Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Request for NPOV Warning

I have examined the history of this page. I have been unable to determine how long this page has been blocked. From reading this discussion page, it's hard to see how long it"ll remain unblocked. I know the ratio of the article to the talk page is stupendous. There is much controversy involved. In my opinion, the article is very, very slanted. It really needs a strong NPOV warning saying that the NEUTRALITY of the article is in DISPUTE! It would be greatly appreciated. I certainly would place one myself if I could. Fair is Fair.--Will314159 03:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty to 1) archive first 300k of this page and 2) add POV tag to the article despite the protecton - otherwise this page wouldn't have grown as much. Feel free to report/undo if you feel I was wrong. 100k is still too long. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts; thanks. The NPOV warning should stay until these issues are worked out.-csloat 10:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the warning up. The mere fact that one wasn't put up immediately when the article was locked shows the imbalance of power in the article writing. Hopefully now things will begin to get better. At least the public is warned the article as it stands is largely propaganda.--Will314159 12:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"The mere fact that one wasn't put up immediately when the article was locked shows" squat. Before jumping to contusions, consider the possibility that no one thought to put it there. Additionally, the admin who locked the article had no responsibility to tag the article.

Also, if you're off to nose "around WP and see what other articles the Likudnik quartet team has hit" you are out of line. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, [[WP:POINT] and Wikipedia:What is a troll. •Jim62sch• 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i need to start nosing around WP and see what other articles the Likudnik quartet team has hit.--Will314159 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Will, please refer to WP:AGF. YOu might also realize that the quartet of admins who burst in and locked this article were all pro Cole. Elizmr 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. •Jim62sch• 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

if that was the case they wouldn't have locked it without a revert to a pristine state or at least a NPOV warnining.--Will314159 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

no, that's not it either. See my explanation above. •Jim62sch• 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Will, a locked page is not an endorsement of the current version. I agree with you, the locked version is bad, but it is locked without regard for the substantive debates about the page.--csloat 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The locked page is not fair as it is. It gives too much leverage. A stub is the fairest way to proceed from this onward. I would be satisfied with a neutral article saying he is a professor. Here are his publications and he has a blog. I don't think it will satisfy everybody b/c there are people here with an agenda to cut him down. Take Care! 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)--Will314159 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Write it in the same manner as the Karsh page. •Jim62sch• 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Karsh quote?

The quote in question: "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. How else can one describe his depiction of U.S. foreign policy as controlled by a ruthless Zionist cabal implanted at the highest echelons of the Bush administration and employing "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence" to promote its goals? ... Cole provides no proof whatsoever for this conspiratorial thinking - there is none.

CSloat calls it "an extended lecture from Karsh about antisemitism". Let's be precise: 1) it is not long 2) it's not a lecture, 3) Karsh does not call Cole an antisemite - he kind of implies it, but if one implies Jewish Zionist Likudnik conspiracy, why pretend to be surprised when confronted about it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I really don;t understand how one can argue that the Karsh quote is not pertinent. Also Karsh as a source is both reputable and reliable enough to be admissable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against the Karsh quote have been detailed above -- see the section "Edit war - Karsh quote." Not every comment from a reputable source is worth including in wikipedia; the youngest family member might ask, why is this quote different from all other quotes? Seriously, what does it have to offer to the discussion? The claim that Karsh's illogic is equivalent to Cole's conspiracy theorizing may be accurate, but that is not a good reason to include Karsh. He refers to claims Cole never made ("ruthless Zionist cabal"? "international influence of 'world Zionism'"? These are not quotes from Cole) and makes the unevidenced (and, I believe, absurd) charge that the writing of a well-known academic whose opinions are sought after is "anti-Israel (indeed anti-Jewish)." As someone else wrote above, if Karsh called Cole a child molester, we would not include it here if the charge was specious. Karsh offers no evidence for the charge of antisemitism, and there is no indication of why this particular opinion is worth inclusion here. I will add that I appreciate that the quote has been shortened, and as such, is better in the sandbox than the one on the article, but really the only noteworthy thing about the quote is the last line ("Cole provides no proof..."). Humus' strikeouts indicate that he equates "Jewish" with "Zionist" and "Likudnik" -- that sort of linguistic confusion is part of the source of these specious charges of antisemitism. Cole is not anti-Jewish. His claims that Doug Feith has dual loyalties may be controversial, but they are hardly antisemitic -- there was an Israeli spy working out of Feith's office, for heaven sake. Cole's opposition to the Likud party does not make him any more antisemitic than Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. As I have said before, when you find quotes from Cole dismissing Feith because he is Jewish, or if you find photos of Cole painting swastikas on a shul, or even if you find quotes indicating that Cole thinks other American Jews are also disloyal (like, say, Noam Chomsky, Michael Lerner, or Adam Sandler for that matter), then perhaps such claims might make some sense. But for now they really just poison the well -- the comparison to the Protocols is insulting and offensive, as it trivializes real antisemitism in order to bash a university professor.--csloat 19:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in the outrage mode and trying to quiet down. To run across such a WP article such as this and locked too. the Karsh quote reveals the extreme bias. its length for one. Who's the article about Karsh? or Cole? --Will314159 12:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look-see at the sandbox article. there's not a discussion page to the sandbox. so i guess you discuss it here? here's some perspective to the karsh quote. It's longer than Karsh. Difference Clinton & Bush Mid-East Policies. Under Cllinton U.S. supported a comprehensive Mid-East Peace based on U.N. resolutions. This was based on the in-admissibility of the conquest of land by war, namely the 1967 war. We are taught that World War II was fought over this principle and the NAZIS and Japanese leaders hanged for starting agressive wars to grab land.

On the Syrian front it was based on Israeli withdrawl from "the occupied Syrian Golan Heights in return for a Peace treaty. Barak during Clinton's term came close to the treaty but didn't want the Syrians to touch the Lake of Galilee. A couple of years later, due to extensive Israeli use the Lake shore receded a couple of hundreds of meters.

On the West Bank and Gaza Front, the Plan was for a comprehensive Peace spearheaded with an agreement by the man that could deliver for the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat. He was recognized as the unified leader. After a rocky start at Camp David where he was lowballed and ganged up on, an agreement had been hammered out at Taba, but the Israeli pulbic had not been prepared to give up the West Bank and the right wing nut case Sharon had gotten elected. After the comprehensive peace on the Syrian and Palestinian fronts, then all of the Arab states were prepared for a full peace with trade.

But Bush and Sharon had gotten elected. A group of influential American rightwing Jewish NeoKons had drawn up plans for the rightwing Israeli Likud, Defense of the Realm, how to wreck the comprehensive Peace Plans, and keep the Golan Heights and West Bank. This plan called for destablizing Syria and the Palestinians directly and indirectly. One of the indirect means, you guessed it, was by invading Irak.

This NeoKon group wound up being the civilian group running the staff of the White House and Pentagon. Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Woflwitz, Wurmser,& Company. Together with Oil Lobby and feeding off each combined with the indispensible ingredient of Bush & Cheney they have led to the present mess

Edit Shortening remaks...... The people that worked for Netanyahu and urged torpedoing the Oslo Accords, obstructing/ violating UN resolutions, waging aggresive war are the same one that wound up running the pentagon and Cheney and Bush's Office. Feith went on to fire the Iraq Army and police force and most of the teachers. Cole calls it right. And it's not all academic. It's kind of deja vu all over again. Irak now Iran tomorrow. All to keep from haveing to keep from making peace with the Palestinians and giving up the West Bank settlements per UN resolutions.--Will314159 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Edit--Will314159 02:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox. If you feel the need to rant about "NeoKons" -start your own web log. If you've got constructive comments about the article - edit in the Sandbox. Isarig 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody sure made the locked Juan Cole article a soapbox for their agenda. Just restoring a little context and exposing agenda.--Will314159 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Please sign in the conventional manner, in such a way that your signature appears as a wlink. This has several advantages. Thanks.--CSTAR 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The editors who locked the page all had a distinctly pro-Cole stance. read the Talk pages. Regardless, the Talk page is not the place for you to bring "context", and before you climb the high horse of "exposing agenda", I suggest you read WP:AGF. Isarig 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The editor (admin) that locked the page has not done any editing on this page or on any page that is remotely related to Cole or the middle east, as best I could tell from that user's last 500 edits. Any admin can lock or unlock the page. --CSTAR 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. What I should have written is that the editors who asked for this page to be locked have a distinctly pro-Cole stance (and that's the reason they were recruited to edit this page by a like-minded editor, before locking it). Isarig 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Recruit? AS you konw, anybody can edit a WP page. Recruitment is not necessary. Maybe you are suggesting that the page was the prerogative of "anti-Cole" editors before the "pro-Cole" editors showed up. It's hard to tell from your vague language.--CSTAR 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, I know anybody can edit and recruitment is not necessary, but we have the testimony of an admin that this is precisely what he did. To refresh your memory, Armon alleged that "the sudden influx of like-minded editors who now demand wholesale deletions, and sanitizing, the article, suggests to me that there's been some canvasing going on" to which the responsible adming replied "Canvassing? Well, I saw an article that was about as far away from what a Wikipedia biography should be, and I mentioned it to FM, KC, Jim and JZ [who then showed up and performed the aforementioned whoelsale deletions]. If you want to call that "canvasing", then I suppose I have to plead guilty." You can review all this in the archive. I had been editing WP for nearly a year and half before this, and never encountered something like this, so when I first saw Armon's comment, I thought it was over the top, and that he was somewhat paranoid. Imagine my surprise. Isarig 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that editors can't mention articles they think have serious problems to other editors? I don't think that has any basis in WP policy. Articles that for some reason have passed unnoticed to science editors (typically cranky articles) are "canvassed" in this sense. Your suggestion of a recruitment campaign "to sanitize the article", does strike me as being "over the top".--CSTAR 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

why would they need to? As you said, any editor can make edits...and it's not as if this particular page required any hard-to-get domain-specific expertise. And, as the responsible admin wrote, there are proper ways to bring a problematic article to the attention of the general community (as opposed to a group of like-minded editors who can apparently be counted on to make a certain kind of edits. It is not my suggestion of a recruitment campign, it is the self-confessed admission of the responsible admin that this is what he did. Don't take it out on me, take it up with him. Isarig 04:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:AGF, Isarig might want to check it out too (if we're to be fair, of course). •Jim62sch• 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it ,Isarig, are the inserter and proponent on the long "Karsh" quote and you are quite satisfied displaying to the public in a locked state.--Will314159 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you take it wrong. I neither inserted that quote, nor am I happy to see the article locked. But when you go around accusing editors of being a "Likudnik Hit Team" you are not making any progress toward getting the article unlocked. Isarig 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Will314159, if you want your comments to be read and not ignored, please summarize them in a few lines and restrict them to be relevant to the page and section title. Also, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:AGF and sign your posts with ~~~~. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the Karsh quote originally, I think, and it has been shortened and couched in a NPOV manner by myself and others to respond to comments here. According to WP:NPOV articles express various points of view in neutral tone and the reader can make their conculsuions. This applies to biographies and other articles on Wikipedia. I echo comments above asking you to refer to wp:agf before assigning motives to other editors. Elizmr 22:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat above makes the case against the quote. I have made the case as well, including quotes of Wiki quidelines on living persons which advise against criticisms relying on "guilt by association" which I argue is all that Karsh quote is. Someone in favour of the Karsh quote needs to establish why it is a valid scholarly critique of Cole's work (just because it comes from a scholar does not make it such) and how it isn't libel in that there is no actual evidence of Cole being antisemetic provided by anyone for Karsh to back that assertion. Yes, Karsh avoids saying "Cole is a Jew Hater" but the implication is very obvious and I'm not comfortable with this type of laweryly defence tactic that might keep Cole from taking Karsh to court, but still leaves the unwary reader lumping Cole in with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Being phrased in NPOV is well and good, but is definitely not addressing the substance of my (and presumably csloat's) objection to its inclusion.

--FNV 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Article is more petty than scholarly

Even though I am interested in these political issues and I do have my own opinions, I really don't feel like taking sides in Juan Cole's disputes with war-on-terrorism hawks. I think that Cole sometimes goes out of his way to irritate the other side. That said, I think that this page for Cole is ridiculously petty, verbose, and obsessed with the present. Experience shows that it's easier to move petty quarrels to a separate "Controversies..." page than to try to ban it outright. It would greatly benefit Wikipedia to do that in this case.

Greg Kuperberg 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; I totally agree that these "controversies" here are petty. A separate controversies page is a good idea, but not if the sections become even more verbose than at present.--csloat 20:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A separate controversies page is a good idea, period. It would at worst be a lesser embarrassment, no matter how verbose it might get. Greg Kuperberg 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

i've seen it done successfully w/ a link from the article to the talk page.--Will314159 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can sometimes move a controversy to the talk page. That's what it's for after all. But if you don't succeed at that, then you can have a main-line page for the controversies. It's way past time to find some solution that sticks. The page is really bad, yet it helps nothing to argue against what it says. Let me say then that I don't disagree with a lot of what this overheated article says. Some of what Juan Cole says irritates me too. I just don't think that this petty criticism belongs in a personal biography.

Even if people aren't satisfied with a controversies page, it can be a useful bridge to a better long-term solution.

To be concrete, the "views" section more than twice too long, while the "controversies" section is more than five times too long.

Greg Kuperberg 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have to agree that phrases like "Likudnik hit team" don't help anything. Greg Kuperberg 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad

Now you could also have a discussion page for the sandbox but I didn't see one the first time I looked, so I take it this is the place to also make sandbox discussions. Straighten me out, otherwise. for an encyclopedia article, it is way too long. to start with, don't need to repeat "the little SHIT quote." Come on this is an encyclopedia article. I guess I need to go to the Douglas Feith article and put it Gen. Frank's comment in about him being the Dumbest Motherfwcker on Earth? The essential point here is to give in a pithy way in his own words the sense that the "Zionist occupation will vanish from page of time from the "Quds (Jerusalem)." PERIOD. Don't need all the rightwink NEOKON nitpick crossexamination stuff trying to do a hatchet job on Don Juan.--Will314159 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Revert to Pre-Controversial Version Pending Rewrite

We all know when the major changes occurred that caused the edit and revert wars that caused the lock down. Let's revert back prior to that time. Leaving the article in its hatchet job incarnation is not fair to Professor Cole or to WP. It preserves a horrendeous Status Quo. There's even the "shit" word in the article. Take Care!--Will314159 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Latest sandbox version

I shortened translation disputes section considerably, and in doing so tried to preserve points Commander Sloat and Isarig (the main authors of this section) felt were important to make. I addressed Jim's point about not having an "authorative" translation, by just including the transliteration and then the various translations following. (I'd also done this with the Osama thing, so they are a parallel structure now). I would like to include the date of the speech in the article, and didn't know it, so if someone could put it in that would be great. I think the section is a more appropriate length currently than previously. Of note, the whole controversy section is much shorter now and I think the language is NPOV. If people could take a look, that would be helpful at this point. Elizmr 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your trimming of the Ahmadinejad section, though I would dispense with the Andrew Sullivan quotation completely. The "On Israel" views section should be deleted entirely and started over. This is how it looks currently:

Dr. Cole has stated he believes Israel has a right to exist within its pre-1967 borders, and says it would be worth American lives to protect lives in Israel proper. Dr. Efraim Karsh has stated that Cole suggests the Middle East would have been better off without Israel when he writes, "it would have been preferable for the British to have simply accepted Jewish refugees 'rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own'". Dr. Karsh criticizes Cole for, "discounting...the millenarian Jewish attachment to Palestine, so as to misrepresent Israel's creation as an ordinary colonialist project"

My issues here: (1) starting with his belief in Israel's right to exist is needlessly prejudicial. Why not start with "Cole is critical of Israeli foreign policy." Or "Cole has consistently defended Israeli academics' academic freedom for several years..." Either statement could be followed up with evidence and information from Cole on these issues. (2) Everything after the first prejudicial sentence is about what Karsh says. Let's dump all the Karsh quotes here and quote Cole. Karsh is not Cole's biographer; he is a critic. His criticism may sometimes be relevant to this page, but it should not dictate the way everything on this page is treated. It is not original research to prefer quotes directly from Cole to quotes from his chief opponent. Let's write about Cole's opinions and only cite Karsh when his opinion is relevant. If the description of Cole's views includes his comments about "the millennarian Jewish attachment to Palestine," for example, then we could bring in the appropriate critique from Karsh. But I see no reason to have Karsh's statements represent the totality of what is presented as Cole's views on Israel.--csloat 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I don't see any reason to have Karsh's statements represent the totality of anything either. The whole section, if you remember, was deleted by KC. Please add stuff that you would like to this section to round it out. Also, I understand you are not in favor of the Karsh quotes, but many of us us are. Elizmr 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But the real issue, to repeat myself, is what do the Karsh quotes bring to the article? Is there a need for them? Are not his opinions as POV as those of Cole? Is he not given to defending Israel? The easiest way around this is to note, "several scholars/pundits, Karsh and ... have taken exception to Cole's statements (include two internet links here)." •Jim62sch• 10:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They bring disclosure that Cole's conspiracy theories and bias are controversial -and why. That being said, I think if we're going to have separate "Views" and "Controversy/Criticism" sections, I agree with Sloat, the "Views" should be Cole's. What I don't agree with, is "sanitizing" Cole's views as Sloat suggests in point (1), because Cole's own words are "needlessly prejudicial". Armon 15:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, please re-read point (1). I never advocated "sanitizing" Cole's views or hiding Cole's words. But why begin with "he thinks Israel has the right to exist" instead of a thousand other possible places to begin? This has nothing to do with making things "sanitary"; it has to do with more accurately representing him rather than intentionally smearing him, as the section does currently.--csloat 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll clarify what I consider "sanitizing". If the section is about his Views on Israel, then it's perfectly correct to begin with his opinion that Israel never should have existed in the first place, because it's a) his fundamental position on that country, b) it explains his antipathy for "Zionists", and c) it colours a lot his ideas re: the ME. That position has gained him both "fans" and "detractors" so reporting a verifiable fact is hardly a "smear". Armon 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his view as represented begins with the fact that he supports Israel's right to exist. Your comment about him believing it "never should have existed in the first place" is odd, unevidenced, and irrelevant. His thoughts about what should have happened fifty years ago are not "his fundamental position" on anything. If someone said, "British colonial settlers should never have massacred all those Indians" would you say that their fundamental position is that America should never have existed in the first place? My point is we should have this section basically summarize his views on Israel in a dispassionate manner. There is no reason to make it incendiary by either distorting his views or prioritizing the views a particular editor feels are most embarrassing.--csloat 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It not "unevidenced" see here: [1]. The other point you made that "Cole has consistently defended Israeli academics' academic freedom for several years..." is also dubious and only tells half the story. I read his piece re: the boycott and his argument was that because he thought the Israeli academics agreed with him, they shouldn't be boycotted. Hardly a principled, ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") defense of "academic freedom". So much for Voltaire (or Hall actually). Armon 00:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your so-called "evidence" demonstrates my point -- Cole expresses a view about what Britain should have done but nevertheless "cheers" what they did in regard to the Jews. He nowhere says that his "fundamental position" is that Israel never should have existed in the first place. The claim you make from this obscure book review is a complete distortion of the "evidence."

On the second point, please indicate where Cole says that he will only defend those academics who agree with him. I have not seen such a quote but I stand ready to be corrected. There doesn't seem to be anything "dubious" or "half-truthy" about that issue.--csloat 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW re: point 1. Even an "obscure" book review is a better source than a blog. You can call my reading of the text a "distortion" until you're blue but it isn't an argument, just an accusation. You need to stop wasting everyone time with this. Armon 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you have conceded point (2) above. As for point (1), my argument was not that it was an obscure book review, my argument was that the evidence from that obscure book review actually supports my point. Again, the evidence from the text indicates Cole "cheers" the creation of Israel but suggests that Britain should have done something different. Again, he nowhere calls anything there his "fundamental position." You are the one making accusations, Armon, of Cole -- you haven't offered a single quote or other piece of evidence to support your absolutely bizarre accusation that Cole's fundamental position is that Israel should not exist. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but your claims strain credulity.--csloat 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your reading comprehension needs work. I addressed point 2 to CSTAR immediately below. Re: point 1. Cole didn't "cheer" the creation of Israel, he "cheered" the Brits helping the Jews escape genocide -even though in Cole's opinion, they did it the wrong way.

"While one certainly cheers the British for giving refuge in Palestine to Jews fleeing Hitler, it would have been nobler yet to admit them to the British Isles rather than saddling a small, poor peasant country with 500,000 immigrants hungry to make the place their own. Nor was it a good idea, having created such a situation, to simply leave and let the two populations fight it out"

As for finding a "fundamental position" quote -of course you won't find it. It was my shorthand for Cole's opinion that Israel was a flawed creation, and ideally, shouldn't have existed in the first place. This is the kind of specious "misunderstandings" you need to stop doing -they're not "arguments", they're dishonest tactics. Armon 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No; your reading comprehension needs work. Please indicate where in the quote Cole says that Israel should never have existed in the first place. Now please indicate where that is his "fundamental position." Now please remind me of your response to my response to this quote -- if someone says that the American colonists should never have killed all those indians, or says slavery was a mistake, does that mean their fundamental position is that America should not exist? I didn't think so.--csloat 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PS please read WP:AGF before making claims that I am engaged in "dishonest tactics." That is a slur and a personal attack for which there is no evidence.--csloat 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of you intransigence is perfectly illustrated in this little exchange. The quote is there in plain English for anyone to read, and your specious objections that it was from "an obscure book review", and the astonishing claim that it meant that "Cole "cheers" the creation of Israel" only compounds your willful blindness in the face of the evidence. That, and a response which is composed of the inane repetition of "show me the evidence" when I just did, as well as an irrelevant rhetorical question you helpfully answer yourself, means you need a brush-up on WP:AGF yourself -and while you're at it "Don't be dense". The only other explanation for your behaviour is Hanlon's Razor, and I'm not sure you'd view that as an improvement.
Oh, and be sure to complain about me being "unfair" to anybody who'll listen because I didn't let you "win" an argument you never made, and demanding that you show a little intellectual integrity and critical thinking. Armon 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon please stop insulting me. Please read over WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before replying again as I will not continue to argue with you if you insist on berating and mocking me every time you post. I have not been "intransigent"; I have simply pointed out that your interpretation of the Cole quote is incorrect and that the article does not support your position that his "fundamental position" is against the state of Israel's existence. I did not object that it was from an "obscure book review"; I objected that you misread that obscure book review. What you (uncivilly call "willful blindness" is just a literal interpretation. Again, the point I made was that complaining about the way Britain acted fifty years ago is no more a statement of a fundamental position against Israel than me complaining about how the Indians were treated in America 250 years ago would be a statement of a fundamental position against America's existence. Face it, Armon, your argument is flawed, and insulting me will not hide that fact. Of course you are entitled to believe what you will about Cole's "fundamental position," but you have not supported that belief with any evidence.--csloat 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Although Armon made his statement in a way that was not very nice, I think he is right, you have continually asked for evidence of claims that you disagree with despite there being enough sources, when you are confronted about this you dismiss the references as inadmissable. Furthermore I find it strange that you would get so offended when you have dismissed every request other people have made for you to be more civil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Armon is wrong. I have not dismissed his references as "inadmissable"; I have pointed out that his reference does not say what he claims to think it says. Second, I am not offended; I am just annoyed. Third, I have not dismissed requests to be more civil. When I lost my cool I publicly apologized (several times in fact). Even when I believed I was correct in my statements, I struck them out when asked to by another user who felt they were uncivil. I have tried very hard to maintain civility in the face of increasing frustration, and I shall continue to do so. But it is very disconcerting to see my words so completely misinterpreted. You are accusing me of saying things I never said. And Armon, even worse, has called me dense, intransigent, and a liar. All because I disagree with his interpretation of an essay.--csloat 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Armon Let's seewhat Cole actually says which you interpret as the following assertion B: he thought the Israeli academics agreed with him, they shouldn't be boycotted. Now you may legitimately argue in a blog or in a polemical piece that that this is indeed how his statement should be interpreted. But the relevant text you are alluding to (I believe -- please tell me if it's not) is the following call it assertion A:

Israeli academics tend to be left of center, and finding one who expresses something other than deep distaste for Sharon is no easy task. It seems especially inappropriate to punish academics for the actions of a government they largely oppose. Many Israeli academics have been involved in the peace movement, which, although badly damaged by the suicide bombings, struggles on.

The text says one thing ; you say something different. If we are to write a scholarly piece and not a polemic, then you have quite a bit of arguing to do to get from A to B.--CSTAR 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK and where does he say something like "It doesn't matter if some the academics are Likudniks, they shouldn't be boycotted. They're as much a part of the dialog as the doves"? Also, when Cole reprinted his statement on his blog, he also helpfully included an "interesting" link to a pro-boycott critique of his piece -rather than refusing to link, and "tearing the guy a new one" like he did with Hitchens. If you want to write that Cole was against the boycott of left-wing Israeli academics, fine. If you want to imply he supported real academic freedom and was against punishing Israeli academics period -that's spin. What you're calling "intepretation" is simply a close reading of what he argued. Armon 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Karsh, specifically, the bit about seeing the Jews as colonialists rather than as a people with ties to the land rings true to many as a valid crit of Cole's view. I feel strongly that that should stay in. I don't think it is particularly attacking. In addition, Cole's crits of the lobby, the likkudniks, etc are cogently addressed by Karsh. Cole has made a great focus of the lobby, etc, recently with his remarks and his petition, etc, and I would also strongly suggest that we keep this Karsh quote. I believe those are the two main karsh quotes in the article--are there others you objected to? Re: Andrew Sullivan---I did shorten it considerably, but am willing to take it out if others agree. I would really like to hear from Isarig on this since he was the other major author of the section and I'd hate to see an edit war re-erupt. Elizmr 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should delete this section and start over. Karsh quotes could be included if relevant, but as it stands, Karsh is basically dictating the entire view of Cole. I made two arguments above about this and you have responded to neither. I am just talking about the Israel section right now; we can deal with the other Karsh quotes elsewhere. If this is what Cole believes let us cite Cole on the issue before turning to Karsh's interpretation. Should we have the George W. Bush biography consist mostly of quotes from Michael Moore?--csloat 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox version is certainly better, in that the Views and Controversies sections not quite as verbose, and not quite as petty. But I still have the feeling that the page is trying to referee the quarrel between Cole and his detractors, even if the sandbox version tries not to jump into that quarrel. I concede that Cole has stirred the pot quite a bit and rather invites these run-ins, but it still doesn't look biographical to me. Not for an encyclopedia biography. A more reasonable encyclopedia biography would read more like Who's Who --- not necessarily that dry, but more in that direction. So why don't people try a separate controversies page in the sandbox? You could unload a great deal more of the main page there, without any implication of censorship. Greg Kuperberg 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I proposed starting with a stub + 1 section from the sandbox (modulo some changes).--CSTAR 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And hence why I agreed with CSTAR. •Jim62sch• 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section is clearly labeled "controversy". The intent is to separate the dry who's who stuff in the top section from comments about the controversies around Cole. I think Greg expresses it well above when he says that Cole has stirred the pot quite a bit--he has. When a public figure does something like this, he does it conciously knowing it will affect his public persona and how it is percieved. This is part of him and deserves to be on his page if we are going to provide a three dimensional portriat of the guy rather than a whitewash. Wikipedia is not who's who, if it were it would be irrelevant because Who's who already does a perfectly good job of being who's who. Elizmr 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right, plus, having Cole's obvious bias obscured, while peppering WP with quotes from his blog in numerous articles, is a way of implying his authority, without ever disclosing that Cole's claims are in fact, controversial. Armon 14:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of Cole's claims are not in fact controversial. The entire "controversy" section revolves around a couple of claims that are relatively minor in the grand scheme of his work. It is true that Cole often makes his points in a manner that is sometimes provocative, even abrasive, in order to get the goats of his critics. But the majority of his claims are the sort of thing that our anonymous friend commented on yesterday -- hardly controversial, and in fact authoritative.--csloat 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat: But see, unless you are a complete wacko who makes wild claims every day, the few controversial things that you have to say are inevitably going to get the most attention, especially if you refuse to back down and habitually goad your critics. At that point, whether the controversy truly is minor is part of the controversy. My question to you is whether you mind the solution that I drafted in the second sandbox. Greg Kuperberg 17:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and actually, the blog quotes on WP I referred to are pretty much exculsivly the "controversial" points. Me, I'm still thinking about the "split". Armon 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the page but not the controversies page. I am of the opinion that smaller is better there. I did not dispute that controversy brings attention; my point above is that the majority of Cole's claims are not "controversial" and that the controversy over other claims does not diminish the authoritative nature of the overwhelming majority of his claims.--csloat 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See the end of the "Controversies moved..." section for my reply. Greg Kuperberg 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section is way, way over the top as a biography of just about anyone in any encyclopedia. It is completely unreasonable, and frankly small-minded, to present some partisan rejoinders to political opinions from the past three years as the main description of a 54-year-old guy with a real career. How did it happen that Juan Cole's biography, even the sandbox version, got to be longer than that of Trent Lott? Is it because Trent Lott just isn't that controversial?

The controversies about Juan Cole should be mentioned in his biography page. There is a difference between mentioning and replaying controversies, which is what the page does. Some people here clearly care more about proving Juan Cole wrong than about describing him, since after chewing over 2,000 words about The Great Controversies, no one thought to even add his date of birth. If the controversies are that important, then fine, they should have their own page. They just don't work as a description of the man himself. --Greg Kuperberg 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Summaries of Cole's work

Commander Sloat and CSTAR, a few times you have suggested that we include some summaries of the topics of Cole's books or similar. Since this idea may have gotten lost in the shuffle, I thought I would ask if either of you, or anyone else, might be up for doing this. We could include between the Career section and the Views section, and it would be a nice segway. What do people think? Elizmr 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such summaries would be far more notable than quote after quote from Karsh. I'm not sure how it would be formatted -- an annotated bibliography might be a little much.--csloat 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some summary of his major areas of interests--Shia islam, bahai, the period in Egyptian history he's been esp interested in? Not sure. Elizmr 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone ignore this plea for some more Cole-relevant content in favor of arguing about what to take out????? Elizmr 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Armon 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is ignoring it, Elizmr; the problem is that there are more pressing issues on this page to deal with. Until those are settled, this functions as a distraction. But I do think it's a good idea; we should go with a much shorter article as suggested below, and then start building this section.--csloat 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On Tone and Passion

Hi! I don't have a dog in this fight. I popped by instead to see how the controversy was being handled. Although I see a number of good efforts, I'm very disappointed by the acrimonious tone from some people on both sides. My tip: if you are strongly arguing your point, you're probably making things worse. The goal is to seek consensus, not victory. Also, consider WP:TIGERS.

While I'm here, I'd like to suggest a possible route to compromise: go with less. Lots less. Just do a short, simple bio along the lines of some other publically active academic like David Suzuki or Spencer Wells. Note that Cole is a controversial figure because of his political views. Then let people use Google, read his material and that of his critics, and make up their own minds.

Thanks for listening. --William Pietri 05:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that'a a good suggestion. Basically a stub. ALthough a pure stub is going to be a hard sell. See my suggestion above.--CSTAR 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see those pages as stubs at all. What I'm suggesting is something complete but minimal. --William Pietri 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the majority of articles this miay be right, but there is a subdset of topics that most people feel emotional about. Cole has put himself in the middle of a controversy (or a few) and made some serious accusations, and the article on him simply cannot be bland. I will try to shorten the controversies section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the very emotional topics are the ones best kept to the small amount of information that everybody can agree on. If he's a controversial figure, say that he's a controversial figure. If everybody can agree on a description, describe the controversy in terms that everybody can agree on. And stop there.

I disagree with both the notion that most of Wikipedia is "bland", and that our passions on some topics excuse us from writing in a dispassionate, neutral way. It is exactly those passions that require us to be scrupulously dispassionate in the writing. Again, see WP:TIGERS. --William Pietri 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The other issue is that a "stub" version is a "censored" version. It's better to keep up a version nobody likes because it will force compromise and a better article in the sandbox. Armon 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually advocating a stub. Those other bios I link to are perfectly good biographies for publically active academics. I also strongly object to the use of the term "censored". I'm not saying you should hide anything. If you say that he's controversial and describe the controversy, nothing is hidden. From the quotes I've seen, all of the participants of the controversy seem to have their views well aired elsewhere on the internet. The people who want to know the details can get them straight from the POV sources themselves. --William Pietri 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you aren't advocating a "stub" or removal of the controversy, then you can ignore the "censored" comment. I take it back. The problem still remains that "describing the controversy" is what the arguments are about. Armon 16:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet that if you do it in two sentences, you can find something that everybody agrees on. --William Pietri 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't agree that two sentences could adequetly sum up Cole's controversies, I'm afraid you'd lose that bet. Armon 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If Humus Sapiens wants people to read the Hummus version of his views on Juan Cole then he should start his own blog and give his contra views on Juan Cole and list that as a link on the external sites. Hum[m]us's personal views have no place on Don Juan's WP's page, for goodness's sake. We, that have been greatly informed by reading "informed comment" and have had the veil lifted from our eyes by the quality and force of Professor Cole's arguments are not going to agree to a hatchet job here at WP. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can't be fought at the WP Juan Cole article nor the whole pretextual buildup of the Iraq war or the coming Iran War. There are other places for it. I can understand why Cole is the point man, b/c he tells the truth. There is no way out of this Article's connundrum except a stub page w/ external links or an internal link to a controversy page.--Will314159 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you mean well, Will, and I think your first sentence is a good one. But by using terms like "hatchet job" you are poisoning the discussion here. I am asking you and anybody else with an emotional reaction to Juan Cole to set that aside. If someone can't write with as cool a head about Juan Cole as they can about the 4th Earl of Sandwich, I think they should find one of Wikipedia's million other articles to work on. --William Pietri 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an insight William. i remembr going areound and around with somebody on a physics article and being courteous ad nauseum in the discussion. But once I jumbped in and made an edit, we quickly came to a consensus. This isn't happening here and can't b/c the article is blocked and frozen. There is an imbalance of editorial power. the editors that have frozen it have sat on the request to stub the article pending a resolution. Have to figure out how to appeal to a higher authority. That's part of the failings of WP. There's no clear chain of appeal spelled out. This matter surely is controversial enought that it will be in the papers in a few days. They sit on it at WP's detriment. Take Care!--Will314159 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Will. It saddens me when I take the time to write someone and they don't acknowledge or respond to what I wrote. Could we start with that and then move on to your new point? -- William Pietri 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright William I"ll spell it out for you so you won't have to read between the lines. The reason for the epithets, the tone, and the passion is the imbalance in power caused by not being able to jump in and re-edit the frozen article. compredre. Take Care!--Will314159 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In my book, what other people do is never an excuse for inappropriate behavior. An explanation perhaps, but never an excuse. As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I think your editing experience will go better if you take responsibility for your actions rather than blaming others.

Regardless, the sandbox version is open for editing. I haven't followed it closely for this page, but my general experience is that once the sandbox version is better, the old is replaced with the new. Perhaps you could replace epithets with editing? --William Pietri 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

e

Sad Failure of Wikipedia

With a nod to those who are trying in good faith to sort through this issue, Professor Cole's unfair treatment on the page devoted to him is illustrative of why Wikipedia is no longer considered a credible source of information on virtually any topic. I gave up trying to correct facts on various issues and now just actively warn students that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for research projects or even casual knowledge.

The 'much less' idea would be a great improvement -- along with the use of CONFIRMED FACTS. Why are a few ideological trolls allowed to abuse Wikipedia?

Why not give people five edits a year, and make them both a) decide what issues are most important to them to use those five on, and b) force them to argue the actual merits of their position?

Finally, 'freezing' the entry is ridiculous. If its factually incorrect (as this one is) TAKE IT DOWN until consensus can be reached through discussion. Freezing it with misinformation in place is a reward to the jerks creating this problem in the first place.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.129.42 (talk • contribs)

If you had bothered to scroll up this page you would know that the people that asked for the article to be "frozen" are the editors with a pro-Cole stance. Also this article's talk page is not the place for you to rant about the failures of wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And had you done the same, you'd note that your statement is incorrect. Go through the archive anbd note who initially proposed the idea of locking the page (an idea I then acted upon in requesting it be locked). Also, read my statements regarding Cole. The reason the page was locked is because it was out of control and put Wiki at risk for a lawsuit (it still does, so CSTAR's stub idea should be adopted).

This petty bickering and slinging about of baseless accusations is becoming tiresome. •Jim62sch• 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Jim -do you really think this article puts WP at risk for a lawsuit? OK, granted, Cole likes to lob legal threats around, but other than the ucited "Legion of Iran" medal thing from way back, (which was removed without debate) there is aboslutedly nothing in the article that is a) uncited or b) isn't attributed to his critics. There's no case. Armon 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, the man has a point. Freezing an "incendiary" article

is simply "not cricket." If the WP "gods" felt that a revert war was going on, then they should have reverted the article to a 1)pre-controversial state or 2) put up a stub prior to freezing. I urge you to do that for WP's sake before this abnomination gets in the media. Otherwise it is pure dereliction of duty. I direct this comment to you b/c you seem to the most responsive administator on this talk page. Tfime is of the essence. Justice delayed is Justice Denied. Take Care!--Will314159 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The current sandbox version is well sourced and neutral and would not put W. at risk for a lawsuit. Elizmr 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So were the "disputed versions". The lawsuit "threat" is bogus. Armon 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox version is not up yet. And I doubt that you will agree to my changes. Meanwhile, the incendiary present version you gentlemen concocted needs to be stubbed. Justice delayed is Justice Denied. Tick Tock. How many day now has the frozen article been up? Take Care!--Will314159 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer, it is a sad sad day when the WP community just won't do the right thing b/c it's the right thing to do for it's own sake. Keeping an incendiary article up just rewards the "firebugs" that put it up. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Take Care! --Will314159 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious Omission in Selected Bibliography

One of Professor Cole's most recent and widely circulated international articles is not cited in the "Selected Bibliography" or "External Links":

• All together against the occupation - Le Monde Diplomatique May, 2004 Echomarq 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Echomarq

And why is it curious Echomarq? 2004 recent? A recent scientific poll conducted by the coalition reported results that the majority of Iraqis wanted the occupation to end. Another poll conducted among U.S. troops revealed that they wanted to leave. Another poll showed that the majority of the U.S. population believes the Iraq war was a mistake. So what is the purpose or surprise factor of the "curious" remark? Are you surprised that Cole was ahead of the curve? Are you afraid he might get in the way of the coming Iran War? Take Care!--Will314159 12:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, you are clearly a new editor here and you are coming on a little strong which is totally understandable. Could you please refer to WP:AGF? This is a Wikipedia policy which is supposed to guide our behavior towards other editors. According to Wikipedia guidelines, if you see content missing you think is relevant, the correct approach is to add it yourself and make a note of this addition on the talk page. Attacking your fellow editors for the omission is not something that you are supposed to do here. Elizmr 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Feith Sandbox Edit

it would be easier if the sandbox discussion page was used. But then you would have to look for it. Here are the changes I made to that section. There is no question that Feith had dual loyalties. It comes from too many sources. The General Frank remark about him being the dumbes xxx on Earth is IN the Tommy Franks section. After all Feith fired the Iraki army, police, teachers.

"Feith was a member of the 1996 "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" commissioned by newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, a study group called to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel's strategy paper titled: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. " This paper included recommendations contra to U.S. official policy of a comprehensive Mid-East peace and the Oslo Accords to which the U.S. was a signatory."

When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State's Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." See Douglas Feith article. That taken directly from the WP article on Mr. Feith. Take Care!--Will314159 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You'd better clean up the Feith article then. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Armon 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon. Cole was not alone in his opinion of Mr. Feith. The Feith article is not locked up. If you don't agree with it. Don't be denied. Have at it. Take Care!--Will314159 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the point. I don't think that "incendiary" criticism should be removed. Armon 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

cross-examination is the engine of truth. in a locked frozen page there is no balance so incendiary falsehoods stay up. you point is well taken. In the feith page, it's all been aired out and the truth remains. he has dual loyalties and can't be trusted. It's the unrebutted frozen state of the page that is my complaint. my position, unfreeze it or stub it. Take Care!--Will314159 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wilkerson comment is important to show Cole is not alone in his evaluation of Feith and to show how reasonable it its in light of Feith's prior work for the Israeli government. In another case of Drive-by-editing, the quote was deleted from the sandbox. Yet we are asked to vote for a pig-in-a poke. sandbox that't be frozen again. That's why my vote is for a stub when you have surreptitious and secret editing. Take Care! --Will314159 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of Elders of Zi--Will314159 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)on Sandbox Edit

Deleted that entire reference. This is the guilt by association. Simply putting that phrase in there is incendiary. Even if it was to say Cole disagrees with the Protocols. just having it associated with his name is trying to smear him. Enough of the karsh stuff. karsh has already had one swipe at him earlier in the article. As an aside for those interested in history. Everybody knows the protocols were a Czarist forgery, but the Japanese thought they were for real and were favorably impressed. see Fugu Plan Take Care. --Will314159 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV. No, this is not to smear JC and "guilt by association" is false: it was JC who made some serious allegations and this is how they were qualified by EK, who is a reputable scholar. Let's keep Japan out of this please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about JC not EK. Let's leave the "Elders" out of the article as well as the Japanese. They just introduce confusion Take Care!--Will314159 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the article is about JC and as a reputable authority, EK is fully qualified to comment on JC's controversial views, even if this may "introduce confusion" for JC fans. WP is not a fansite. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with quoting EK when relevant, but there is something wrong with letting EK dictate all of this entry's basic assumptions about Cole. Again, would we fill the GWBush page with quotes from Michael Moore? There is nothing wrong with secondary sources but we should not turn to them either to bias an article (in this case, using it as a platform to smear the subject of a WP:BLP) or out of laziness.--csloat 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no dictate. Public figures should be held resposible for allegations they make. Given a choice between a serious academic and JC's fans, the choice is easy. See WP:NOR: find an opinion of some serious scholar on the matter, then let's talk. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just nonresponsive to anything I've said here. The issue is not whether we should include my original research. Might I remind you again that I haven't bothered to do any. Rather, the issue is whether the substance of Cole's biography should come from one of his harshest critics. Again, would we fill the GWBush page with quotes from Michael Moore?--csloat 23:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you are trying to stifle legitimate scholarly criticism. This is not "the substance of Cole's biography": we are talking about his views. Moore is no academic, so your comparison is invalid. See WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Moore is a documentary filmmaker. But as you are well aware his qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of the comparison. But let's play it your way. Substitute Noam Chomsky for Michael Moore. Do you understand the comparison now? Finally I must ask you again to stop accusing me of "stifling" or censoring anything -- I just don't have that power.--csloat 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See the dictionary: what you are trying to do here is stifle/censor/hide legitimate academic views that you dislike. Chomsky is a linguist, and that is not a relevant academic area. Try again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the meaning of the word "stifle," but thanks. It is getting frustrating that I am the one being called out on civility when responding to such rude comments as the above informing me that I can look up terms in the dictionary. As for Chomsky, you are well aware that he is a well-known critic of the Bush Administration. You are also engaging in a red herring; the question remains -- should we write the Bush page solely from the perspective of one of his most vehement critics? Nitpicking about Chomsky's or Moore's qualifications is just a way to avoid the argument.--csloat 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP is not a Cole fansite or hatesite for that matter. Humus should start his own blog and point to it as an external reference. There he can have all the "Elder" Karsh statements hosted he desires. It has no place in the WP general encyclopedia article. Just smacks of too much guilt by association and is unfairly prejudicial. Take Care!--Will314159 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're trolling. Please stop.--CSTAR 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is behavior not using logic and reason. Clearly there is an agenda here in trying to tar Cole with the Elders of Zion. the Ordinary reader is not going to jump thru all the logical hoops. But the trollish behavior is sticking the stuff back in the sandbox thru drive by editing without disclong it in the talk page. Ten demerits for unsportsmanlike behavior.Take Care! --Will314159 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective Karsh quotes

I also have a problem with selectively quoting Karsh's article Dear Diary. The Karsh reference to the protocol in the WP article seems to appear out of the blue in the criticism section. Here is a paragraph from the Karsh article which gives some context to Karsh's quote:

"Cole glibly claims, "[T]o any extent that contemporary Muslims have a problem with Jews, it is largely driven by what they see as injustices done by Zionists to the Palestinians." Such a historical analysis ignores a deep anti-Jewish bigotry that dates to Islam's earliest days and reflects the prophet Muhammad's outrage over the rejection of his religious message by the contemporary Jewish community. To his credit, Cole criticized the Egyptian government's 2002 decision to air a TV serial based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a virulent anti-Semitic tract fabricated by the Russian secret police at the turn of the twentieth century that alleges an organized Jewish conspiracy to achieve world domination. But the line of argument he uses repeats the same ahistorical belief that the Protocols are a recent alien import to Arab societies that "had no particular resonances in the Muslim world (outside a few radical Muslim cliques) until the past couple of decades."

In this polemical piece, Karsh is very critical of Cole, yes. But I think it is fair to say that his criticisms are more nuanced and reasoned than what is suggested by Karsh quotes currently in the WP article.--CSTAR 22:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that the quote begins "Cole may express offense at the Protocols ..."? It may not end as you desire but life's tough. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say why this issue is brought up in the first place. --CSTAR 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, encyclopedia should not mention what reputable academics think of his controversial views? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Do you mean, encyclopedia should not mention ... No, I don't mean that. What I mean is that in the same way that a scholarly article is supposed to preserve context of statements (including rejoinders,) encyclopedias should carefully include the context of any quote. The reference to Cole's denial appears as an offhanded remark in the cited paragraph in WP. In fact it's not clear how emphatic Cole's rejection of the Protocols of Elders of Zion actually, and is recognized as such by Karsh. However, as a rhetorical device Karsh says in the cited quote "Cole may express offense at the Protocols" which is modally weaker than the statement from the Karsh paragraph I quoted. Moreveror, the relevance of the Protocols is relatively minor compared to the point Karsh was trying to make about the origin of antisemitism in Islamic societies. Whether Karsh or Cole is right on this particular issue is another matter entirely. Nevertheless, it would be a legitimate and interesting point for the WP article to point to that debate (without taking sides).--CSTAR 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you propose a text reflecting this point? So far, no modality and no compromise was acceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean a text suitable for a wikipedia article? I don't think that would be too difficult. One needs to find the direct source forthe relevant Cole quote. What about this:

Some of Cole's explanations for the existence of antisemitism among contemporary Muslims are controversial. Cole has argued that "[T]o any extent that contemporary Muslims have a problem with Jews, it is largely driven by what they see as injustices done by Zionists to the Palestinians." One of Cole's critics Efraim Karsh, suggests that Cole's analysis "ignores a deep anti-Jewish bigotry that dates to Islam's earliest days and reflects the prophet Muhammad's outrage over the rejection of his religious message by the contemporary Jewish community."--CSTAR 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PS sourcing is needed and we need to be sure that this indeed accurately reflects Cole's position and is not a quote out of context.--CSTAR 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I thought we are discussing is On the "Israel lobby" and US foreign policy - that's the section the quote is from and that's what it's about. To substitute criticism of JC's allegations on this topic with propagandist "injustices done by Zionists to the Palestinians" is simply deceptive. See Damascus affair (1840) and more at Islam and anti-Semitism & Arabs and anti-Semitism - but that is another topic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's not a joke. Karsh may mix up what Cole said vis-a-vis one thing (antisemitism) in an argument about something else (Israeli lobby) as a rhetorical device in his piece. But an encyclopedia article shouldn't use the rhetorical device of a polemicist however qualified he/she may be. --CSTAR 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

JC alleged Zionist conspiracy controlling the superpower, and an authoritative comment on this is relevant and justified. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, no. JC never alleged any such thing to my knowledge. Where has he written of a "Zionist conspiracy"? Complaints about Doug Feith do not cut the mustard, sorry. It is a verifiable fact that there was an Israeli spy in his office and Feith's dual loyalty has been noted even by Larry Wilkerson. And, though his influence on the Iraq war was undue, nobdy, certainly not Cole, believes that Feith "controls" the superpower (I assume you mean the US).--csloat 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are just a couple after quick search:

• "Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a rightwing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction, for the benefit of the Likud Party, of Silvio Berlusconi's business in the Middle East, and of the Neoconservative Right in the United States. It isn't about spying. It is about conspiring to conscript the US government on behalf of a foreign power or powers." posted by Juan @ 8/29/2004 06:38:11 AM
• "No American media will report the demonstrations in Israel as fascist in nature, and no American politicians will dare criticize the Likud. But the fact is that the Israeli predations in the West Bank and Gaza are a key source of rage in the Muslim world against the United States (which toadies unbearably to whatever garbage comes out of Tel Aviv's political establishment), something that the 9/11 commission report stupidly denies." posted by Juan @ 7/26/2004 07:08:33

Would a reputable academic write something like that? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course one would; you have just established that one did. Now, that doesn't mean the statements are not problematic, but they do not allege a "Zionist conspiracy" (Zionist does not mean "rightwing" or "warmongering" or "the product of a confluence of interests between Berlusconi and Likud"). And the term "conspiracy" here is not left-wing paranoia; it seems to be an accurate use of the term in context (read up on Larry Franklin if you like). Who is to say that "reputable academics" are not sometimes given to hyperbole or strong language? The second quote you put in, I'm not sure about the fascism claim, but the rest of it is not inaccurate. Israeli predations are a source of Muslim rage, and the American political establishment does meticulously avoid criticizing Israel for various political reasons. I realize Cole's language is strong here and I don't agree with everything here, but I don't think there is anything unusual or wrong about reputable academics making strong political statements like this in non-academic forums.--csloat 02:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Well at least no one can accuse your logic of not being perfectly circular. Reminds me of arguments with theists "The Bible is the word of God!" "Really, why?" "Because it says so right on page 867." Yes, I'm mocking him, and yes, I'll cut it out. Armon 03:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? You alleged those quotes refer to a Zionist conspiracy on the order of the Protocols. I offered evidence from the quotes themselves proving that they refer to no such thing. Then you mock me for self-referential hermeneutics? You were the one waving the quotes around to begin with; all I did was read them. I even pointed out twice in that paragraph that I didn't agree with the statements. Or perhaps you are referring to my statement regarding "reputable academics"? Again, who is to say that "reputable academics" cannot indulge in strong language in non-academic forums? Many of them (such as Karsh for example) certainly do, and nobody has ever established a correlation between a person's tendency to mouth off occasionally and their ability to consistently produce publishable academic work. (In fact, in my experience, I have often observed the opposite!) So there was nothing circular about that argument either. In fact, the logical fallacy is your incipient argument that Cole is not a serious academic because he made the above statements -- the point is a non sequitur.--csloat 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be a good time for both of you to reflect on how irritation and rudeness contribute to a vicious circle. And what role you are both playing in keeping this page locked. I'm sure you're both feeling it's not your fault, and given the posioned atmosphere here, you could well be right. But fault or not, you are the ones with the power to fix the problem. --William Pietri 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, please no snark.

Let's see if I can understand Humus' "argument": (Theorem proof style which I like)

Thesis Cole is not a serious academic.

Proof. Cole said A. Now use the auxiliary hypothesis "a serious academic would not say A" Therefore Cole is not a serious academic. QED

Well of course, you need to prove the auxiliary hypothesis, which of course is where the crux of the argument lies. Without it you're just left with a piece of worthless rhetoric.

Sloat's argument is as follows

Thesis There is a serious academic that says A .

Proof. Cole said A. Now use the auxiliary hypothesis "Cole is a serious academic". Since we have produced an instance, the existential claim is proved. QED

Yes, they're both equally incomplete.--CSTAR 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the joke is on us. an article purportedly on Cole becomes a Karsh article. why not start a WP article Karsh's analysis of Cole? Take Care!--Will314159 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversies moved to separate page

I have just changed the sandbox version to show how I think things should be arranged. I have absolutely nothing against the discussion written by Elizm et al if it is on the separate "Controversies" page. In fact, I would be happy to see even more discussion there. I reduced the two sections in Cole's biography to a length that makes sense for a biography of someone of Juan Cole's prominence. After all, the man is just one of many pundits and news media commentators; he is not Golda Meir. Greg Kuperberg 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that someone here doesn't even want to see my proposal in the sandbox before first deciding whether or not the split is a good idea. Isn't the sandbox supposed to be for showing proposals? Greg Kuperberg 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:POVFORK. Content forking is not a good solution. I do agree that this article should be reduced in length because Juan Cole does not really warrant this much coverage. So far, however, efforts at removing content have met with some resistance. -- bcasterline • talk 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What Kuperberg is proposing is not content forking. An example of content forking would be for example (as was in fact the case for a while) two articles on Bell's theorem one with the "standard" interpretation and another with a minority POV interpretation. An analog hee would be a Cole article written by Cole "supporters" and another by Cole "opponents". --CSTAR 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he actually advocating. Armon 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reply. I had meant to say that what Kuperberg was advocating was not content forking and gave examples of what would be content forking to illustrate the difference. I wasn't clear enough.--CSTAR 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I get it now. I understand you weren't calling it a content fork. What I was commenting on was "a Cole article written by Cole "supporters" and another by Cole "opponents". I didn't read it properly. I thought the "analog" was referring to what Greg did, not the Bell's theorem articles. Sorry. Armon 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't a nefarious "content fork". It's a perfectly valid "article spinout". I quote from the article that you wanted me to read:

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material.

I did my best to provide an NPOV summary of the material that I forked. The plain truth is that the views and constroversies sections are too long, and should be forked. People want to discuss the controversies, which is fine, but it is not a biography. Greg Kuperberg 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you of POV pushing, and I'm sorry I left that impression. Content forking, regardless of bias (or lack thereof), is not a desirable solution. This article is not so long that it requires a spinoff, and it should never get to that point. -- bcasterline • talk 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, as I said, I tried. I did my best not to just to criticize, but to illustrate the rearrangment that I think should take place. I made a separate page for Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole, which I think could be taken as a perfectly valid content spinoff. And I made a version [2] in the sandbox --- not in the real article, which is locked, but just in a sandbox --- with my best attempt at an NPOV summary of the longer article. It didn't last 10 minutes. I tried to rv, but that only lasted 5 minutes. So I'm done with that. I still think that it is the right approach, but I suppose that we would need more than one sandbox to have a draft of this proposal.

bcasterline: I don't see how on the one hand you can say that the article is too long and should be shortened, and on the other hand that it isn't too long and shouldn't have a spinoff. Greg Kuperberg 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also want to be clear Greg, I also don't think you were POV pushing or anything else, I just think that we need to reach a consensus first. Before the article was locked, there were all sorts of "reformats" which just confused the issues of content. Let's work those out first, then see if there's a case to fork. Armon 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long in that more is said about him than is appropriate given his public prominence -- although the sandbox version is definitely an improvement over the current article. This is not solved by a spinoff, which in fact encourages the addition of still more marginal content. Spinoffs are for extremely lengthy articles, such as Evolution or George W. Bush. Juan Cole is just not the same. -- bcasterline • talk 16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to be so conservative as all that about spin offs. I'm sure that there are other examples of articles that did create spinoffs at this length, even if they didn't strictly have to have spinoffs yet. I understand your position: You just don't want to see any lengthy discussion in Wikipedia at all about Juan Cole's disputes with Daniel Pipes et al. You could make a case for that, but in order for the biography of Cole to be fair, you would have to actually prevail. If spinning off the long views and controversy sections really is intolerable, then I just hope that you actually do win the argument in the end and that the biography Cole is eventually again shorter than that of Golda Meir. Greg Kuperberg 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's reach a consensus, with sandboxes rather than without them. Since people were asking for another sandbox anyway for other reasons, here is a second sandbox, which has been initialized to the forked version that I had in mind. I did put in my attempt at an NPOV summary of the longer article. Greg Kuperberg 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat: It's understandable that you would not be satisfied with the "Controversies..." page, since I just lifted it verbatim from the Sandbox page. I didn't want to change that content because I don't have a dog in that fight. But since you say that you like the second sandbox page that I made, could you accept it as an improvement and a compromise? After all, Wikipedia will never be perfect; it improves incrementally. Let's accept the controversies concerning Juan Cole's views and expertise as a valid topic that some people want to document in Wikipedia. Who knows what the "Controversies..." page might one day become. It may shrink if people decide that it isn't important, or it may grow or generalize to something else if people decide that it is important. Greg Kuperberg 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely prefer your sandbox page. I would just eliminate the "Controversies" page altogether and make a slightly longer summary of them on the main page.--csloat 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you like my sandbox page, then great. Nobody has voiced strong opposition to splitting off a "Controversies..." page except for bcasterline. I tried to address his objections and got at least some support from CSTAR. Unless someone else voices strong objections soon, I think that the Wikipedia editors should choose the second sandbox page as the replacement and unlock the biography page for Cole. Because neither the page itself nor the fact that it is locked makes Wikipedia look good at all.

As for your comment about eliminating the "Controversies" page altogether, I don't agree. That is to say, I don't agree or disagree at this time, and I'm not sure that I ever will. I see the case for both sides. I think that the mature path is to accept compromise: Move the entire controversy about Juan Cole to a page specifically devoted to it. Can someone tell me the right way to get the attention of admins? Greg Kuperberg 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us here are admins.

In principle, I do not necessarily object to separation of the bio and the views, but the intro in this particular bio does not make it clear that he is a controversial figure. I would change that and add more refs - right now it's only his home page and his blog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the references were chopped as an accident of my editing; the second sandbox page now has 9 generated references in addition to 2 external links. As for the intro, I added a sentence. Is all of this what you wanted? Greg Kuperberg 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Frozen Article Makes BlogoSphere

Nero ludum flutum tempus fugit quam Roamnum incendiaurm. pardon my Latin. http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/wikipedia-article-hijacked-i-fear-i.html#comments Take Care!--Will314159 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indymedia http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1824591.php Take Care! --Will314159 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.guerraeterna.com/archives/2006/05/juan_cole_en_wi.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwikipedia%2Bjuan%2Bcole%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DG translated from the spanish-google "The entrance of Juan Cole in Wikipedia has been blocked. Cole is professor of History of the Middle East in the University of Michigan and author of blog on the Middle East Informed Comment. Certain North American right hates to Cole by its critics to the war of Iraq and the policy of the Israeli Governments. As they do not like their opinions, they have turned the entrance a succession very detailed of all the critics that has received with which they have turned it a slanted article species of opinion.

After successive reediciones, the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere.

An encyclopedia, done by experts or volunteers, in paper or Internet, is not a listing of attacks and accusations, including with the intention to discredit to anybody. In the case of Cole, one is to make see that their critics to Israel hide their anti-semitism, something that he has denied in numerous occasions.

The solution is not in which those in favor of Cole flood the entrance with favorable commentaries. In fact, or it has been arrived at the absurd one from which that entrance on Cole is the more long who many others that turns on subjects or important people the more that a university professor.

Wikipedia has blocked the entrance (the habitual procedure in these cases), but the problem is that now it has been congealed in a version that could be called “everything what the enemies of Juan Cole say of him”. " Take Care! --Will314159 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love google translate. This line is hysterical: "the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere."--csloat 09:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

a little levity

this is just hilarious. And no, I don't endorse this blog in any way, but it is pretty damn funny :)--csloat 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll bet it's only a matter of time before Hitchens' Slate article gets the same

treatment ;) Armon 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a Vietnam combat vet that served when I was 19, and having brothers and sisters serving in a trumped up war in Iraq, and having people trying to engineer another trumped up war against Iran, I for one appreciate the work that Juan does trying to spread peace and understanding among people and don't laugh with those that make jokes at his efforts. Sorry don't mean to offend, but that is the way I feel Take Care!--Will314159 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Towards unprotection

Perhaps it is time to consider some options that have been suggested above:

• Go with Greg's Sandbox #2 for now with its separate "controversies" page
• Go with the Sandbox #2 page without a separate controversies page (and a slightly longer summary of the controversies)
• Go with a stub and start over
• Go with the current sandbox

I think we should vote on these options and if there is anything nearing a consensus on one of these options, we can move it to the main page. I think we should re-protect the page after that point and continue to make changes in the sandbox until things start to gel; at that point we can unprotect and edit on the actual article. Any of the above options are preferable to me than the current protected state of the page.--csloat 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I would like to request approval voting. Greg Kuperberg 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's number them:

1. Unblock and replace with Kuperberg's version Juan Cole/sandbox/1 with its separate "controversies" page
2. Unblock and replace with Kuperberg's version Juan Cole/sandbox/1 without a separate "controversies" page (and a slightly longer summary of the controversies)
3. Unblock, replace with a stub (intro paragraph as it is currently)
4. Unblock and replace with Juan Cole/sandbox

--CSTAR 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is a fair description of the alternatives, then please CSLOAT or Kuperberg start a new section with a poll. Note that polls in WP are nonbinding meaning that WP policy may invalidate any conclusion. I don't mean this as a threat just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a democracy.--CSTAR 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK here is my vote in order of preference 3 stub immediately and look at others more closely later. Take Care!--Will314159 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would go with "unblock and replace with Juan Cole/sandbox". - I vote now for #1, it makes for a cleaner article. --Ben Houston 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please rank your preferences here

I retract my suggestion for approval voting. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, we are putting our chips on the table rather than taking a vote. So we should each list our preferences in order. I like the options in the order that they have been listed. 1 is better than 2, which is better than 3, which is better than 4. Greg Kuperberg 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it you mean 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 (in which of course "a > b" is shorthand for "Option_a is preferable to Option_b"). Could you please put this below?--CSTAR 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a situation where the sandbox's are not stable. I have taken out the pernicious irrelevant guilt by association "Elders of Zion" Karsh quote and Humus stuck it back in w/o consensus even though he was outvoted 2 to 1. So what version becomes the article page and gets frozen back in? luck of the draw. whoever does the last edit? When you have people with such an agenda, that's why a stub is the only solution at this time. That's why I have to stay with the stub vote, otherwise I have no clue what it put up because of the stability problem. Take Care!--Will314159 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox1 page is protected until we can get this resolved. --CSTAR 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please write this in a form a > b > c > d? Thanks. --CSTAR 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless it was a grammatical or spelling edit, I have made a discussion note on every single edit I have made, but unfortuaaetly I see there have been a lot of drive by edits here. Take Care!--Will314159 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 (since "canonical form" was requested.) -- Greg Kuperberg 22:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 .--CSTAR 03:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• 2 > 1 > 3 > 4 --csloat 06:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• 2 > 1 > 3 > 4. The sandbox/1 version is much, much better. Bravo! I'd like even better to use it with less material on the controversy rather than more. E.g., cut it to "Cole's strong political views, including staunch criticism of US and Israeli policy in the Middle East, have attracted lively controversy. He has been challenged on many points by critics such as Efraim Karsh, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer, and he has responded with a variety of spirited rebuttals." My hope is that would reduce the temptation to endlessly "balance" things by expanding the section. --William Pietri 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• 1 > 2 > 3 > 4. I like the idea of a standard bio article with a spinout of the "controversies" and/or blog opinions. Cole's career as an academic is noteworthy and I suspect uncontroversial. As a blogger, he's much more controversial. Splitting the two would be good for both articles.TheronJ 15:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the current participants here are avid Cole's supporters, but that is not a problem. The problem is that many of them seem to be unable to compromise and disassociate their feelings/convictions from their contributions. Look at this page and the archive: one uncompromising soapboxer after another. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. I don't think this is a productive line of argument. Certainly, those of us insisting on accurate portrayal and of the following of policies spelled out in WP:BLP should not necessarily be considered "avid Cole's [sic] supporters."--csloat 10:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not saying there hasn't been any dogmaticism from Cole's detractors as well, but it is clear most of the recent newcomers to this talk page have come with an agenda to remove anything negative about Cole from this article. So I would say a vote would not necessarily be the right solution, since the "winner" would just be the one who can better mobilize others who agree with them. I would just say stick to the verifiable and relevant references, which in my view would include Efraim Karsh.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So we should avoid seeking consensus and instead follow whatever guidelines are considered reasonable by Mr. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg? No offense, but no, thanks; I prefer the consensus idea. I also don't like the implications of deciding that certain people are "newcomers" (how many edits until one becomes an old-timer?), and I think the standard of "the one who can better mobilize others who agree with them" is not unreasonable (that would logically be the person with the most persuasive arguments on his/her side, no?). Again, I think we should be paying attention to WP:BLP here.--csloat 10:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Be cafeful what you wish for re: persuasive arguments, and start making your case based on the evidence, instead of what you think it says. Armon 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been doing Armon. Actually it is you who has been focused on what you think something says instead of focusing on the evidence (e.g. your assertions regarding Cole's support for Israeli academics). But thanks for the advice anyway.--csloat 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon and Commodore Slote, Are you two really assuming good faith here? if so, it seems like there are more constructive responses to suspicions of error than accusations, veiled and unveiled. --William Pietri 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

William, after csloat's umpteenth contradiction by rote, it's extremely difficult to pass it off as mere "error". When everyone starts applying a bit of Critical thinking to the various issues, then maybe we'll start making some headway in actually fixing the article. Armon 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What contradiction "by rote" are you talking about? I agree with William, there is really no point to these personal attacks. Armon, I am sorry you don't like me. My only interest here is in improving this article. You still seem fixated on turning it into a smear piece. Until you have read WP:BLP and can agree that a smear piece is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, it is difficult to see how we can move forward on this article. I have never advocated deleting all criticism of Cole as you suggest over and over. But this article should fairly represent Cole. Focusing entirely on criticism -- especialy when all that criticism focuses entirely on less than 5% of the man's intellectual output -- is not what Wikipedia should be doing.--csloat 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I'm not saying that we should not edit by consensus, I'm saying we should not edit by majority, since that would merely encourage people to attempt to mobilize others with similar views. Also when I said newcomer I meant to new to this article which obviously includes me. I find it silly that you accused me of suggesting newcomer's opinions are inherantly less valid since I clearly did not say or even insinuate anything close. Please do not misrepresent so grossly what others write.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding, but let me get this straight. You were accusing yourself of having "come with an agenda to remove anything negative about Cole from this article"?--csloat 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not since I clearly said most newcomers. I guess your particular method of arguing is to be a dick and pretend not to understand what the other person is saying.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Two questions. first, were I looking to call you by something shorter, which part of your name should I use? Second, I'm not seeing the benefit in that kind of tone. Could you help me understand what you're trying to accomplish in talking to him like that? --William Pietri 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was acting out of frustration, given the circumstances I believe it was quite understandable if not justified. Instead of addressing anything I had to say Csloat chose to flippantly "misunderstand" me. My arguments were quite clear but he chose to adopt a condenscending and disrespectful tone. And most people refer to me as Moshe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record there was nothing flip about my misunderstanding; I thought perhaps that Moshe had forgotten what he himself had written about "newcomers." I was never trying to be a "dick" but his claim that he was not including himself in the list of newcomers even though he had acknowledged that he was a newcomer was not "obviously" clear to me. It appeared in Moshe's original post that he was blaming "newcomers" for coming to this page with an "agenda" of removing criticism. That's all I was reacting to there.-csloat 02:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Moshe. I agree that the frustration people on both sides feel here is completely understandable. However, I'm asking people to avoid letting that leak into their behavior, and hopefully to apologize when it does. Expressed irritation, especially in the difficult medium of text, can trigger positive feedback loops, where everybody gets more and more irritated. But politeness and generosity can also promote politeness and generosity, something I think we'd all welcome here. Somebody just has to go first. (And perhaps second, too.) Thanks, --William Pietri 06:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote status-quo. edit: changing my vote -see below If the article must be replaced, then 4, the current sandbox version as I write this (it's not protected). All the other options are in effect, gate-keeping, and an attempt to force re-litigation of everything Cole's fans want out. Option 1, Juan Cole/sandbox/1 with its separate "controversies" page, is the least egregious "gate-keeping" version, but splitting the "controversies page" would come under an immediate WP:AFD and then we'd be right back to square one. What I suggest we do is stop messing around, work on the sandbox, take it section-by-section (while protecting the rest of it if need be) and upload the version we get some kind of consensus on. Armon 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a little clarification regarding the above comment "Vote status-quo. If the article must be replaced," Would that be to also leave it in protected frozen mode or free for editing by others that do not share your point of view? Edit. If not then you must have a very special protected POV. Take Care?--Will314159 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Status quo" means "status quo" -there's no point in unprotecting it at the moment. Whether other editors do or don't share my POV is irrelevant -it's up to everyone to make their case. It was protected to avoid sterile edit wars, which frankly, you seem too eager to resume. The version that does get consensus in the end, is unlikely to be either Cole's fans or detractors preferred version. That's exactly as it should be. Armon 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view sounds like an ownership view of the article. Leave it up like it is. And leave it up so no one can edit it. I thought WP was for everybody. Why don't you start your own blog where you can excercise absolute dominion & control and not be bothered with other peoples' POV's?--Will314159 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Will, I know you mean well, but I believe you have misread Armon here. I don't think he's saying any such thing. And even if you were right, I believe the tone you take indicates you are not Assuming good faith. Please keep the discussion amicable. --William Pietri 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that in another case of unsportsmanllike drive-by-editing in that the Col. Wilkerson evaluation of Feith's dual loyalties quote was removed. I had inserted it and disclosed it in the talk section. It was removed surreptiously w/o talk. the importance of the quote shows that you don't have to be a college "Arabist" professor to have an unsavory opinion of Feith. Again, that's why I would not vote for anything except a stub when there are idealogues at work willling to do anything to unfalirly tar Cole. Yes, I am using prejudicial terms. I've played by the rules. I've made many constructive edits and disclosed all of them, some of them have stuck, some of them have been modified, some by drive by editing and have run into frankly not unexpected unsportsmanlike behavior seeing that this is a proxy Israeli-Arab dispute. Those that criticize Israelis settlements, occupation, repression of Palestinians are tarred as anti-Semites. Take Care! --Will314159 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the topic of this section, which is preference ranking? I've read it twice without seeing how it would related. If it's a different topic, please add it in a new section. Thanks. --William Pietri 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

William, I don't mind spelling it out for you if you can't read between the lines. 1)you have to know what you are voting for. 2) if thre is drive-by-editing without people talking or documenting changes and 3) there is not an opportunity to talk or inspect the versions prior to the vote then you are voting for a pig-in-a-poke and your vote is meaningless. Take Care!--Will314159 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I resent the repeated implication that my reading skills are deficient. What are you hoping to accomplish talking like that? Regardless, my point is that this discussion is hard to manage and follow; I believe it would be clearer if you put your new topics in new sections. Thanks, --William Pietri 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, unless it's a stub, please don't remove the puny NPOV warning. Please make it as large as the one one Feith's article. Take Care!--Will314159 10:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to cast a vote for the following reasons:

• voting or discussion is a farce. Juan Cole is aware of this page and on his blog has said that idealogs have arranged for the page to be locked in an attack version, as if there is some conspiracy against him going on. (note, that this statement is false---noone editing here is an idealog and even if they were cole critics had nothing to do with locking the page or the version that was chosen as the locked version. Cole did not check his facts before taking this statement at face value, however, and self-publishing it on his blog). Cole has asked his fans to come to the page and edit here. One of his fans there suggested he contact Jimbo Wales and threaten a lawsuit because this was the most effective way to fix things permanently. Jimbo Wales has posted on this page, so the page is clearly on his radar screen for some reason. JC will not likely tolerate any criticism of himself to be on the page, even well sourced relevant third party analysis of Cole which is allowable by Wikipedia policy WP:BLP.
• Jimbo Wales has suggested I recuse myself. I find this ironic. Where was Jimbo when I was editing another biased attack page with some editors who are active on this page???? In that instance the complaint I was hearing was "not enough attacks"!!! That page is still mostly controversy. In fact, even though most of the page consists of criticism, someone recently complained that there wasn't clear enough criticism in the lead paragraph. Elizmr 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo asked you to recuse yourself if you were "unwilling to invest time finding responses to critiques". And please don't carry over disputes from the MEMRI article to this article. I think the atmosphere here is problematic enough. -- bcasterline • talk 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote "if" and I suspect that the guy's too busy to have gone through the minutia of the debate here. Cole's responses have been included. On the specific "antisemitism" charge, his response has been to a) not ennoble it with a response and b) accuse his critics of acting in "bad faith" in an attempt to stifle debate on US and Israeli policies. This has always been included. Now I accept that there may have been other responses that may have been missed. As far as I've found, and I have actually looked, that's what they are. If pro-Cole editors have evidence that myself or anyone else has missed, let's see it. You'll get no argument from me -and I've repeatedly made this point. The issue is that some editors demand that the controversy be swept under the rug. I don't agree. Armon 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, I have made a case based on WP guidelines against critiques based on guilt by association for biographies of living persons. None of the karsh quote supporters has yet responded to that to argue what merits its inclusion. Simply put, the word "antisemitism" as an epithet about Cole should not appear in this article

• Changed vote to option 1: Sandbox w/controversies page. Withdrawing opposition to replacement of protected page. Let's put that up as the protected public version so we can get on with it. Armon 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What's "consensus?"

I have been told that Wikipedia functions by consensus rather than democracy. That makes a lot of sense to me. But what exactly is "consensus"? What happens in practice if some of the interested editors seem to be incapable of compromise? Greg Kuperberg 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point we don't have much choice but to count and act accordingly. That WP is not a democracy means that if someone objects there are WP bureacratic processes that can be used.--CSTAR 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is aware of this page, ask for his input. Also, post messages on the talk pages of the previous editors of this page and have them join in the dsicussion. --Ben Houston 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Greg Kuperberg 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While awaiting direction, in the interests of fairness, justice, and the Wiki way, let's put up a stub. A stub is the ultimate neutral POV. The present page just rewards those editors of the POV that tarred the Prof an anti-semite and then got the article frozen before that POV could be balanced. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Take Care!--Will314159 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking might just lead to a wheel war. It's widely recognized this article is bad and any damage to wikipedia's reputation (if any damage is done or any reputation existed) has already occurrred.--CSTAR 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub it and then block the stub. The damage is a continuing damage as new readers come to the site. In fact each day the damage progresses. It's just a matter of time until a national or international media picks up the news. Like they did the Cuba article. I can see the bylline. "NeoKon Likudniks hijack Juan Cole WP article and get it locked against balancing edits. Tar him as anti-semite b/c of his forceful and effective criticism of repressive Israeli occupation of Palestinians and American heavy handed Iraq occupation. They are also concerned about his moderating stance toward the Iran war stampede." Take Care!--Will314159 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other admin may unstub it in turn and block it. No thanks.--CSTAR 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, they're going to do that after Mr. Jimbo Wales has made an appearnce on the page! Take Care!--Will314159 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus to understand what consensus means on Wikipedia. jaco♫plane 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg you are looking at it all wrong. The Protected Stub is the default option in case of no cosensus. the Hell with Prof. Cole. What's at stake here is the credibillity of WP. What you do when you can't agree on a version is Stub it and protect the stub while you work something out. Are you the man in charge? if not then tell me who is? Let me know the chain of command? the process of appeal. If we were in the civil court system, I would have already got a temporary restraining order based on irreprabable harm for this continuing nonsense and stalemate. Take Care!--Will314159 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The man in charge, El jefe, o chefe, lăobăn however you say it, it ain't me 'mano.--CSTAR 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Will314159: It reminds me of a Shakespeare play, I forget which one now, in which one character complains about a fool. In response to that, someone hiding the bushes complains, "As soon as he said 'fool', I knew he was referring to me!" The truth is that I didn't particularly have you in mind with my comment about inability to compromise. I didn't even particularly have your side in mind. But in all fairness, it applies to both sides. Greg Kuperberg 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the literature or philosophy lesson whatever field it was Greg. It's not about sides now. It's beyond that. It's about WP. The course of action is as plain as the nose on your face. The default course in lack of consensus is a protectied stub. Repeating it won't help. You didn't get it the first time. While you dther, the situation will blow up. While displaying your erudition, for which I am grateful, I always love to learn, I am still at a loss to who is running this pleasant gathering, and don't know how to proceed further. Thank you for your erudition, I guess.--Will314159 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think the situation would blow up? Some of Wikipedia's articles are bad for a while. It happens, but Wikipedia still moves forward. If everybody remains calm and friendly, we will find a consensus by and by. --William Pietri 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have about 50 jury trials under my belt. i have no problem breaking things down in bite size pieces and repeating myself. What we have here is a proxy Arab-Israeli war. It can be perceived that a group with a NeoCon Likudnik POV have hijacked an article by a forceful critic of Israeli repression of Palestinians under Israel occupation, the heavyhanded American occupation of Iraq, and a moderating influence of the mad stampede to war against Iran. They have tagged him as an anti-Semite which Walt and Mearsheimer say is a common tactic used by the Israeli Lobby to stifle dissent. Moreover, this group has succeeded in locking this article against balancing edits. The editors have refused to put up a netural stub while a neutral POV article can be worked out. This is newsworthy because WP is a free access encyclopedia. The longer this foolishness goes on, the more likely it is that it will get in the news like the Cuba article, or the self serving U.S. Congress staffers writing their bosses biographis. This is why action is urgent. The credibility of WP is at stake. That's what I'd do. I would put up a protected Stub. And say ok folds take your time. build up the article piece by piece. And let's not have anymore drive-by editying. Take Care!--Will314159 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What you have here may be a proxy Arab-Israeli war. What I have here is an encyclopedia article that needs some work. I would like to work on it, but I feel your tone and behavior is hindering that process. I am glad you are concerned about Wikipedia's credibility, but I think it is very unlikely that this will be a major news item; Juan Cole is less well known than Cuba or the US Congress. But given your concern, I think the fastest way out is for you to set aside your many strong opinions and work with the people here to get one of the sandbox versions up. Would you be willing to do that? --William Pietri 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

William, you are shifting the focus. I can put aside my advocacy training and speak and write NPOV speak. I do it in legal briefs all the time. The immediate hurdle is the elephant in the room. That is the unfairly predudicial blocked article sitting out there in cyberspace. Once we get past that, then we can write "your," "our," encyclopedia article at leisure w/o compulsion in a liesurely style by consensus. I can repeat myself with no problem. The default position lacking consensus is a protected stub. comprendre. That makes it fair to ALL parties. Now let me try something new with my signature. Let's see if Opera picks it up. Edit I have made substantial edits to the sandbox edition. I introduced "Turkoman" to it and other stuff. A major glaring omission of the sandobx article that I'm amazed that nobody's picked up on is "Shia Islam." Cole is one of the few U.S. Experts." Take Care! --Will314159--Will314159 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to shift the focus: away from contention and toward consensus. I understand that you don't like that the article has been blocked. I don't like it either. I believe the fastest way out of that is by building a consensus. I believe that some of the comments here hinder that process because they are unnecessarily contentious in tone or topic. I think that includes your insistance that we address your concern first, and am asking you to show a willingness to work with people rather than simply repeating yourself. Perhaps you feel that willingness, but I am unable to find evidence of that in your writings. Are you willing to work with your fellow editors on this? --William Pietri 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

William I don't want to brag but I have already done a substantial rewrite of the sandbox article. Maybe it's a good thing that I have been skillfull enough not to attract attention although I documented all my changes. But what part of triage don't you understand? The biggest problem the Juan cole article presents - the elephant in the lliving room- is the unfairly prejudicial locked monster sitting out there in cypberspace. It presents three problems 1)continuing embarassment to WP and source of disinformation, 2) increasing chance of unfavorable media articles to WP and 3) no incentive for non NPOV editors to achieve a consensus as long as their version/baby sits out there in cyberspace. Again, what part of triage, don't you understand? The first thing, when I got here to this page was to scream a few epithets, understandably, the second was to shout for a NPOV warning, which I got, and the third was for a protected revert to a prior non Karsh-quote version or a stub. I am still working on the third one in vain. And for the life of me, I can't understand why? I have notified every admin I know including the head guy. i have done my duty. Take Care!--Will314159 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Greg. It's a good question to bring up now. As Jacoplane mentioned, I think the Wikipedia:Consensus article is a good one. When I work with physical teams to build consensus, I try to start with the points where there is agreement. (E.g., "We are all here together." "We are all trying to accomplish goal X.") By focusing on the commonality, it can put the differences in perspective. I also spend a lot of energy getting everybody to police tone. If people don't treat each other with respect, the negative feelings often get expressed through argument over things they would otherwise agree on. --William Pietri 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Notified Jimbo Wales

Allright now we are getting somewhere. The head WP operational gentleman and chairperson of the Wikimedia foundation is Jimbo Wales. He's already made an appearance in this discussion forum. I've left a message for him. Edit Take Care! --Will314159--Will314159 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be very, very sad if this required deus ex machina intervention over something so minor. It would, at the very least, represent a failure for all of us here. And probably for the Wikipedia model as well. --William Pietri 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not something so minor. Again the core idea of the WP community is a world wide writable virtual whtieboard. A blocked article full of disinformation on a famous History Professor blogger who has become a gadfly to the Israeli Lobby and NeoConservatives at a time of heightned mid-east tensions is anathema to the WP policy of openess and NPOV. For the article to remain locked for 12 days calls for drastic action. Nobody even cared until I screamed for a NPOV label a few days ago. It is not unreasonable to ask for a blocked stub or a blocked revert to a version of the article before the controversial Karsh quotes were inserted. Take Care & Best Wishes.--Will314159 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree, and believe that Jimbo, et al also feel that this is just one of a zillion minor crises they will face. (That's certainly what Meta:The_Wrong_Version suggests.) Moreover, I believe that your urgency-driven comments are slowing down the process of getting this unblocked. Even (or rather, especially) when evacuating a burning building, we are asked to remain calm. Please aid me in keeping things similarly calm here. Thanks, --William Pietri 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SuperRespectfully, William is working on building a new building, while Will is working on putting out the fire that is raging outside that Wiliam is blithely ignoring. A flaming Cole article out there in cyberspace with long unbalanced quotes by an "Occupation Denier," to wit; a certain Mr. Karsh. That article has been out there 12 days and just recently got an NPOV warning only after I arrived here and screamed for one. It's simple game theory. As long as that blocked baby is out there in cyberspace there is no incentive for Cole detractors to co-operate. I hope you prove my analysis wrong. Take Care!--Will314159 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Regardless, within the context of this page, I don't see it as mattering much. If Jimbo wants to come down from on high, he certainly can. In the meantime, it is our role to resolve this with the powers at our disposal. Namely, finding a consensus that will end the edit war that brought the lock. Again, I ask you to aid me in that. There is no harm in you pursuing both Jimbo's intervention and consensus simultaneously, and you might benefit. --William Pietri 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Meta:The_Wrong_Version is a hilarious read. It don't sound ilke he gives a shxt. Take Care!--Will314159 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

this response was left on Jimbo's page but not by him To answer one or two minor points: 1) Jimbo is, de facto, in charge of the project, and he can impose anything he wants (subject only theoretically to disapproval by the Board), so saying he's "high in the administrator ladder" is correct but something of an understatement; on the other hand 2) he generally isn't acting in the capacity of head honcho unless specifically noted; 3) there's not really a ladder of administrators, but rather Jimbo/Danny/the Board/the Foundation generally at the top, and every other user largely equal (although administrators are given more technical powers, they theoretically aren't given more authority); 4) you can verify at Special:Logs that User:Mysekurity was the one who protected the page, in response to a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; and 5) if you want the page unprotected, the place to ask is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it's unlikely that it will be unprotected until the argument on the talk page is resolved. Hope that helps. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Take Care!--Will314159 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for archiving

I am not practiced in rearranging parts of Wikipedia, so I would like to request that someone move most of this talk page to Archive/2 or wherever. In my view, everything before "Towards unprotection" can go to an Archive page; everything in "Towards unprotection" and after should stay. Greg Kuperberg 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd the Request. Page loading slowww Take Care!--Will314159 07:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have split the page approximately in half, which let me keep most of the last 250 edits. Apologies to Factusnonverbus, Abu Amaal, and Jimbo Wales for archiving their helpful edits within the last 250. Sorry the page is still a little large, but it seemed like 48 hours of history was a minimum. --William Pietri 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm not sure what happened, but I accidentally lost a chunk at the bottom. Thanks to SlimVirgin for the cleanup. --William Pietri 07:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: temporarily remove "views" and minimize "controversy"

Hi. I mentioned this in-line above, which was probably a mistake. I'm pulling it out here to make it clearer.

It seems like almost all of the contention is around the "Views" and "Controversy" sections. I propose that we reduce that to the barest minimum, one everybody can agree is minimal but not offensively wrong. Trimming the text from Sandbox/1, I propose this as the entirety of a "Views and Controversy" section.

Cole's strong political views, including staunch criticism of US and Israeli policy in the Middle East, have attracted lively and sometimes bitter controversy. He has been challenged on many points by critics such as Efraim Karsh, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer, and he has responded with a variety of rebuttals.

My theory is that would be a step forward from the current page. Then those who wanted to expand that section could work on a sandbox version until a new consensus is reached. In the meantime, the details of the controversy are easily found via Google. To what extent is this a workable plan? Thanks, --William Pietri 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support this proposal.--csloat 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are we talking about a stub, or a near stub? It is obvious the closer you get to a stub the greater the area of commonality and agreement. With that as a base, then you can expand outward. My view is well known. At this stage, the less the better. I wish I could see exactly what you are talking about. But I have enough confidence in csloat's judgment. Since he supports it, I support the proposal too.--Will314159 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This option is unacceptable. See my previous concerns re: gate-keeping, and note it's endorsement by two editors who have consistently opposed any and all mentions of Cole's critics, or any of the controversies. I've no problem with compromise, but this isn't one. Armon 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have certainly never (much less "consistently") opposed "any and all mention of Cole's critics or any of the controversies." Armon, you would do well to actually read my contributions to the discussion here rather than stating your opposition to things I actually never said.--csloat 01:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When I feel that people aren't understanding me, I generally start with the assumption that I have not clearly explained myself, rather than that they are failing to read. Perhaps you could assume good faith and provide him a more digestible version of the information you feel he's missing? One way to demonstrate that would be to list (in a new section) points where you and Armon agree. --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I understand Armon to say he was against it b/c I was for it? Well let me be withdraw my support. Now the ball is in your court Armon. your move. Take Care!--Will314159 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was kidding. I still support it. In fact I want Karsh in the Cole article since i have discovered he is an "occupation denier" and to the right of Attila the Hun.--Will314159 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Will, once again I find the tone of your comments unhelpful. I think you're trying to add some levity to the discussion, which I appreciate, but I'm concerned that Armon will take your comments as goading him. I probably would. --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah no problem, that's nothing. He hasn't even accused me of working for the Mossad yet. Armon 14:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Armon. My goal was to write something that everybody could live with, so I'm not yet seeing how some people agreeing is evidence of a problem. I also don't understand how we could possibly achieve consensus if you are only comfortable backing something others are opposed to. I think I understand your concern about gate-keeping. (In brief: you don't want things to be swept under the rug through intransigence. Is that right?) That's why I explicitly mention that he is controversial, mention the key topics, and link to critics. What key facts do you feel are missing from this summary? Thanks, --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically yes, the issue is the intransigence of Cole's fan club to allow anything which deviates from Cole as "a towering preeminent academic" (as Hummus put it). I don't like the current protected ver either, but I also know how that flawed version came to be. In short, like an arms race. Cole's fans have been gate-keeping here from the beginning and it was impossible to summarize any controversy, or any opinion, of either Cole or his critics, without engaging in silly "he didn't say that" or "that's a misrepresentation" until finally, overlong direct quotes were added which couldn't be disputed. It even went further than that. Take a look back over the archives for the argument over one word pundit, and even blogger -we had objections to calling Cole a blogger FFS! Then, unsurprisingly, the objections start being about the unbalanced length of the controversy and views. OK, fair comment, so let's add in more biographical and academic background information. No takers. Editors who claimed to have access to Cole's published academic work, (I don't, it's not a POV issue, I simply don't) were repeatedly asked to add that kind of content in to balance it out. The response has been consistently that they must "fight the fire" of the content they dispute instead. IMO we were in the process of trimming it down, and I repeatedly argued that the "Views" section only be composed of Cole's -without his critics, and the "Controversies" section, critics and his responses, when a bunch of new editors arrived, IMO misjudged the situation, and protected the page.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate your efforts to mediate here, but even though the current ver is bad, Cole himself has obviously seen it, and there really isn't any immediate need to change it other than it being the "wrong version". It's been protected because of edit wars and we should be cooling off and working this out in the sandbox(es) and this discussion is not working on the article, but an edit war by other means.
As for your summary, what's missing is what the controversial points were, and why Cole has attracted criticism -as well as his views. It also unintentionally implies that only the "Campus Watch" crew take issue with Cole, which isn't actually true, but it plays well to the fanclub. The biggest problem I have with it though, is that it forces the wholesale relitigation of the disputed content from a sanitized minimum the gatekeepers are happy with.
Sorry this is overlong, but my core position is that when you click up this article, you should get a rundown of his biographical and academic background, his views, and the controversies/criticisms. The point isn't to tell, it's to show, so the reader can make up their own mind. A good example of what I have in mind, as other editors have pointed to, is the Hitchens article. Armon 14:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of exaggeration in the above post. The "Cole fan club" has never been "intransigent," and I think such claims are insulting. I have defended Cole's reputation here because I see it unfairly under attack, not because I am his "fan." I have never argued for deleting all criticism of Cole as charged here; I have just argued for bringing it into balance. The controversial statements by Cole are generously about 1% of his total intellectual output and about 5% of the output on his blog. Yet they take up half the article. The point is not to balance each criticism with a pro-Cole statement, but to make the criticism section actually representative of Cole's work rather than the cartoonish exaggeration of certain Cole statements that is represented by Campus Watch members for example. I realize Cole has made controversial statements and that should be noted, but it should not dominate this page. I'm not sure what Armon means when he says that he doesn't have "access" to Cole's published work -- surely there are libraries where he lives? There are plenty of samples of his published work available online; check the linked articles from his vitae. I am not familiar with most of his academic work either, even though I have such "access" as described; but I first came to learn about Cole because of some of his academic work, namely his article on the infamous "Doomsday Document," which can also be accessed from his web page. Some of his media commentary in published sources -- not just the "blogosphere" -- is also easily accessible from his web page. It hasn't been updated since aught-four, but there is still a good bit of reading material there. It is true that those who have been responding to the Cole-attackers here have not made much headway in actually reporting Cole's less controversial views, but arguing about these other points - which are at best an entertaining sideshow - has been a fulltime job.--csloat 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify. The material I don't have access to is Cole's published academic work. I no longer go to university, and the public libraries in New Zealand don't have them. This link accessible is to opinion pieces -not his scholarly works, which are listed here [3]. Armon 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Armon, you may wish to take a closer look at the list of scholarly works you linked to. As I noted above, several of those essays are readily available online (I count at least six available articles you can click to from that page). As for his books, a quick peek suggests that your National Library actually does have Cole's 1986 edited collection; and I am sure you can order his books from an online retailer if you were that interested. I don't know what the situation is with universities in New Zealand, but I would imagine you would be welcome in a university library to browse the collection and read something. I am not asking you to do any of this, of course; just taking issue with your claim that you have no access to Cole's work. I would also suggest that it is not necessary for you to actually read any of this work; simply perusing accounts of Cole within the print media (e.g. the 1986 or 87 review of the book I mentioned above, or reviews of his work available from online academic sources, or his essays in mass media outlets such as the list of essays linked above, or his essays on the History News Network, or his contributions to media discourse after September 11th, easily found searching the NYT or wire transcripts, or his scholarly piece on the al Qaeda document that I linked to above) would suffice. --csloat 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK fair point -where's there's a will, there's a way. The thing is, I had assumed from the way you were talking that you already had that background knowledge on Cole. --Armon 01:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. if I hear your concern rightly, you want to make things work and are trying hard to assume good faith but are unable to. I'm going take a swing at that in another section; please bear with me. In the meantime, could you give me some balanced phrase or sentence that I could insert into the summary that would move toward my goal of "minimal but not offensively wrong"? E.g., something to put in parentheses after "challenged on many points" to describe the points, plus something to describe the rebuttals? Or a sentence like "Cole's critics believe Cole is A, B, and C; his defenders instead see this as X and Y." Thanks, --William Pietri 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously my "satus-quo" position isn't anywhere near consensus, so I've withdrawn my objection to changing the protected page, however, I prefer option 1. I've changed my vote -see above. Armon 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

William after reading your user page, i have to say i admire your efforts and see where you are coming from. Best wishes and Take Care!--Will314159 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's kind of you to say so. --William Pietri 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I support William Pietri's proposal. (I also support Greg Kuperberg's idea having a separate page of Cole-related views and controversies as long as it is balanced and not a smear.) --Ben Houston 03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no Wikipedia page should be more than epsilon partisan, and certainly that none should be an outright smear. But there are a number of "Controversies..." pages here and there, and I think that most readers have enough common sense to take them with a grain of salt. You can't expect Wikipedia to be as stately as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's going to have a few bouncy rooms. Greg Kuperberg 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal as well. --CSTAR 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind William Pietri's proposal, but I would still suggest a forked page for the disputes circulating around Juan Cole. I have the feeling that some people will still care a lot about that tangent. Greg Kuperberg 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

William, this is a good spot to get your attention, this talk page has been loading slowly, Greg K had made a previous request to archive it a convenient breakpoint, if you or someone could act on it, it would be appreciated it. Take Care!--Will314159 07:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also against the removal of criticism and controversies. Cole is not a towering preeminent academic as whitewashers try to paint him. He is a highly controversial and often criticized pundit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hence notable BUT we are engaged in the process of building a consensus by trying to establish a minimum core of commonallity that we can all agree on and then radiate outward and build from that. But then there's my game theory analysis presented previously. Take Care!--Will314159 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh

Am I right in that controversy came to the Juan Cole page with the long quotes criticizing Professor Cole by Efraim Karsh?. I had never heard of him before. I went to the Major Karsh's WP entry. It was just a stub. I went to one of the external links. What Occupation http://www.palestinefacts.org/what_occupation.html was the most enlightening. He is an occupation denier! He certainly has a different view from what I have been reading in Amira Haas's articles in Haaretz. Even Sharon admitted there was an occupation! I remember reading itin Haaretz. We are talking about somebody to the right of Sharon! Folks this is what we've been fighting about over here ????????? Efraim Karsh!!!!!!!!!! Get Real LOL!--Will314159 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A man is known by his friends. Also by his critics. Cole just went up a notch in a neutral point of view. I would be for Karsh quotes now so long as it was balanced by a NPOV recital of some counterbalancing Karsh views such as denial of the previous Gaza occupation (2000 settlers, 20% of land, 50,000? Israeli troops, 1 or so million Palestinians in a cage) and West Bank Occupation. Then the reader could make an independent assesment of Karsh's POV and credibility. Take Care!--Will314159 01:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is considered innappropriate to cite another wikipedia article, and just because you have never heard of someone doesn't make them non-notable. Karsh is actually quite prominent and respected, he sometimes takes controversial stances but that is hardly of consequence. Your suggestion basically amounts to an innappropriate attempt to poison the well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it should matter as much that Karsh takes controversial stances as that Cole does. Greg Kuperberg 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, except then this page becomes about Karsh rather than Cole. This is the problem we had in the first place.--csloat 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the whole point we were trying to make with Humus, Silverburg,Eliz, Armen, et al. But you know it's kind of poetic justice, they wanted Karsh so badly, maybe they should get him, warts and all. People should be exposed to such extremist views. To some an "occupation denier" is no different than what people accuse Mahmoud Ahmed Nezad of being psychologically. He has already converted the "other" from a "thou" to an "it." --Will314159 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) edit --Will314159 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I find Will314159's tone abusive. As anyone can see from the archives, the discussion was not without poroblems even before Cole's call to arms and subsequent Will's appearance here, but after that it turned into circus. Sure there is WP:BITE (which BTW applies to Elizmr as well) and everyone is entitled to their own views, but we are here to write encyclopedia and not to mock political opponents. See WP:TALK and WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You time line is faulty Humus and your research inadequate. Karsh is in this Cole article partly at your invitation. I can understand from you POV why you would find it "abusive" that your main Cole detractor has been revealed to be, let us say not "mainstream." Take Care!Will314159 05:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that Will314159 (the digits of PI?) is getting a little to into this fight. Also, the appropriate place to add information on Karsh is in Karsh's article not in Juan Cole's article, unless it is directly relevant to Cole and is notable and is not a smear. --Ben Houston 04:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is an "occupation denier" like a Holocaust denier, only worse? I wouldn't quite call Will314159 "abusive", but I do think that his stance here is lame and unhelpful. The man relishes a fight, which is not the best way to edit Wikipedia. (But in all fairness, there are some on the other side who also seem to relish a fight.) Greg Kuperberg 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Karsh has been tendered as a character witness of sorts on Cole. Isn't the jury entitled to assess the credibility of Karsh. To know the judgment of Karsh on other issues. Hence it is very relevant that Karsh is on record as saying there is (now was) NO occupation in Gaza, 2000 settleres in seaside villas using 20% of the land among a million Palestinians at a cost of how many soldiers a year and how much money? . Did you gentlamen and lady not research Dr. Karsh before betting the farm on him? Is not all this relevant to the reader in assessing Dr. Karsh's credibility or intellectual honesty? --Will314159 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Similalry much play was made in the article that Cole questioned the loyalty of Douglas Feith but if you would proceed to the WP article you would see that Col Wilkerson, Sec'y of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff said the exact same thing about Mr. Feith's loyalty. What does this show? Cole is not a whacko anti-semite but making rational judgments. A different POV in Walt & Mearsheimer and Uri Avnery is that the true friends of Israel help it work for a comprehensive peace and not territorial excesses and continued occupation such as Mr. Feith. you will find that poin of view expressed at www.gush-shalom.org Take Care!--Will314159 05:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think that Juan Cole has a huge chip on his shoulder that can make it hard to see eye to eye with him. Evidently, some people have no trouble seeing eye to eye with him, but maybe that is only easy if you approach him from the left side. One thing in particular that frustrates me is the way that he (and others) complain that anti-Zionists are accused of anti-Semitism, as if only a "Likudnik" would ever think to make a connection. The truth is that many reprehensible anti-Semites have used "Zionist" as a convenient euphemism for "Jew". One example that I read about recently in Wikipedia is the Polish "anti-Zionist" campaign. This article really rings true for me, because my own parents were pressured to leave Poland then, just because my father's family was Jewish. This anti-Semitic campaign, which was presented as "anti-Zionist" as a political ploy, is the reason that I grew up in America and not in Poland. Until I read the Wikipedia article, I had never understood that the Six Day War had set it in motion, and thus changed the course of my life.

That said, this level of criticism doesn't belong on Juan Cole's biography. If it belongs in Wikipedia at all, it should be on a separate page devoted to controveries. Greg Kuperberg 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is just another way of saying anti-Israel, and being against a whole country is pretty out there. But where does Juan Cole say this as you claim above? I just did a search of www.juancole.com for the term "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Zionism" and only had three hits, none of which he applies to his own views. I never heard that Juan Cole was an anti-Zionist and from my standpoint it reads as a major distortion of his position. --Ben Houston 02:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See the end of this page. Greg Kuperberg 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a part of a bigger campaign behind the Iron Curtain, see Rootless cosmopolitanism, Doctors' Plot, Zionology and more at Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

that was quite a creative phrase "rootless cosmopolitan," but everybody knew who it referred to. i think it was first used in a letter to pravda. Communism prohibited being racist so they had to come up with an alternative ideological basis. Take Care!Will314159 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, Cole's term "Likudniks" is another creative euphemism carrying the same meaning. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, you need to do a little more research on the term Likudnik - Cole didn't make it up as you claim, it is a Yiddish term for supporters of Likud political party. It is formally defined in this 2003 WashPost article [4]. It is also widely used without bias intended. For example, this article in JPost (a conservative Israeli newspaper) "Likudniks clash in rocky meeting" [5] or in this Slate article "The Likudnik Factor" by Michael Kaus [6] or in this Weekly Standard reprint "No-Goodnik Likudniks" [7]. --Ben Houston 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole uses the term "Likudnik" as a euphemism and it it's wrong to substitute its semantics with morphology/etymology. Surely the Commies did not invent the word "cosmopolitanism", so what? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Cole uses the term Likudnik as a euphemism. I do not think that Cole generalizes about Jews. Maybe this whole argument is about differing interpretations of the words that Cole uses -- you and Armon tend to read in more to those terms than I. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point. --Ben Houston 13:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting but entirely irrelevant unevidenced assertion. Even if it were true it would be your original research to make the claim that Cole has invented a new meaning for the term Likudnik in order to disguise his antisemitism, and the assumption does not belong on Wikipedia. "Likudnik" is a well-established term and your assertion that he means "Jews" is wrong. Can you show me where he explicitly or implicitly questions the loyalty of other well-known "Likudniks" (by your interpretation) such as, say, Noam Chomsky or Steven Spielberg?--csloat 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That a straw man argument. Cole basically uses the work "Likudnik" as a euphemism for Jews who support Israel, he also implies that these "Likudniks" are dangerous as they have a dual loyalties.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that, but you have never presented any evidence to support that strange claim. It is a pretty significant statement to claim that Cole reinvents the word as an antisemitic euphemism. He isn't implying they have dual loyalties; in the case of Feith, he is saying it outright. The fact that he is not applying the claim to other Jews, whether or not they support Israel, suggests that your interpretation is incorrect. That's not a straw man; it is a fact. The only people he has applied the term to are people such as Feith, Wolfowitz, Franklin; he has never suggested it also applies to, say, Alan Dershowitz. The term has a specific meaning; your claim that he uses it in a different way than everyone else in the world is at best "original research" as I said above (though that would imply you had presented evidence, which you have not).--csloat 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole insists that the Jews have to align with his grand vision, or else he threatens them with "a new kind of antisemitism". He says: "David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are encouraging a new kind of antisemitism, which sees it as unacceptable that Jews should be liberals or should crticize Likud Party policies." posted by Juan @ 12/08/2004 06:00:59 AM I guess those pesky Jews do not deserve political pluralism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking?Your interpretation is incorrect. Cole says Horowitz and Pipes are encouraging a new antisemitism, not that "pesky Jews" are doing so. Cole is complaining that Horowitz and Pipes don't want Jews to align with their grand vision in the statement you quote. Cole nowhere insists on Jews doing anything. You're entitled to your own idiosyncraticindividual interpretation, of course, but let's not pollutebias wikipedia with it.--csloat 08:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Csloat, your condescending attitude is not helping anything. Please try to be more civil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What was uncivil? I'm not trying to be condescending; I am just explaining what is wrong with the argument. Is it uncivil to call his interpretation idiosyncratic? I don't see that as insulting at all. Perhaps "pollute" is uncivil? What I mean is that POV interpretations of editors do not belong in Wikipedia. It is expected that all editors (myself included) will have their own idiosyncratic interp, but we should not "pollute" wikipedia with it.--csloat 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "Are you joking?" was uncivil; I don't believe you actually were concerned that he was pulling your leg, so to suggest otherwise gives me the impression you aren't taking his opinions seriously. Also, "idiosyncratic" and "pollute" strike me as unnecessarily rude. --William Pietri 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit I don't know how to a strikout. Don't see in the icons above. So I deleted what I've read of other's perceptions of meaning of Likududnik as applied to nature of occupation and destruction of Oslo process and comprehensive peace process and occupation per mediators request. Of course not talking the nature of the occupation won't make it go away. --Will314159 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Take Care!

For the sake of amity, I request you immediately strike out the inflamatory parts of what you have written above. This isn't a political bear pit; we're trying to write an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please confine your political views to you user page. Or, better, somewhere entirely off Wikipedia. --William Pietri 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe there were any "inflammatory" parts of what I have written above; but I did strike out the parts you suggested were uncivil, even though I have already explained above why they are not. My preference is to focus on the issues here rather than trying to determine who is more civil. The rest of your comment does not belong here -- "Please confine your political views" -- what political views did you have in mind? My views on the definition of the term "Likudnik"? That is not my "political" position; it is the very stasis of this argument.--csloat 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A little historical context. The idea that "the Jews must mend their evil ways, otherwise they encourage antisemitism" is nothing new. In 1950s, they had to stop being "cosmopolitans"; in 1918, according to Volodymyr Vynnychenko, "The pogroms will cease when Jews will cease to be Communists"; earlier they should have accepted or shouldn't have crucified the Savior; or be more patriotic; or not engage in usury, etc. Cole's opinion: today, it is the Likudniks who "are encouraging a new kind of antisemitism". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While you point to demonstrative examples of very destructive anti-Semitic campaigns in the past, and it is an appropriate reaction to that to be vigilant, I do not believe that they are applicable to Cole's specific criticisms. I believe that you are reading into Cole something that he is not saying -- that is why we disagree on what his terms mean, I believe he is purposely being specific while you believe he is engaging in crypto-anti-Semitism. It is unlikely that you'll be able to prove he is a crypto-anti-Semitic just as it relatively impossible for me to conclusively deny it. Also, Cole is not alone in arguing that some are incorrectly labeled anti-Semitic for engaging in criticism of Israel's policies without any underlying anti-Semitic motivation -- see New_Anti-Semitism#Criticism. It is difficult to tell from the receiving end (i.e. Cole's position) whether the accusers are motivated by malice (are they actually trying to stifle legitimate criticism via cynical claims of anti-Semitism) or are they simply being hypervigilant. You come across as hypervigilant to me, although you can counter-claim that I am not paranoid enough. I do not think in principle hypervigilance is a bad thing, it is actually not a bad strategy to erroneously label some non-anti-Semitic individuals as anti-Semitic from your point of view, the mistakes are just collateral damage and its better to be safe than sorry, especially when the historial cost of mistakes have been so high. --Ben Houston 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I hear what you're saying Greg. Prof. Cole does not strike me as an anti-Semite. European Jewry in Eastern Europe were and probably still are in a precarious position. I added a section to the Rudolf Hess article, Operation Barbarossa. If he hadn't made his flight to Scotland in May, 1941 the Soviet Army could've been in Berlin by Xmas of 1942 and the history of the World could have changed. It's hard to for Jews to separate Israel from their faith. Harder still it is for Israeli peace activists to separate their activites from majoritatorian beliefs. Uri Avnery is my hero. I love to read him. He makes perfect sense. www.gush-shalom.org. Take Care!

I don't see how any of this relates to the matter at hand. But I will mention that the claim that "Rudolph Hess' flight to Scotland prevented the Soviet Army from reaching Berlin in 1942", is extremely dubious to say the least.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Silverbury. I got off topic. I doubt you read the article before giving that opinion though b/c it's convincin. Back to the topic. I think the reason you people think Cole is anti-Semitic is b/c he is criticial of the Isreaeli occupation. It's my opinion that Israel would have more Security by 1)implementing the Taba or Geneva Accords, 2) Giving the Ski Slopes and rest of Golan Heights back to Syria adn 3)reaping the benefit of the King Faisal-Freidman Beirut Arab League proposal signed by all 22 Arab nations for full peace and trade. Follow that up with a Middle East common market and in a generation, the place would be unrecognizable. But for the election of Bush and Sharon, it looked like we were going that way. I'm inspired by a column by Uri Avnery. He says when he way a schoolboy in Germany. The teacher would say, "Where is the Enemey,?" All the kids would stand up and say "France in the West." Today that is unthinkable. But back then, the battle of verdun was still frenh. What a million deaths on each side in a single battle? What's the point. IMHO, kneejerk response to anybody that challegnes Israel's continued occupation and treatment of Palestions as anti-Semitic. That's why I think the gangup on Cole. Take Care!--Will314159 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough as long as Professor Cole is given the opportunity to impeach Karch's credibility if he chooses to reply in a suitable media. But then the article becomes a Karch vs. Cole debate which would probably be beneficial in promoting the field of the mechanics, reasons, motivations, factors, and ins and outs of denominating someone an "anti-semite." Take Care! --Will314159 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Policies

I'm commenting here as an admin, not as an editor. I don't know anything about the substance of this dispute, and don't want to get involved directly, but I've seen Will314159's posts in various places, and they seem a little inappropriate. It might help if everyone were to review our content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. As this is a living biography, and as the sources are also, I assume, still with us, the guideline WP:BLP applies too, both to the subject and to any living sources, and not only to the article, but to the talk page as well.

It is not the job of Wikipedians to evaluate sources beyond the basics, which simply means determining whether the source is regarded as reliable per WP:V (policy) and WP:RS (guideline). In the case of Karsh, as head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, London, there's no question that he's what we call a reliable source. Whether any editor personally loves or hates his views is irrelevant and shouldn't even be mentioned, and it especially shouldn't be mentioned if he's going to be insulted.

If everyone sticks rigidly to the three policies, this dispute will almost certainly resolve itself. That is, we simply report what reliable, third-party published sources have said about Cole, and what Cole has said about himself (with some limitations: see WP:V). We don't add our own opinions or arguments (to the article or the talk page), and we don't question what the reliable sources say. We report majority and significant-minority published views, but not tiny minority ones, and we write in a disinterested, respectful tone, with every arguably contentious point carefully sourced and the source cited after the edit.

I'm willing to unprotect the page, by the way, if you're all ready to start editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I take it Slimvirgin that it is your opinion that that fact that Karch has written an article purporting that there is (now was for Gaza) No Israeli Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is not relevant in evaluating his opinion that Professor Juan Cole is an Anti-Semite. This would be tantamout in my humble opinion in saying the fact that Professor X has written the Moon is made out of Green Cheese has no relevance to evaluating his credibility to another statement of his that Mars is made out of Blue Fondue, but everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. i can put aside you slap at me as I can guess one of your friends interceded. But i can't put aside your rudeness in showing up here and meddlling in a mediation process by a professional web mediatior in its end stages that is nearing a successful conclusion and inviting an unprotected free-for-all. This article is not ready for unprotection. What it needs is a consensual minimal article, then addition by stages. But everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. Take Care and Best Wishes.--Will314159 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to SlimV for the poor choice of words "meddle" and "intrude." She may have been sent by Jimbo in respone to my request. However, what I am asking now for is an protected stub or a revert to a protected prior uncontroversial version until a consensus is achieved for reasons stated elsewhere. Take Care!--Will314159 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm only willing to unprotect the page if to do so wouldn't cause trouble; as you're saying it would, if others agree, I won't unprotect it. But you have clearly misunderstood our editing policies. Your opinion of Karsh's opinion about Gaza, the West Bank, and whether the moon is made of cheese are irrelevant unless a reliable source says otherwise. If Cole says of Karsh: "His views about anti-Semitism have to be read in the context of his views about Gaza," then you can add that comment to the article, and cite Cole as your source. If no one reliable has said it, it can't be used. We report what reliable sources have published, so long as it isn't self-published, except for Juan Cole, whose personal website may be used as a source because he's the subject of the article, but with some limitations (see WP:V). That's all we do.

Will314159, please proceed with caution. Your attitude is probably not helping to solve the problems on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin you have brought some clarity how to proceed further. Take Care!--Will314159 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I do not think this page is anywhere near ready to be unprotected. The petty squabbling is not likely to stop any time soon. In addition, I don't see the WP:BLP guidelines as being likely to be followed. •Jim62sch• 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Slim is correct about verifiable sources, however, not every little thing that every reliable source says deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Certainly not everything ever said about Cole needs to be quoted in full. I don't see any reason to have large quotes from Karsh on alleged antisemitism. If people think it is important that Karsh said that, a brief note indicating that is fine, but nobody has yet made an argument as to why entire quotes about this need to be here. The page should be about Cole, not his critics, and its central focus should not be dictated by his critics. That's all I am saying here, not that this material should be "censored" as some editors claim.--csloat 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi csloat, it depends how much that debate is relevant to the person's notability. If it plays a large role in it, it's worth going into in detail; if not, then not. It also depends where Karsh published the criticism. Jim, BLP is still only a guideline, but it's one that people are following, and it's based on the three content policies, which are mandatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think therein lies the stasis. There are some editors here who believe this allegation of antisemitism plays a large role in Cole's notability (particularly those who take their cues from the blogosphere). Others here (such as myself) are taking cues from older media -- TV, print, and radio -- which frequently call on Cole as an expert. Of course his own blog plays a large role in all of this, but his credentials make him a frequently sought after voice in places like NPR, CNN, the NYT, etc. So we have an article from a notable source (Karsh) in a reliable media outlet (not a blog), commenting on Cole's blog, and making incendiary claims using logic that is easily picked apart (you can read the debate on this page and the archive to see that happening). However, Karsh's claim, and the Cole comments that prompted it, play no significant role in his notoriety in the mainstream "old" media. The Cole comments that prompted it are not a significant part of his work -- over 90% of his work is not about Israel at all, either his scholarly research or his comments to the mass media. But these claims do play a large role in his notoriety among bloggers. To me, this means Karsh's critique should not be played up here. But others disagree. In general I think all we need is a brief note that he is a controversial figure who has been criticized by several people, listing their names and perhaps pointing to their articles. But I don't see the need to detail these critiques point by point.--csloat 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? Professor Cole may reply to Professor Karch's criticsm. Then faced with the prospect of counterbalancing long quotes some reason may be achieved. Take Care!--Will314159 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimV. I don' think there's a consensus but there may be a majority for a temporary protected stub article out there in cyperspace. IMHO the Karsh quote proponents have their protected "baby" out "there" and are therefore for lack of incentive largely not participating in the mediation effort to identify a common agreed core article, post it in a protected form, and then build on it and enlarge it. Take Care!--Will314159 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When the critic is as credible an academic as Efraim Karsh, the criticism can't be summarized by just listing names and calling Cole controversial. Karsh should be quoted, although of course not at absurd lengths. However, any criticism must have been published by a reliable source, not on a blog, and the harsher the criticism, the more reliable the source must be. Where was most of it published? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific than "at absurd lengths". Each quote should support a point. The quote should be fair (i.e., not out of context) and relevant to the point. The Karsh quote as is currently in the blocked version satisfies neither (for example, why do we need to know Karsh;s opinion of Pat Buchanan?)--CSTAR 15:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the contentious quotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just read it. If I were writing it, I wouldn't include the full quote, but I'd include a paraphrase of it, with some of his words quoted, because he's a powerful critic. Part of the problem lies with the way the article's written. It seems to consist of a series of staccato claims and counter-claims, rather than a nuanced narrative. I think the same material could be presented in a way that would seem less controversial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough as long as Professor Cole is given the opportunity to impeach Karch's credibility if he chooses to reply in a suitable media. But then the article becomes a Karch vs. Cole debate which would probably be beneficial in promoting the field of the mechanics, reasons, motivations, factors, and ins and outs of denominating someone an "anti-semite." Take Care! --Will314159 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that SlimVirgin is a neutral commentator on the matter of Karsh accusing Cole of making arguments similar to those made by anti-Semitics -- she is a major contributor (and so is HOTR it seems -- it looks like SlimVirgin and HOTR are opposing camps in some protracted mediation) to the New Anti-Semitism article which is a theory about how anti-Semitism now arises predominantly from the left of the political spectrum. It is a very controversial theory with many people viewing it as an attempt to silence criticism of anything related to Israel by using an overly inclusive definition of what is anti-Semitism. I am not saying that SlimVirgin can't participate in the discussion (which would be ridiculous) but that she should not be treated as a completely impartial third-party. --Ben Houston 19:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben, please be extremely careful. I'm watching this page in case I need to take admin action in relation to it. I've made no edits to it, and don't even know what the main issues are. I've left suggestions here on talk about the need to edit in accordance with the content policies. That's all. I find your suggestion highly offensive that, because I've expressed certain views elsewhere as an editor, these must necessarily mean I can't be an impartial administrator. Some of us are able to exercise independence of mind when required. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please understand that I am not questioning your ability to be impartial in your application of administrator rights -- I didn't mention the word "administrator" and I didn't mean to imply anything about your use of administrator abilities, but rather I was disputing your ability to come in as a "completely impartial third party" (my words). I notice you started off your comment in this section by claiming that you "don't know anything about the substance of this dispute" (your words) and later in that same comment you made only one specific recommendation on a topic of dispute: Karsh's accusation of anti-Semitism leveled at (the left-leaning) Cole, which some on this page feel is an ad hominem meant to stigmatize legitimate criticism. You supported the inclusion of this this claim of anti-Semitism. I contest your claim that you "don't know anything about the substance of this dispute" (your words), I believe strongly that the debate you commented on it is in essense the same debate (although in specifics rather than generality) that you are a participant in on the "New Anti-Semitism" article. --Ben Houston 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm here only as an admin, not as an editor, so thank you for accepting I'm able to be impartial in that regard. As for whether I know what the substance of the dispute is, please don't say you "contest" my "claim" not to know. I've said I don't know what the substance of it is, and I don't. If it's only the Karsh quote, then I'm saddened that such a minor thing could hold up editing, so I'm assuming it's more than that. I don't particularly want to know what it is, because my concerns are purely administrative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ben for providing context and background. Jimbo Wales has himself stated in his humorous memoranda refrenced above that he is favorably disposed toward Israel, and SlimV disclose on her UserPage that she is of the Jewish faith. Yet, Jimbo had no problem in his brief appearance her arguing for presenting both sides of a controversy. I myself am favorably disposed toward the Israel of Uri Avenery that will make a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians roughly based on the Taba or Geneva accords and take up the Arab States offer of a full warm peace w/ trade. It is sad that everyone that criticizes Israeli policies these days is quickly branded an anti-semite.Edit Praying for Peace and no more wars Take Care!--Will314159 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to show me where on my user page I said that, Will. In any event, editors' and admins' ethnicities are irrelevant; the purpose of this page is to discuss the article, not to have a political debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Will314159, I think we can skip a discussion of editor ethnicities here today and whether someone should be classified "favorably disposed toward Israel" or not -- I think we can raise the discussion above this simplistic level. --Ben Houston 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben. let's face it. The whole dispute in the Cole article is this. Is Cole anti-semitic? "favorably disposed toward Israel" is just just a variant way of saying "non-anti-semitic." Take Care!--Will314159 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected re the ethnicity. I must have made a deduction based upon the commonality of the things you said you had been called and under the hypnotic effect of the fractal all-seeing eye graphic on your page (nice pix). I see the New Anti-Semitism article is also a protected article. Since the juan Cole article is basically the same issue being replayed, the same obstacles are also here. But we seem to have two energetic mediators at work here, so who knows? Take Care!--Will314159 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are the mediators, as a matter of interest? I see William's doing a great job. Is there someone else, and is the Mediation Committee involved or is it informal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a formal committee. Greg Kuperberg and csloat seem to have taken the bull by the horn. Apologies in advance for leaving anybody out. Take Care!--Will314159 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Edit jaco♫plane & CStar and I'm sure I've forgotten more. Take Care!--Will314159 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Page is ready for a change

It looks to me like the straw poll has stabilized and that there are some clear conclusions. Several admins and more neutral parties like the sandbox/1 page a lot better than the current locked page. The main questions were (1) whether a separate controversies page should even exist at all, or (2) whether, following William Pietri's suggestion, the short "Views and Controversies" section should be shortened even further. Both of these would have only a small effect on the basic structure of sandbox/1.

On the other side, there were some vehement objections that, in my view, are beyond the boundaries of "Reasonable Consensus" on the Wikipedia:Consensus Page. The page says, "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." Here are the arguments that I put in this category:

• The page has to be replaced by a stub, because the credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. In my view, this is a wild exaggeration and it also renounces and undermines consensus.

• A litany of accusations and rebuttals has to stay on the biography page, because everything else would be gate-keeping. A separate "controversies" page would come under an immediate request for deletion. In my view, this assumes that control of the page is dominated by bad faith. Forking the page was my suggestion, I have no intention of proposing an RFD, and my own politics is in some respects more on the Karsh side than on the Cole side. It seems to me that several of the admins here take roughly the same position.

• Let's boycott the vote because the discussion is a farce, and because Jimbo Wales is biased. That one pretty much speaks for itself.

Even though I don't take much stock in these arguments, one constructive preference that was attached to them was that a separate controversies page was the "least bad" choice. AIn my view there was at least some preference for that in the rest of the straw poll as well. So I think that an admin should go ahead and replace the frozen embarrassment by sandbox/1, and leave the link to the controversies page. It would be a clear improvement.

Whether the page should stay locked even after the replacement is a question. Some have suggested that it should, so that there would be a "cooling off period".

On the other hand, people seemed to like William Pietri's proposed edit, so maybe you folks should go ahead and do it. I can see both sides of that suggestion. On the one hand, I think that Pietri is right that it would further reduce the temptation to degrade the bio page with a quarrel. On the other hand, it is reasonable for a bio page to say at least something specific about its subject's opinions.

Anyway, I request that the admins take action per this summary of the discussion. Greg Kuperberg 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be done by an admin that is clearly recognized to have no dog in this race.--CSTAR 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my objection to changing the page and have voted for Greg's option 1. I don't want to edit William P's ver, I want to move this along. Armon 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

either Greg's or Williams's path is good. I'd like to recognize and thank both of them for their hard work. It would be probably at this point be better to let Willilam proceed since he's a proffesional web mediator and faciliator and an administraor with the keys to the magic kingdom. Again thanks Greg and William. Take Care.--Will314159 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I appreciate the focus on keeping a good discussion and a healthy atmosphere. Whether the page stays locked or not, I would encourage editors to agree to leave the consensus version of the controversial part alone until a new consensus is reached in talk or on a sandbox page. --William Pietri 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is reasonable for a bio page to say something about the subject's opinions, and it would be great to explore them in depth. But I want even more to have no edit wars, so I encourage people to error on the side of absolutely minimal consensus. --William Pietri 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly against a second page on views and criticism, but this is not the recognized format for biog. pages; most have some controversy on them. Why is this page different? Also, I never said Wales was biased, I suggested he was afraid of retribution from Cole which is quite different. Elizmr 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Ah, sorry was just trying to do some minor copy editing - didn't notice the protection. Homey 16:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)