Talk:Juan Cole

Current state of page

As the page stands now, everything above "external links" reads like a pretentious stilted official capsule biography, so that there'e no indication whatsoever of the controversies, disputes, and criticisms that he's been involved in before the "external links" section of the article. This is not satisfactory -- the reason why he's in Wikpedia at all is because of the controversies. AnonMoos 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He may be somewhat notorious to supporters of the Iraq invasion, but the basic reason he is in WP is that he is widely-cited commentator on Middle East affairs. The various controversies flow from that fact. --Lee Hunter 00:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Just because text appears identically elsewhere on the net, does that mean it is automatically copyright-protected?

from Talk:Juan Cole/Temp

I hope this is better than my first try!

Wikifed.

I hope this stub is going to replace the original page on or about November 30 (as the copyvio deletion policy states). Cole has just become newsworthy as a result of a lawsuit threat.--Dhartung 12:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Michael J. Totten"

Who is Michael J. Totten? Is he just some guy with a blog? Is the link here solely because it's something critical of Cole, or is he salient for some other reason? Sullivan and Goldberg, by contrast, are well known. —Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

seems like it. There's now about four links there based around Totten's article purporting to be a "fisking" (new word to me, is there a wikipedia entry on it yet?) of Juan. I reckon possibly only the response by Ali to that one entry in Juan's blog is of any great significance. PaulHammond 12:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fisking has an (awkward) entry. I don't see that either the Jarvis or Totten articles are salient to the Wikipedia; somebody just wants to get their digs in, I suspect. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

incestuous blog links removed

I removed a couple of blog links because they didn't seem to be about anything other than an extraordinarily trivial side issue - that Cole repeated somebody else's assertion about whether some Iraqi blogger had a US sponsor. I also removed the link to Riverbend. It was just a post that said, more or less, 'hey check out Juan Cole'.--Lee Hunter 01:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there's nothing encyclopedic about any of those entries. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. —Ashley Y 03:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Links

Every link in this article is derived from critics of Juan Cole except for the link to his blog.

Other than the standard CV stuff all we have is a criticism of him. -- posted by 62.255.32.14

I agree, except that Sullivan and Goldberg are notable figures. Almost anybody else's "response to Cole's blog" being listed is silly and promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to aggregate criticism. That's what sites like Technorati are for.

My impulse here is to delete the "Iraqthemodel" link and replace it with the Foreign Policy in Focus article which featured Cole among other bloggers. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the NPOV tag is needed. The critical articles are mostly balanced with his own (very effective) responses. --Lee Hunter 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia isn't here to "balance". It's here to provide encyclopedic information to the public. This has nothing to do with whether he gives as good as he gets or not; the Wikipedia might as well cross-reference all the people who praise his posts as well. Any given debate with another blogger is not intrinsically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

Ok we've gone from describing Cole's writings as "Chomskian" (which is quite frankly, bizaare) to saying that he's an admirer of Chomsky, which is just peculiar. Especially since the link you posted as a citation (sorry, I fed it to you by mistake) was not actually written by Cole. It was on his blog but the post was by Mark Levine. --Lee Hunter 02:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that out after a second. The fact is that Jaun shares Chomsky's analysis of US forieng policy as being driven by a ~~jewish~~ neo-con cabal bent on world domination in service of Israel with the Middle East as the lynchpin of some grand master plan to establish a one-world Likud Government. Klonimus 04:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - one often finds in mathematics, that if people get the same answer, and it's right, it's because they've worked it out correctly - but if they get the same answer and it's wrong, that's usually because one of them copied the other. Cole's analysis sounds similar to Chomsky's because both accounts are essentially correct. btw - ~~jewish~~? This is you attempting to have a crack at Cole calling him anti-semitic without having the guts to say this directly, right? PaulHammond 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could both be a set of shameless self promoters who have figured out that if you repeat back fashionable leftist platitutes and a grand conspiracy to readers of the BBC/NPR and the guardian, you have a built in audience. I am perfectly willing to say that Chomsky is a self hating jew, and that Juan Cole has latent anti-semitism that is often expressed in his writings. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to say this anti-semitic crap is a total load of bullshit. PaulHammond 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was also just a total load of bullshit. But unfortunatey it's very real, otherwise why would Juan see a Jews/Israel behind everything that goes on in the world? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't. You're making it up. And you don't "wish that it was a total load of bullshit" - you're just making a smear of the anti-semitism accusation because you haven't got a substantial argument to make. PaulHammond 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it floats like a duck. Anyone who beleives in a vast ~~jewish~~ neocon conspiracy to manipulate US foreign policy and the media, is either a kook or an anti-semite. You can take your pick, and even choose both, Klonimus 06:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Show me even one example where Cole has even obliquely hinted at a "vast Jewish conspiracy". Douglas Feith advanced Israel's interests at the horrific expense of the United States. That makes him a traitor in the eyes of many people. Calling Feith a traitor is not an act of anti-semitism. --Lee Hunter 14:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun - I just came across this[2]. Now your anti-Coleism starts to make sense! PaulHammond 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole, remains a discredited leftist. Regardless of Anonyme's unsuitablity for adminship (with which 34 other people agree'd with me). Perhaps you care to explain the connection? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read Cole as mostly saying that US foreign policy is driven by a neo-con cabal that is arrogant, incompetent and deeply ignorant of Middle Eastern history and society. And he certainly suggests that the neo-cons have been seriously "played" by Israeli intelligence and politicians. I haven't come across any mention of one-world Likud government yet but maybe I'm missing something. --Lee Hunter 13:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east. The difference is that he isn't as discredited as Chomsky is, yet. He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write "Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east." So what you're saying is that for the last thirty years Cole has only been pretending to study Middle East history, only pretending to travel and study there, while really he was just looking over Chomsky's shoulder. I'd be curious to know what evidence you have for that (other than the fact that they both think Bush and Company are a threat to global peace and security. At least 80% of the world's population shares that belief.) You also write "He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre." Isn't this old canard about people who criticize the Israeli government being anti-semitic getting a little tired? Don't you think it's possible that people criticize the Israeli government simply because the Israeli government pursues policies that warrant criticism? --Lee Hunter 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basicly, I don't think Cole is creditable about anything besides the pernicious effects of entrenched academic leftism. Maybe he did do alot of study in the middle east, but AFAIK his political writings are based on Chomskian analysis, so facts are not nearly so important to him as adhernce to fashionable self created theory.As for criticism of the Israeli goverment, quite a bit of it is legitamate, and quite a bit of it motivated by latent anti-semitism that either preconscious (unknown) and unconscious (repressed). However at the presant time its not politically correct to hate jews openly, and so anti-semetism gets channeled into "progressive" critiques of israel and talk of Jewish neo-con cabals infiltrating the US government and media in the service of Israel. Klonimus 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, check out[http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp2005, Our Wars Over the War] in which VDH disects the leftist narrative. Klonimus 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! Thanks for the chuckle. Hanson doesn't so much dissect the leftist narrative as regurgitate the neocon fantasy without actually offering any supporting evidence. And he ignores some inconvenient facts: no Iraq-Al Qaeda links, 80% of Iraqis want the US out immediately, terrorism increasing, civil society in Iraq descending into a maelstrom, most of the insurgency is home-grown, US sinking into debt etc. By provoking the Iraq invasion, Bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The loss of his bases in Afghanistan and some of his leadership are insignificant when placed against the huge strategic win of a US entanglement (on a par with the USSR's Afghanistan debacle). He will die a happy man. --Lee Hunter 16:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Legion of Iran"

Is there a source for the statement he received this "honor" in 2003? I don't find it on Cole's c.v. page. TIA FRS 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googling produces only this PR from Swarthmore [3].--Lee Hunter 17:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good enough for me, I guess. Interesting that a search for "Legion of Iran" alone returns only the blurb about Cole.

FRS 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on second thought, I'm uneasy about this factoid. The Swarthmore PR is dated October 19, 2005 and uses the exact same words as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003." The genesis of the factoid seems to come from this diff: [4] posted by an anon IP October 9, which, uh, you, LeeHunter, deleted later that same day. Two days Later User:Equitor put back in the variant of the text that presently exists. I raise the issue b/c an award from the 2003 government of Iran is not exactly like an honorary degree from Yale. A lot of people will consider it a serious blemish, not an "honor." Anyway, we need a better cite. FRS 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put up an RfC for this issue in hope of getting more eyes on it. I find it hard to believe this award would have been given w/o receiving some Googleable notice. Also, Cole's testimony before a Senate S/Comittee in Spring of 2004, and the fact that he's received fire from various neo-con opponents who fail to use the 'fact' of this award against him all make it seem like an urban myth or Nihilartikel to me. FRS 19:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I agree with everything you've said above. I'd be inclined to just remove it for the time being or comment it out. --Lee Hunter 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. The possibility of harm to his reputation by leaving in an incorrect claim seems a lot more significant than the harm done by taking out a correct one (that can always be put back in later). This is an example of a pet issue for me: articles about marginally notable living people or small companies. They can be a magnet for more or less subtle smears by political opponents, disgruntled employees, clients or students; few editors will have the time, interest or knowledge to fix them. FRS 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I considder it quite difficult to harm the reputation of Jaun Cole. And I would be very impressed if somewhere were sucessful. 02:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)