Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon/Outside comments

Welcome to community enforceable mediation. This is the comment page. If you are not a named party to this mediation, please post comments, evidence, and suggestions here. The mediator Durova may move or refactor statements as necessary.

Suggestion 1 from TheronJ

• I don't immediately see any comunity enforceable solutions to this problem. That doesn't mean we can't help you, but unless there is an edit warring problem or something, I don't see how agreeing to 1RR or agreeing to a one month mutual break on editing Cole's page would help much with this specific problem.
• Is it possible that CSloat and Armon could agree to take the sentence back to its bare facts? Something like:

"Prior to _date_, Cole was best known for his academic scholarship regarding _subject_, and for his role in the Middle Eastern Studies Association. After _date_, Cole has became increasingly well known for his weblog, Informed Comment, and for his appearances as a commentator on Middle Eastern issues."

• That compromise leaves the issue of what role Cole's blogging activities played in his media appearances up to the reader, and produces a nicely encyclopedic discussion of Cole's work and public appearances.

Thanks, TheronJ 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants to CEM don't actually have to agree to remedies. If they work out a handshake deal, so much the better. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor

I read the article as it currently exists:

Public interest in Cole's blog led to attention from other media sources. From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East.

I also read a previous version:

Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002. Since 2002, when he began publishing his weblog, his status as a public intellectual was enhanced.

I suggest that the word "numerous" is something of a weasel word (it is too indefinite and vague), and when you see a weasel word, it almost always comes out of a problem with NPOV according to the policy.

If I understand the issue correctly (and I may not), it appears that the timing of his status is in question. Any cite that gives a clear date and a clear statement that his popularity started at that time, would significantly support that view. I believe Armon came pretty close to that. On the other hand, csloat does not want his former status to be ignored -- and indeed csloat presents cites showing that he had a presence of some sort before the time of his blog. But csloat's cites do not give an indication of just how popular he was. Only that he was, from time to time, quoted. Armon's does allude to the timing much more directly.

But the paragraph as it currently stands, entirely ignores the prior interest in Cole. Even if he was not as popular, he was a source and this is not represented at all.

I have a suggested alternative to either of the solutions shown above:

Cole has been quoted or used as a source by periodicals since at least 1990 . However, with the publication of his weblog in 2002, demand for his views (or notice of them) by other media increased.

I think that gets rid of weasel words and it was created NPOV because I have no pov on this issue because I know nothing about it and do not care. It also preserves references offered by both individuals. If this version does not work, what are the problems with it?--Blue Tie 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tighten up the wording a bit but I do not object to this idea in general. If we preserve the pre-2002 citations I think this would be alright. I also think the Chronicle quotation is useful. I don't think this is a POV issue at all, though I understand your point about the word "numerous." The citations do make it clear he is being cited as a middle east expert. I was not claiming or trying to claim that he was "popular" as a result of these citations. I think this discussion belongs on this page, btw, but I appreciate the suggestions. csloat 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not think you were trying to make a point bout him being popular, but I thought that the other editor might read it that way. I figured you wanted it known that he was not a "new" element on the scene. I figure that your other editor wants to demonstrate the power of his blog. I think that these two concepts are accommodated. I do not take any ownership of the text I put up, so if it is roughly close to what you think you could accept and if he also thinks it is close to what he can accept, maybe you can refine it to an agreeable position. If not, maybe something else will come up. I am starting to think that the key is to think positively of the other person and do your best to give them their point while retaining yours as well. --Blue Tie 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the reply by theronj. I see it as approximately in the same vein as my suggestion though perhaps stripped a bit more bare. --Blue Tie 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with those suggestions is that they are still OR. It's a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position -that of Cole being some sort of a media commentator previous to his blog. The actual content of the citations are not used, simply their existence is used to advance this point. This is also predicated on an extremely dubious reading of the original passage that "we not pretend that Cole never was considered an expert until his blog got 200,000 visitors, as Armon's edit implies." This is frankly nonsense, both in terms of it being "my" edit, and what it supposedly implies about his "expertise". The article makes very clear what his expertise is in Background, education, appointments and awards and Academic interests before the reader even gets to the Commentator on Middle Eastern affairs section. Again, I will appeal to the citations, they clearly state that:

1. "Because of his presence on the Internet, journalists, for the first time, began to take notice and turned to him and his Web page as a resource."
2. "With the debut of his Web log, Informed Comment, four years ago, Juan R.I. Cole became arguably the most visible commentator writing on the Middle East today."
3. "Cole’s online weblog, “Informed Comment,” has made him a minor celebrity and a controversial figure for his outspoken leftist opinions."
4. "Cole started his blog, which he called Informed Comment and subtitled Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion, in April 2002. It quickly established itself as a popular source of information on the Middle East, attracting a reported 200,000 page-views per month. Informed Comment also caught the eye of journalists, earning Cole dozens of mentions in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies, an hour-long appearance on NPR's "Fresh Air," and 14 appearances on the "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer. The Village Voice advised its readers, "If you're not already visiting Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog (juancole.com) on a daily basis, now's the time to get in the habit," while L.A. Weekly called Cole's blog "a must-read for anyone seriously interested in Iraq." In 2003, Informed Comment won the 2003 Koufax Award for best expert blog, and, last year, Cole was even asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the fissures within Iraqi society and his ideas for creating a stable Iraqi government."

As you can see, the issue of "causality" is easily settled by the citations. There is no "chicken and the egg" problem, and the fact that Cole wasn't a media commentator of any note before his blog says absolutely nothing concerning his expertise. There is also no justification for pointing to a status pre-blog, that he clearly did not have. <<-armon->> 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon