some sort of overreach to do the same for Cole on Sloat's part and that we are merely obliging him. And looking at the reverted text for name calling, I can't find a single line in Cole's response that isn't immediately relevant to Karsh's accusation. At the least, is certainly nothing that approaches an insinuation of antisemitism, which seems to be the presently established threshold for inclusion.

You've probably been over WP:BLP several times, so I hope no one has forgotten this passage:

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 would have hoped this would call into question the inclusion of this shameful attack in the first place, but at the least it ought to suggest that Cole can be allowed to respond to it in a meaningful way.Abbenm 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article quotes Karsh verbatim, making an argument, published in a WP:RS. I am happy to include a Cole response verbatim, but not a series of non-responsive name calling. The article already says Cole denies the charge, and also says he accuses those of making that charge of trying to deflect legitimate criticism . If you want to quote Cole verbatim saying that - fine, do so, and I'm even willing to include such quotes from Cole's shrill partisan blog, which is not a WP:RS. But the current quote does not address a single argument that Karsh has made - it just calls his accusations "beneath contempt", "scurrilous propaganda" and 'outrageous insinuations' - that's not debate, that's childish name calling. Isarig 15:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I don't think it's correct to say Karsh is making an argument with his statement. Karsh is making an assertion which can be paraphased as follows (at least according to what you or Armon replied to an earlier question of mine) "Cole's assertion of dual loyalties is reminiscent of statements made in the 'Protocols'". That assertion (that is the paraphrase of Karsh's quote) is not an argument (where is the argument structure?) and it's not a factual assertion (such a factual assertion might be for instance that Cole actually used the Protocols or something like it as a source); in fact, the assertion in question is just Karsh's opinion. Moreover, Karsh is making that assertion in an extremely inflamatory way, by insinuating that the protocols "resonate powerfully" (without saying how this resonance occurs) and, as Cole has noted, by stating it in the negative.

I have nothing against stating that "some critics, such as Karsh have claimed parallels between 'new antisemitism' and anti-semitic tracts such as the Protocols." However, I see absolutely no reason to include Karsh's quote without at the same time including responses from Cole, either quoted in full, paraphrased or some mixture thereof.--CSTAR 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

neither do I. and in fact, the article currently has Cole's paraphrased response. I am not opposed to replacing this, or adding to this, a quote from Cole, but not one that is comprised in its entirety of name calling. Isarig 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that what is in the article currently is a paraphrase of Cole's response. I'm happy to remove the "beneath contempt" comment which in my opinion adds nothing, but everything else is fair to include IMO.--CSTAR 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Th earticle currently says "Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy." . Presumably, that is a paraphrase of an argument he is actually making as a response to those who accuse him of antisemitism, which has slightly more substance than the name calling in the quote. "scurrilous propaganda techniques" and "outrageous insinuations" are just as bad name calling as ""beneath contempt" - and there is nothing in that quote that is actually responsive to the allegation against him. Isarig 18:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig: Re Presumably, that is a paraphrase of an argument he is actually making as a response to those who accuse him of antisemitism, which has slightly more substance than the name calling in the quote. Not quite; Cole is making is making a different argument, that is Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" Your paraphrasing makes no mention of the real problem with the Karsh quote and its inclusion here, that is to say the association of Cole's writing with the "Protocols" (which association i:::s described by Cole as scurrilous, and I think he's got a point).--CSTAR 18:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not an argument, that's name calling. It's no better, as far as content, than saying "karsh sucks". Isarig 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not name calling; it's an argument. You are calling it "name calling" because you don't happen to agree with it. As Abbenm notes above, there is nothing in the Cole quote that is not relevant to Karsh's claim, and there is certainly nothing on the order of an assertion of anti-semitism, which is a quote we have included from Karsh. This is Cole's biography, and what you're saying is you want to include "name-calling" by Karsh without acknowledging Cole's specific response to Karsh. Your position is in direct opposition to WP:BLP. csloat 23:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. Karsh sucks. I agree, that is not an argument. But it's quite an imaginative leap to say that the semantic content of

(A) Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

is the same as "Karsh sucks". (A) tries to show something about the structure Karsh's assertion. "Karsh sucks" says well, it says Karsh sucks.--CSTAR 23:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is EXACTLY the same as "Karsh sucks". It does not respond to anything Karsh says, it does not defend Cole's position in any way - it is merely saying "it sucks". Isarig 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose Karsh used a different argument, for example some fallacious statistical argument (or even an invalid use of a syllogism) to infer that Cole has some property X. Does Cole have to prove that he does not have property X; wouldn't it be sufficient for Cole to point out that Karsh uses statistical fallacies to infer X? Wouldn't that be a valid response? --CSTAR 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it would be OK if we quoted Cole saying Karsh is using some logical fallacy here. But that's not what you're quoting. You're quoting Cole name-calling. To be crystal clear here: Saying 'X is a logical fallacy' is a valid argument. Saying 'X is a sucky argument' is not a valid argument, and neither s 'X is scurrilous propaganda techniques'. The latter 2 are name calling. Indistinguishable from one another as far as being arguments in a debate. Isarig 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Cole assigns a name to the type of argument ("propaganda technique") is not "name calling" any more than would characterizing an argument as "slippery slope" or a "statistical fallacy." Moreover Cole doesn't merely assign a descriptive name to the Karsh statement. In addition, he says it attempts "to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" It directly addresses the association that Karsh makes to 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Any paraphrase or quote from Cole which does not specifically refer to that association, would be incomplete.--CSTAR 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"slippery slope" is a well known logical fallacy. Similarly, a statistical fallacy is a commonly used term. Conversely "scurrilous propaganda" is just hyperbole, and name calling when all else fails. I'd be ok with a paraphrase along the lines of "Cole responded that "insinuat[ing] that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is motivated by the desire to deflect legitimate criticism. Isarig 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is a well-known term with specific meanings dating at least back to WWI. You're nitpicking, Isarig, and it isn't persuasive. The entire quotation should stay in as it accurately describes Cole's specific response to Karsh's own name-calling. Again, there is nothing in Cole's statement that is not directly relevant to Karsh's claim, and certainly nothing that violates BLP as much as Karsh's implication of anti-semitism. If you can imply that an academic who has never published an anti-Jewish statement in his life is some kind of neo-Nazi, certainly you can claim that that implication is scurrilous propaganda and that it is beneath contempt. csloat 01:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lies" is also a well known term with specific meaning, datin gback to even earlier than WWI. If Cole has said 'Karsh's claims are lies' we would have the exact same argument (though slightly more polite). It is still name calling. Karsh, on the other hand is making an argument- one that you and Cole don't like, but an argument, nevertheless, which is that Cole's claims about "Dual Loyalties" of Jews in the Bush administration are similar in their antisemitic nature to allegations made in T he Protocolof the Elders of Zions. There is virtually NOTHING in Cole's response that addresses this claim - it is entirely name calling and "I didn't do it". The olny marginally relevant part is his defense (paraphrased) that what he's really doing is critiquing a Neoconservative cabal in the Bush administration. As I wrote, I am happy with a quote that included that part of his response, but not the name calling. As to BLP, I'll repeat what I wrote in the mediation page: WP:BLP tells us, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:BLP further uses an example of how to apply this policy: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source". Here we have a nearly identical case: A well known public figure (Cole) is alleged be a new antisemite. He denies it, but The New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is public controversy. Using the above example, the allegation may belong in the biography, citing TNR as the source. End of story. Isarig 01:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If he said "lie" that would be acceptable as well. It is not Wikipedia's place to take a position on whether Cole's statement is accurate or even well-argued. The very portion of BLP that you quote substantiates that point. The claim that Karsh's statement that was published in TNR is notable is another issue that we will take up later. But if it is to be included, Cole's direct response will be included as well. As you say, "end of story." csloat 01:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To you, perhaps. But then again, you find "beneath contempt' acceptable, too, so your opinion really doesn't carry much weight with me. name calling is out. Isarig 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, your opinion of me, and of this issue, is noted. It is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have censored Cole's specific response to Karsh's name-calling. This debate is a wash; the material should be restored. csloat 04:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not voiced any opinion of you, you need to start reading carefully. Karsh made a claim, to which Cole responded with name calling. That's not acceptable. Isarig 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You said my opinion didn't carry any weight with you, but let's let the insult slide. Karsh called Cole a nazi (or a Protocol-reminiscienter, or whatever), and Cole responded by pointing out that Karsh was using a propaganda tactic rather than making a valid claim. And you want to keep Karsh's Jew-baiting claim in, while denying Cole the right to respond. The material you censored should be restored. csloat 04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isarig Re I'd be ok with a paraphrase along the lines of "Cole responded that "insinuat[ing] that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is motivated by the desire to deflect legitimate criticism. Isarig, that seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise. I didn't want to return to this discussion at least until Tuesday (I don't celebrate "natal" but I did want to take a day off from this discussion) but I don't want to let this drop. Csloat do you see a problem here that I'm missing.? --CSTAR 04:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Cole's response specifically points out that Karsh's claim is a scurrilous propaganda tactic, and he explains why. I don't see the point of watering it down, except to please Isarig. The fact that Cole considers Karsh's claim "beneath contempt" is relevant; the fact that he considers it a propaganda tactic is more than just a swipe at Karsh's "motivation" but a dispute of Karsh's logic itself. As you pointed out, Cole is charging that Karsh is engaged in an argumentative fallacy. To turn that into an attack on Karsh's motives seems inaccurate at best. csloat 04:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm going to have to think about this. I'm not to eager to retain "beneath contempt" however. Your point is that Isarig's paraphrase doesn't address the argument but addresses the motive. Again I want to think about this although, now I see this as a marginal point. --CSTAR 04:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. Re except to please Isarig. No, I think, for better or worse, the name of the game is "consensus." --CSTAR 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I (speaking for myself only and certainly not for Cole) would agree to adding the following to the article as an adequate response

Cole responded that Karsh's insinuation "that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'" is motivated by the desire to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel

This formulation addresses my concern. That Cole's designation of "propaganda" (or scurrilous propaganda) is not included, is less of a concern to me.--CSTAR 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole made a specific point, that Karsh uses a propaganda technique - an argumentative fallacy - when he called him a nazi. The formulation you are supporting makes it sound as if Cole responded by questioning Karsh's motivations. It's not clear to me that he did. I vastly prefer to use an author's actual words than some Wikipedia editor's interpretation of those words, especially when there is dispute (as there is now) about what those words mean.

On another note, if the name of the game is "consensus," then we should all be working towards it, rather than the rest of us working only to please the one most intransigent editor in the group. It seems to reward the one user who is the most stubborn while punishing all those who bend over backwards to try to compromise or at least to understand each other. I'm willing to drop "beneath contempt" (though I don't see what the point of dropping it is, since it is not objectionable in any way), but not "scurrilous propaganda techniques" (I suppose I could be budged on the "scurrilous" part of the phrase, though again I don't see the point other than pleasing an editor who has shown extreme stubbornness). I agree that consensus is important, but that does not mean pleasing everybody, and it certainly should not mean pleasing only the person who complains the loudest. csloat 06:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, one final point here -- Isarig's alleged "compromise" is actually collapsing two Cole statements into one. The statement where he criticized people attacking him as an antisemite for deflecting legitimate criticism is already in the article, and it comes from a different piece than the more specific response to Karsh's charges. I think that's another reason that the "compromise" statement should be rejected. Cheers! csloat 06:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if editors can't agree on the meaning, then it shouldn't be included. That's the main reason I objected to including the Karsh quote in the first place. As far as that quote is concerned, I think we have agreed on a meaning and the Cole quote (I think) is an adequate response. The disagreement now seems to be whether Cole's labelling of this as a "propaganda technique" should be included. I don't agree that's it's name calling, but I am willing to remove it. But the other point you raise (collapsing two quotes) is a valid point. I don't yet see how to deal with it. --CSTAR 07:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that it is a problem with the Karsh quote as well, and I still think we're better off removing all of this stuff. Second, I think there is a way to deal with this, which is that if we're going to keep the Karsh quote in as well as the Joffe quote then we need to keep in both Cole's response to Joffe (and others) as well as the quote from Cole indicating Karsh's particular charge is a propaganda tactic. Perhaps this is the sort of situation where a vote will help establish what consensus is -- not everyone will be happy with every page on wikipedia, particularly those who refuse to value the opinions of others. I am all for taking a break from this for the moment, however. csloat 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that this very process of negotiation suggests that Karsh's attack deserves inclusion in the first place. It ought to be transparently self evident to any casual (and disinterested) reader that Karsh's assertion is baseless to it's core. It's simply a statement of fact that Cole's opinions bear no substantial association with the Protocols. There is no honest way to suggest those viewpoints overlap or that they are aimed at anything remotely similar. Call it an argument, call it an opinion, call it a statement of fact that may or may not actually be a fact; It's not encyclopedic, it's not a valid or meaningful commentary on Cole's writing or opinions at any level. That's not a random opinion, it's the judgment necessary to improve the article.

It should be stated out the open that we aren't including this because it is a valuable or insightful criticism on Cole. This doesn't seem to be disputed, as Sloat has repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how this inclusion improves the article, and there have been no responses that answered this (123). These edits have been defended by suggestions not that they improve the article, but that they aren't explicitly forbidden by wikipedia guidelines. I don't think that outlook is going to produce a strong article, but it does serve other purposes.

The only remaining question is whether it is "notable", which has already been disputed by an admin who said a neutral third party was necessary ([1]) but it looks like you guys are bringing these questions to mediation. Ultimately I think the mediation over the inclusion of this piece holds higher priority than this present argument on whether Cole's response is included (which we can return to, should it be included). There is a warning box above this section in the article, so laymen are fairly warned, and we can return to this point if the material has to be included. Someone who knows what they are doing can either revert the page to its last version prior to mediation (which sloat apparently tried to do?) or if necessary, just keep a handy link to the page. Anything I'm missing? Abbenm 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the direct quote from Karsh remained in the article, my greatest concern was that any quote or paraphrase from Cole would have to address the link that KArsh was trying make between Cole's writing and the Protocols. Such a paraphrase might be Karsh attempted "to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" I saw it less of an issue whether Cole's referring to it as a propaganda technique was also included, but I concede, Csloat has a valid point i.e. "Cole made a specific point, that Karsh uses a propaganda technique." --CSTAR 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The foregoing debate is a complete waste of time because Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. The ad homs he made of Karsh there are therefore irrelevant and we already have a perfectly good source for Cole's response to such criticism in the Misuses of Antisemitism article. <<-armon->> 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that this is contributing to anything, but the above statement is incorrect. From the RS page:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.

But even that is immaterial, as this whole section involves Cole himself and the only aspect which needs to be "reliable" is that Cole actually wrote his response as a part of an event we already consider notable. This is covered by the verifiability page where you can read:

Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: ... there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

There are other requirements as well, but none invalidate the inclusion of Cole's response on a supposed "notable" event that directly involves him. Abbenm 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply toArmon:

1. Misuses of Antisemitism article? AS you can see by the red link, there isn't an article with that precise name, nor a section with that name in places where I would expect to find it (e.g. e.g. antisemitism, new antisemitism). If there is some suitable material in the article which you had in mind, I see no reason why some of it shouldn't be included here.
2. I think your dismissal "the foregoing debate is a waste of time" is unfair, especially to me. I carefully discussed Cole's reply with Isarig, and for you to characterize the exchange as a waste of time is certainly not collegial. I didn't consider it a debate. Under the principle of WP:AGF, I tried to regard it as a dialogue between editors interested in producing a better and more useful article.
3. As to the unsuitabiility, I don't think the exclusion applies in this case as noted by the previous contributor.
4. In any case, the issue is under mediation and it's probably going to be settled there. I have been waiting for your input in that process, before adding comments of my own as requested by the mediator.

--CSTAR 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to this article: The Misuses of Anti-Semitism. As I've already pointed out above, poorly sourced personal attacks on Karsh (or any other of his critics) raise the precise WP:BLP issues sloat complains so bitterly about regarding Cole, and as Isarig has also pointed out, there is no "agreement in mediation" to include name-calling -nor will there be. While Cole's blog may be a perfectly good source when discussing what he writes about, or his political stances, it is not a carte blanche. It doesn't add anything to the article regarding the nature of the dispute except soapboxing. And that's not even addressing the WP solipsism and meat-puppetry issues inherent in Cole's blog post. <<-armon->> 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing for carte blanche. This is a specific response to a specific claim by Karsh that was about Cole's blog to begin with. It is no more name calling than the original claim by Karsh. It certainly isn't a BLP violation given the threshold for BLP you guys set with the jew-baiting BS. Armon, if you really take seriously any of the stuff you're saying, participate in the mediation like you agreed to. Otherwise, just change your statement to "disagree" and the rest of us can move on without you. Also, please stop the revert war you started on this page over another issue that has already been settled (and which you have raised no single argument in defense of your revert). csloat 02:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Armon refers to the article by Cole. You are right his statement is completely unfair. The fact is, Armon has held up mediation on this article for weeks now; for him to start another revert war on the article over material that was agreed to in mediation without ever making his own statement in mediation speaks volumes about his interest in wikipedia. As for his specific claim above, it is ridiculous. Cole's blog is precisely what is at issue in that section of the article, so of course his specific response from his blog is relevant here. Meanwhile, if Armon were really worried about WP:RS, he wouldn't be reverting to material from Frontpagemagazine. I strongly urge Armon to enter mediation in good faith instead of continuing to start revert wars on this article. The debate above regarding the response to Karsh is a wash, and the material should be restored to the article forthwith, or the section should be deleted. csloat 20:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at my contribs -I haven't been on WP because real-life has gotten in the way. Yet again you assume bad faith and act accordingly. <<-armon->> 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing. It's what you've done since you've been back, not the fact that you were gone, that "speaks volumes." Again, you're holding up mediation but you have plenty of time for petty revert wars over issues that have been settled already. csloat 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SLoat aren't you being just a wee bit combative here? The dispute will be settled in mediation and if not there, in arbitration eventually.--CSTAR 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion CSTAR - I'll back off for now. Happy new year everyone :) csloat 08:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)