User talk:JoshuaZ/Juan Cole

Re Armons comment: As far as I can see, sloat is the only one pushing for his version of the Cole/Hitchens paragraph, and setting them side by side as below is proof enough of sloat soapboxing Cole

I don't think that's true. What is more likely the case, is that there aren't many people who have the energy to spend disputing very point. There are plenty of things that are wrong with it as is currently.

The mediation attempt failed, in part because the mediator disappeared. It was also formulated around too many issues, so I for one didn't participate. I also note that the first person to formally withdraw from the mediation was Isarig. --CSTAR 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- Isarig was the first and only participant to formally withdraw, in fact. I agree with CSTAR. I spent time laying out clearly my position and all Armon has to say is that I am "soapboxing" (without any explanation) and that he has no intention of trying mediation. He asserts his right to remove NPOV tags based on the claim that "[csloat] objects in principle to any mention of the criticism, or of Hitchens, or of anything else i might object to," yet as one can see from reading my statement, that is completely false. I proposed an alternative phrasing of the Hitchens criticism, I gave three substantive reasons in favor of that phrasing, and I pointed out that the NPOV tags are reasonable when there is an extant NPOV dispute that has not been settled (which there clearly is). Again, Armon seems to want to marginalize and discipline my voice ("this just needs to be firmly pointed out to him," he writes) rather than to actually discuss the issues. csloat 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, sloat I don't like your version either. As a general objection, I think it's too long and as I've said many times, I don't like long quotes. When I have time, I will post specific objections to the current version.--CSTAR 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable, and I thought something similar. But that's a far cry from the real problem Sloat's revision is trying to correct- the present overemphasis on non-notable insults that (unfairly) further a negative characterization of Cole, and the urge to let the specific "apologist" accusation surface verbatim, only to be answered by a feeble and half hearted summary that Cole harbors a general "opposition" to the Iranian regime. The section would be way too long with a full response, but this complication only speaks to the extant problem of the already presented charges, which are overinterested in emphasizing specific attacks against Cole.Abbenm 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]