Talk:Juan Cole

Iraq

Removing:

While lecturing in early 2003 in a University of Michigan course focused on the impending conflict, Cole expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, even though it might lead to unforeseen consequences.

The part where it's claimed Cole "expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, even though it might lead to unforeseen consequences." was actually unsourced. The end-note simply gives the course number for a short or mini-course, "Special Topics," within the interdivisional (IDIV) cluster of residential college (RC) courses at U Mich., the title of the special course, "Why War on Iraq," and the RCIDIV section that short course was in that semester. You have to hunt around to get the syllabus in pdf form to find out that Juan Cole gave one visiting lecture on "The Formation of Saddam Hussein" - which should have been the cite - on March 19, the day the US invaded Iraq.

7:40 a.m. March 19, 2003: Bush Gives Order to Execute Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Not only is Cole not quoted, not only is the citation not a citation, but the person in whose opinion Cole, during his lecture on the formation of Saddam Hussein, on the day of the invasion, expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, etc. is never mentioned. Nor has how it got to the Wikipedia article been documented. Moreover, and worse, Juan Cole has completely disputed the interpretation of his remarks:

I never supported the invasion of Iraq.

You are citing some undergraduate's misunderstanding of my position in spring of 2003, which I explicitly and repeatedly stated-- that war on Iraq was a very bad idea. Go back and look at my weblog in that period. And somebody please fix the idiot wikipedia article written by some sleazy neocon from which you got this ridiculous idea.

Juan Cole: Are Khamenei and Ahmadinejad Determined to Make Iran a Pariah?: My column is out in Salon

Strong language, but in fact, the "cite" was 3rd- or 4th-hand and to anonymous opinion to boot. --MarionADelgado (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the first paragraph of the Iraq section is sheer op-ed by the Wiki contributor. The sole reference allegedly demonstrating that Cole was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion is from after the invasion had commenced, and it's to a day of reporting on breaking news events in Iraq. Whoever thought that was a good citation should have quoted the part where Cole is attempting to distance himself either from pro- or anti-war opinion, at least in the end note.--MarionADelgado (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is original interpretation of a primary source, and thus outside our remit. As this is a BLP, anything potentially controversial which isn't adequately covered by reliable secondary sources can and should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article downplay the blog?

I'm not really sure why this article seems to go to excessive lengths to de-emphasize the blog, when Cole has no real notability outside of the blog. There would be very little reason to have an article on Juan Cole on Wikipedia at all, if it weren't for the blog, and the various associated controversies which have followed along behind the blog... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There is a whole section on the blog and a ton of citations from it. If anything there is too much of his blog here. There is no "downplaying" of the blog; it's pretty clear from the evidence that it is well regarded and played a significant role in his career, as noted in the article. The various "controversies" you mention were blips in the blogosphere, but his real notability is found in what's published in reliable sources, not what some blogger said about his mama or whatever. When you go to the reliable sources you find that the so-called "controversies" really have had little impact. csloat (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, without the blog Juan Cole would be a relatively unknown academic and minor wannabe-pundit, like thousands of others out there, a large number of whom don't have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. Many of the blog controversies may not be very meaningful in themselves, but they gave him publicity without which he would have remained in obscurity. AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead does mention his blog, and there is a whole section about it in the body of the article. Moreover, a great number (too many, in my view) of the citations are to his blog. What is it you would like to see changed? Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonewah is correct that the blog is already mentioned extensively here, and perhaps cited as a source far too much. But AnonMoos is also dead wrong about the so-called "controversies." This was a nasty debate a few years ago already. Cole's blog certainly made him more visible, but he was already sought after as an expert even before his blog based on his academic credentials. He was president of MESA; he is a prolific researcher and Persianist expert, and he is frequently quoted and interviewed on Middle East topics. To claim that his little spat with Jonah Goldberg or whoever in the blogosphere is the only thing that gave him publicity is just flat out wrong. Anyway anything you do want to add to the article, please give reliable sources for. Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?

Is Cole of Jewish descent? - 90.219.89.252 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you care? 76.95.51.68 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No. See his autobiography (on his blog). --Dawud

PBS/Fox

   Cole was concurrently working for PBS and Fox Broadcasting (Fox News, i think). PBS fired or otherwise discontinued him after his remarks, i think on Fox, about his personal gut discomfort with some characteristically Islamic garb, i think in the context of flying. I'm not sure how much coverage there was beyond Fox and PBS, but it seems likely to be worth mention in the article, even if we don't furnish any detail, if only to clarify that the article's Juan Cole (and e.g. not the other John Cole another colleague asked about on this talk page) is he.
--Jerzy•t 08:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cole responds to Wikipedia content (though indirectly)

In the "autobiography" section of his blog, Cole "vigorously disputes the baseless and misleading editorializing in his current Wikipedia article that his views of international politics in the twenty-first century are still shaped by his youthful Baha’i misadventure." I'm afraid this was my doing--I sincerely believed this to be true, even obvious. Instead,

Cole was all along an American liberal, and had thought the Baha’is were on his side, which he discovered to be an error, at least with regard to the secretive and duplicitous leadership. His political and social philosophy is rooted in American traditions going back to the Transcendentalists and going forward to Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington, and other progressives, and all along has been.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will try to edit the text in line with the above (unless some more neutral person can be enlisted to do it first). Incidentally, Cole writes that he "now not interested in organized religion as a personal matter." --Dawud