Jump to content

Talk:Juan Cole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionADelgado (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 22 September 2009 (→Iraq). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest work

Coatrack tag

I added the coatrack tag to this article due to the excessive amount of coverage of this man's views as opposed to the man himself. Bonewah (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i mentioned above, i feel that the 'view' section of this article is a wp:coatrack. Most all of this subsection are just Cole's personal beliefs with citations back to his website, which at a minimum, could be summarized, but im going to be bold and just remove them all as unnecessary editorializing. Biographies are not an excuse to simply reprint all of a person's views and works in Wikipedia. Bonewah (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that Bonewah doesn't like Juan cole, but thats know excuse to erase all his viewpoints form this article and other wikipedia articles where he's referenced. These are Coles own views on his webpage. They are relevant to his political viewpoints. annoynmous 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They still need secondary sources. I would agree that it's a bit odd to go removing biographical material from an article (thus leaving only various incidents in someone's life) while claiming to be resolving a COATRACK issue, but that doesn't mean we don't need secondary sourcing for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about biographies calls for us to reprint all of the man's views, at a minimum summary style calls on us to summarize his views. Seriously, look at other biographies, do you see loads and loads of opinion reprinted? Guys like william Kristol or Jonah Goldberg do nothing other than offer their opinions yet their bios contain only a few paragraphs on their views.
Annoynmous says that Cole is a respected scholar, but is he notable by the Notability of academics standard? Thats what this article should be doing, explaining why we should care about this guy at all, rather than just listing all his opinions. How is this professor different than other middle eastern profs at Michigan (or IU or Yale for that matter)? How is he more notable than other authors of middle eastern books? That is why i say coatrack about this article, because rather than establish that he is actually important enough to include in Wikipedia, this article merely acts as a vehicle for his opinions. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's a tenured professor on the middle east at The University of Michigan. He spent a lot of time in the Middle East and has written on the topic extensively.
It's interesting you mention Jonah Golberg and William Kristol because both there articles specifically have sections on there political views and frequent topics they talk about. The Christopher Hitchens article where you deleted Cole from has long sections on Hitchens views.
All these views come from Coles own blog. Unless you have some reason to believe that someone is impersonating Cole on his own blog, otherwise they count as relevant to illuminating his views.
If you feel the article is too long than feel free to summarize it some, but there is no excuse for completely deleting his views from the article. annoynmous 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The huge section that presents Cole's detailed views is cited to references 32-90. Almost all of those references are to Cole's own writings, either blog or articles. I agree with Bonewah that this material should be trimmed for brevity. One way to do that would be to focus on those of Cole's views that have been commented on by others. For that, we would expect to see citations to others' published work, not just citations to Cole himself. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind shortening it some, what I object to is the complete deletion of his views from the article. I don't understand why we need other sources, this is Coles own blog so it's no question that these are his views. Maybe they can be condensed somewhat, but he's a scholar on the middle east and his views on the countrys in that region are relevant. annoynmous 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I shortened and summarized the article some. I took five sections out altogether and removed all the long quotes from the page. I feel the article now adequately summarizes coles views. annoynmous 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UC)
I removed the references to Coles books at the top of the article as they are already referenced in the bibliography. I also removed Saudia Arabia and Egypty from the views section which reduces the entire section by half. That's not even including all the long quotes and extra fat I trimmed off from the individual entries. I consider this matter closed and the Coatrack issues dealt with. The article I feel now adequately summarizes coles views. annoynmous 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong title for 2009 book

In two places the article says his new book is "Sacred Spaces and Holy War." No, that was published in 2002. His book to be released later this month is titled "Engaging the Muslim World." 75.70.64.67 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment and Imperialism

There is a reference in the article on Napoleon that states Cole's opinion that "propaganda" was used to "obfuscate imperialism" with reference to Napoleon's "enlightened" attitudes regarding sciences. I haven't read Mr. Cole's works so I am feeling around in the dark, but it would seem that he concludes that imperialistic tendencies would be divorced from enlightenment, secularism, and the expansion of the sciences. Why? Using force against others, whether domestically or internationally, doesn't know philosophical boundaries. Atheists, theists, scientists, righties, lefties, liberals, conservatives, basically any belief system has those who wish to inflict their philosophies by force and those who don't. Is it so hard to fathom a secular, "enlightened", science advancing world view so taken with its romanticized view of itself that it would use force on others? At the end, every system of philosophy ultimately reduces down to how man, individually and collectively, interacts with the material world. Every philosophy that I have ever been acquainted with can be exploited to coerce others with regard to their interaction with the material world. Imperialism serves to bring others with different philosophies to either change or die. I sense that Mr. Cole refuses to acknowledge historical evidence of the overly romantic and radicalized elements on his portion of the philosophical spectrum with regard to its violence and coercion. It is up to those who wish for peace to reign to hold the radicals within their particular philosophical areas to account, not pretend that their philosophies are wholly pure.--Toolkien (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that the purpose of talk pages to discuss articles. Could you explain how your comment is related to the Juan Cole article? It seems you are trying to express something about Cole's use of the word "propaganda" which bears no relation the subject, particularly since you say you haven't read Cole's works.--CSTAR (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual

The source provided so far to support the idea that Cole is a "public intellectual" appears to be a sort of YouTube for the MIT community -- anyone can post who has an MIT email address, and there is no peer review. I don't think we can use that as a source. Any others? IronDuke 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cf my new reference. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- that was already there. I moved it to an appropriate section, as it doesn't really meet WP:LEAD and the source is weak (not terrible, just weak). I still think that's the best way to do it. IronDuke 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronicle for Higher Education is "weak"? No wonder I stopped paying attention to comments on this page... csloat (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... your comment would seem to indicate that you do pay attention to comments on this page. Unfortunately, that is all it indicates. IronDuke 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps it indicates that I did pay attention *today* to comments on this page. It also indicates that I consider the Chronicle for Higher Education a reliable source, and I consider the claim that it is "weak" to be rather idiotic. In any case, my point was, this was precisely why I stopped paying attention to comments on this page -- people with axes to grind who try to bog everyone down in insipid discussion of ludicrous points. As if there were any serious dispute that Cole was a public intellectual or that the Chronicle for Higher Education is a well-established reliable source. csloat (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you are going to refer to other people's point as "idiotic," then I think both you and WP would be well served by your taking this page off your watchlist. If you had an actual argument to make (and there is as yet no evidence that you do), I'm certainly happy to hear it -- if you can abide by WP:CIV, that is. IronDuke 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made an argument; you simply refuse to acknowledge it. And you're spending an immense amount of verbiage below trying to dispute the obvious by bogging your interlocutors down in ludicrous points. csloat (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not, in fact, make an argument. You are offering only insults. Why this is, I do not know (and don't wish to know). But if you felt like you wanted to stop posting to this thread, it might be a good thing. IronDuke 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that even Cole's ideological opponents, such as in frontpagemag.com, call him an 'intellectual. The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like frontpagemag as a reliable source? In any case, does it call him a "public intellectual?" IronDuke 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or is not a source is questionable. My point is that even Cole's worst enemies consider him to be an "intellectual". So, we should not pretend that this is a controversial thing to include. It is not. The Squicks (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a reliable source, it doesn't matter. If it is, it does. And did you really read my post? "Public intellectual". IronDuke 00:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a reliable source here that supports the inclusion of the phrase. Do you actually have an arguement to make here? Because I see nothing. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Michigan also calls him a 'public intellectual'. And that is what he calls himself. The Squicks (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
University of Michigan? You mean University of Minnesota? And who at the University of Minnesota calls him that? And Electronic Intifada? Really? Good source? "Do you actually have an arguement to make here?" Well, yes: it's been countering your arguments, which have been (easily) swatted away. Did you have an argument to make here? Because I'm not sure what you're advocating in terms of this article; can you be more specific? IronDuke 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you're doing nothing but putting your hands on your ears and saying 'I didn't hear that'. Reliable sources exist to support the inclusion of the phrase. And the only thing that you have against that is hotair. Accept reality. The Squicks (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to respond to any of my points is a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you are unable to do so, please stop posting here; it's disruptive. If you are able to, great; let's discuss. IronDuke 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three editiors support something. You contradict them. Then, you claim that others are being disruptive?! Pot, meet kettle.
He calls himself a 'public intellectual'. A reliable source calls him a 'public intellectual'. Thus, the article calls him a 'public intellectual'. End stop. End of discussion. The Squicks (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus, the article calls him a 'public intellectual'." Who is objecting to this? IronDuke 01:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are. The Squicks (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I placed it in the article, actually. Just not in the lead. IronDuke 01:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you whining about it now? The Squicks (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whining about what? When? You just joined this thread with, at best, a non-sequitur. I think, possibly, you are embarrassed at having been wrong on nearly every point you've made, and are now lashing out at me, why I do not know. As there doesn't seem to be any disagreement here, maybe you could stop posting until you had something new (and civil) to say? IronDuke 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How am I wrong? Once again,
He calls himself a 'public intellectual'. A reliable source calls him a 'public intellectual'. Thus, the article calls him a 'public intellectual'. End stop. End of discussion. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, Frontpagemag and EI have been used as sources before. They are biased and questionable, but they have been used. Please stop playing "I didn't hear that". The Squicks (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Most of your justifications are wrong, your understanding of the sources you presented was wrong, and certainly your method of presenting them is. Also, your assumptions about what I believe are wrong -- quite clearly. I already allowed that, though not really necessary, calling him a public intellectual is fine. I don't know why you're anxious for a fight, but please take it somewhere else, preferably off-wiki. IronDuke 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When has EI been used as a reliable source for something other than itself? Never mind, don't answer: I think you'd be doing yourself a favor if you moved on. You don't seem to be tracking what I'm saying. IronDuke 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you ought to move on. You claimed that a reliable source was weak using... what? What? Using nothing. This was all nothing but your own personal opinion. The Squicks (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the description to the lead, with the references. Please drop this rather than spouting out non sequiters, slights of hand, personal attacks, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could have predicted that once I agreed with you, you would find a way to create a disagreement. You have responded to none of my points, and seem so far incapable of doing so. You are behaving in a disruptive, combative manner. Please, please stop. IronDuke 01:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have reverted the lead. Sigh. The Chronicle is a reliable source, and it is pedantic silliness to cite it for some things (that he is a historian) and not others (that he is an intellectual). Stop this. The Squicks (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must absolutely respond to my points, or I can't have a discussion with you. By definition. I don't know why you want to war with me, but please don't. Really, Stop. Talk. If you can. IronDuke 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respond to my points! WHY is The Chronicle not a reliable source? Cite evidence for your claim that it is not. The Squicks (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I see that you cannot respond to what I’ve said. My hope was that, embarrassed that you could to do so, you would move on, pretending this exchange never happened. Instead, you have chosen to WP:BAIT me and edit war to drag me into a fight, I have no idea why, I barely recognize your handle, but I respectfully request that you take some time off from this, really think about what’s been written, then either a) stop posting here or b) actually respond to what I’ve said. I don’t think I’m asking for too much. IronDuke 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had enough of this. I really have. And your comments about me being embarrassed (Where on earth would you get such a thing?) are baffling. Here are some facts.

(a)The Chronicle of Higher Education is a reliable source. (b)It is cited in the lead for other things. (c)A center point of the article is that it calls Juan Cole a "public intellectual". From these facts, it would be perfectly logical that one would add the term 'public intellectual' to the lead. But you have unconditionally refused to deal with these facts. You claimed that the source is "weak" and, when asked, refused to give any evidence as to why it would be considered weak.

I don't think I'm asking too much. The Squicks (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources that I cited from EI and U of M stated that he calls himself a 'public intellectual'. Frontpagemag called him an 'intellectual', which was for some reason discounted because the word 'public' was not mentioned (which is pure silliness).The Squicks (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frontpagemag is not a reliable source. The Chornicle of HE is a reliable source, but it does not actually call him, explicitly, a 'Public Intellectual'. This material can go into the main article, but not in the lead. NoCal100 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might be embarrassed by 1) having had all of your arguments rebutted and 2) realizing that we had no disagreement after all, deliberately creating one. I’m not only still pretty sure you are embarrassed, I’m very much hoping you are. Your behavior is combative and disruptive, and does not serve the goals we presumably both share. I still don’t see who at the U of M (and which “M” is that again?) is calling JC a “public intellectual.” Why will you not respond to this? And why should a minor, peacock term be in the lead? And why, when you saw we actually agreed, did you rush to create a disagreement? Again, if frontpage mag is not a reliable source, it doesn’t matter what they say. Are you saying FP mag is a reliable source? And yes, the fact that they don’t call him a “public intellectual” would be important. Because then we’d only use the word “intellectual” for JC. Which is, BTW, already kind of silly, as most professors would be considered “intellectuals” of one sort or another. It’s a pretty vague term. And WP: LEAD means we’re using a precis of the article. His being a “public intellectual” (whatever that might mean) is not an important enough fact about him, even if true, to merit inclusion in the lead. I probably shouldn’t go on at such length, since you seem to want a fight and nothing more, but it’s important that all your points be addressed, even if you won’t address mine. IronDuke 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, we getting somewhere.
(1) You cannot reach inside my head or look inside my mind. You don't know how I'm feeling. Noone else knows besides me. This psychoanalyzing stuff is a naked personal attack. It's also completely irreverent to what is a content dispute. I could have called you lots of nasty things, but I didn't. So, please quit calling me bad names, okay? It's not just annoying, it's also not relevant to anything. We are all adults here.
(2) We have a clear disagreement, which we have had from the beginning. I believe that some text should be in the lead. You disagree. This is fine. There's no need to make it personal.
(3) Please read the defintion of 'peacock term' in Wikipedia. It does not refer to quotations from someone else. If a writer of the Associated Press was to call President Obama "cool under pressure", that would be fine to include. Writing it ourselves would be bad, since that would be OR. But quoting reliable sources is not OR.The Squicks (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(4) The fact of the matter is: We cite the Chronicle to support calling him a 'historian'. That term in and of itself is vague and debatable. But it's acceptable since an RS used the term and he calls himself that. Now, Cole also calls himself a "public intellectual". And the Chronicle article stated that "There has never been a better time to be a public intellectual, and the Web is the big reason why. Juan Cole is exhibit No. 1." It used the term multiple times in the article.
My opinion is that if the Chronicle put enough space in calling him an public intellectual, we should too. Since, after all, we include other information that they spend equal time on (that he's a historian, etc). The Squicks (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I wasn’t calling you any bad names, it is strange that you would say that. I was saying you might well be embarrassed. I was only saying it because that would be a natural way for you to feel in this situation.
2) We have not had a disagreement “from the beginning” That statement is very much in error. We had a misunderstanding from the beginning. You wanted the term “public intellectual” in the article, thinking I was objecting to it and not realizing that the term was already there. As soon as I pointed out to you that it was, and that my only objection had been to its being in the lead, you rushed pell-mell to put it in the lead, so that we could at last have an actual disagreement. That is combative, disruptive, and a violation of WP:BATTLE. No reasonable person can read this thread and fail to see that.
3) As for peacock, “In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information” says it best. Public intellectual is a pretty vacuous term. I don’t see how it helps. I’m willing to have it in, but not in the lead, because it’s far from the most important thing about JC.
4) The Chronicle is an okay source for calling him that in the article. Still a little silly, but I’m willing to be flexible. But not for the lead. Why not? Because it is not a common term for JC. It’s actually very, very rare. Yes, he’s a historian. Yes, he is widely quoted on Middle East issues, these are important facts about him. The term “public intellectual” is not in wide currency, and therefore doesn’t go in the lead. IronDuke 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Keeping with the use of numbers here for clairty's sake)
1)Saying "You ought to be ashamed" or "You ought to be embarrassed" to someone is obviously a personal attack. I don't see any other way of interpreting that.
2)You wrote about taking it out of the lead on 21:22, 28 March 2009. Given the rules of time, I was able to see that and I expressed disagreement. You called the Chronicle an unreliable source or "weak" (and for the life of me I still don't understand where you get this idea from. What is wrong with the paper?), and I expressed disagreement. Once again, please stop pretending to know what is inside my head. Your repeated claims about my having a hidden agenda or hidden bad feelings and so on are really grating, and also completely irrelevant to a content dispute. Please stop assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. I've had enough. The Squicks (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3)Read the talk page for the 'peacock article'. It's clear as crystal that peacock terms apply to what we write. It does not apply to quotes attributed to sources. It's perfectly okay to describe someone as a "statesman" or "gentlemen" or "intellectual" and so on if it is a direct quote from a notable reliable source.
4)Common is in the eye of the beholder. Google gives 91k or so for 'Juan Cole intellectual' verses 124k for 'juan cole writer' verses 107k for 'juan cole south asian history'. But, in any rate, we have a source here that does say it. And the source is fine. The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) “Saying "You ought to be ashamed" or "You ought to be embarrassed" to someone is obviously a personal attack.” You appear to be quoting me; when did I say either of these things?
2) ”You wrote about taking it out of the lead on 21:22, 28 March 2009. Given the rules of time, I was able to see that and I expressed disagreement." I don’t understand this at all. Can you rephrase? ”You called the Chronicle an unreliable source or "weak" When did I say it was unreliable? FWIW, I don’t believe your agenda is in any way hidden, I think it’s quite clear, in fact. You tried to pick a fight, were caught up short when you realized there was no fight to be had, then made a disruptive edit so that there would be a fight. I could try to argue with you, but this makes it difficult.
3) The fact that you think “gentleman” would be a good, neutral way to describe an RS speaks more eloquently to my point than I do myself.
4) I count 7,460 Ghits for “Juan cole” and “public intellectual.” And of those, how many are reliable sources? I know you’ve Googled it, that’s where you scraped the thin, non-reliable sources above. Anything more than that? And since you haven’t responded to my point per WP:LEAD, are you conceding it? IronDuke 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1)I'm directly paraphrasing what you have said. Now, I really want to drop this since [a]I'm not asking you for an apology (And I don't expect one or want one or whatever. I'm not offended) and [b]Reading what you said before doesn't mean that I will treat you or consider your editors any differently. It's immaterial.
2)You called it "weak". Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you consider it to be "weak"? And, first all, it was you who started the dispute- with three to one editorial consensus going the other way against you. It's silly for you to keep calling this a "fight" or a "battle" or whatever emotive language you insist on using. This is an editorial dispute. Between reasonable adults? Okay?
3)Read my statement, and then write an actual reply. The peacock term rule does not apply to quotes. If X calls Y an "A", than it is perfectly acceptable for us to include Y = A in the article.
4)Once again, if the Chronicle is reliable enough and notable enough to cite in the lead for other information-- that he is "South Asian" author-- than why on earth can't we use this bit of information? It makes no sense. If an article called Barack Obama both "a talented writer" and "a noted speaker", than it would be silly to include the former and then blast the latter as 'peacock'. The Squicks (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) If you paraphrase, please say so. Your using quote marks here is misleading. Also, you don't appear to be "dropping it."
2) It does not seem like a great source to me, merely okay. Not of particular note. Perhaps I am wrong -- why do you consider it strong?
3)"The peacock term rule does not apply to quotes." Really? Really? Okay... I'll bite: where are the quote marks in the lead?
4) Have you really not read WP:LEAD? By your logic, any fact about Cole that was supported by a RS could be in the lead. IronDuke 23:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, for what its worth, i also consider it a peacock term and wouldnt use it, even in the article because i feel it adds no real value to the article. However, considering the amazing amount of acrimony on this matter, im not going to fight for it one way or the other. Bonewah (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's just that, to be honest, Duke's nasty personal attack that "I ought to be embarassed of myself" got under my skin. The Squicks (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would ask you not to use fake quotes referring to me (and to use a better locution, if you insist on doing so). Also, your tone has been uniformly combative and hostile: I'm assuming you are referring to my comments as "nasty" to distract attention from your own. IronDuke 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cole as public intellectual

I've started a new subhead to try to isolate the issues here. It seems the objection to the term "public intellectual" rests on two arguments - (1) the term's vagueness or "peacock" status, and (2) the sourcing. Dealing with (1) first, this is kind of a silly argument. The term "public intellectual" is well known, and there is little dispute about what is meant by it. I think we all agree Cole is an "intellectual"; he became a "public intellectual" starting around 2002 when he began publicly commenting on current events in newspaper and radio interviews and in his blog, offering his intellectual expertise on matters of public importance. There's really no vagueness here; even Wikipedia's own definition of the term is quite clear: "a writer, academic, speaker or mass media personality who regularly and visibly deals with matters of broad interest relating to government policy or social questions." There's little question that Cole fits this category, and the objections raised to this categorization border on the absurd. (I mean, do you doubt that he's a writer or academic? Do you doubt that he regularly and visibly deals with matters of broad interest relating to government policy or social questions?? These are objective questions that are easily evidenced.)

As for (2), I think this is a non-issue. We have excellent sourcing in the form of the Chronicle of Higher Education; other than the unexplained nonsense that the source is "weak," there is nothing else. We also have other sources including his own enemies at Frontpage Magazine. We can also cite Foreign Policy (November 1 2004), hardly a "weak" source, which explains things quite clearly: "Cole's transformation into a public intellectual embodies many of the dynamics that have heightened the impact of the blogosphere. He wanted to publicize his expertise, and he did so by attracting attention from elite members of the blogosphere. As Cole made waves within the virtual world, others in the real world began to take notice." What more do you folks need?

Are there any other points that need to be addressed here, or can we move on? csloat (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've pretty much summed up the debate. I have no idea who the debate is with, but you have summed it up well. IronDuke 20:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, Duke. Aren't you going to claim that CS "ought to be embarrassed of himself" for this post? The Squicks (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for snark - if IronDuke is ready to concede the debate, make the appropriate change to the article and let's move on. He's probably not going to give us the satisfaction of acknowledging he was wrong; I think his comment above is enough to establish that we have consensus on the issues. csloat (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Update - I went ahead and made the necessary change, as well as adding the Foreign Policy quote later in the article in case anyone is confused about what makes Cole a "public intellectual." Cheers! csloat (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No need for snark?" Well, I guess not. But I'm suprised to see you say so, csloat. No, I've conceded nothing. This is a trumped up disagreement. AFAICT, my previous agreement was unacceptable, so a fresh disagreement had to be concocted, which is disappointing. IronDuke 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you're talking about, unless it has something to do with improving the article, <WP:CIV vio removed>. Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you were unable to understand my post; I can expand on those remarks if that will clarify matters for you. <reference to WP:CIV vio removed> . IronDuke 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<WP:CIV vio removed> If you don't have anything to say about improving the article, and so far in this discussion you apparently don't, let's move on to more fruitful endeavors. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted While I do not like that this is so personal, it's not a good idea to delete other people's comments. The Squicks (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not like the comments csloat made, you have now become co-author of them. Can you say what WP policy forbids removing personal attacks and invective from talk page posts? IronDuke 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a)I am self-evidently the co-author of nothing. Someone's words apply only to themselves.
(b)There is no policy either for or against removal of personal attacks. See Wikipedia:RPA#Removal_of_text. This is not a matter of policy, and you should not have put words into my mouth like that. I did not claim that this was a matter of policy.
(c)Are you going to revert all of your previous statements as well, like the stuff about 'you ought to be embarrassed' and so on? The Squicks (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did indeed become the co-author. If that pains you, I think you might consider not replacing offensive comments in the future. I never put words in your mouth... I asked if it was policy. It isn't, as you admit. As for your putting words in my mouth -- literally using quotes -- you can feel free to stop doing that any time. However, if you'd like me to refactor any particular comment(s), I am certainly willing to entertain the idea. IronDuke 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For background) The FP article is available here (subscription needed). The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Sloat's statement of the argument at the beginning of this, very little of substance has been presented. Mostly snark from the three of you.
There was a genuine problem with the Public intellectual article. As previously written Cole would not appear to be one — because the key phrase was: "deals with matters of broad interest" [Emphasis mine]. Under that definition Cole would probably not qualify. Cole's contributions to the public debate have generally been focused fairly close to his expertise. A practice that is reasonably honest intellectually, but doesn't get to the "broad interest" subjects that the likes of Galbraith and Chomsky addressed.
But, the article was wrong. I've fixed it, and, per the correct definition, Cole most certainly qualifies.
It's too bad nobody considered doing some research before y'all took off on each other. Considered and informed debate would have saved you all a lot of sturm und drang. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

Cole is also a vocal critic of President Ahmadinejad.

There isn't any reason not to include this, is there? Cole called his beliefs "monstrous". The Squicks (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be included. Once upon a time, a group of politically motivated editors were adamant that this information be censored, and they even went so far as to create a belabored argument claiming that Cole was some kind of apologist for Ahmadinejad. It was nonsense, and the involved editors have since moved on to other things (though one or two of them left after being outed as sockpuppeteers on other pages as I recall). It's been a couple years; I think this rather non-controversial statement can go back up without trouble. But who knows; I haven't really been following this page much of late. csloat (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've seen the opposite. People who deny the holocaust themselves and who love Ahmad cite Juan Cole as a supposed ally of themselves. The Squicks (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that myself, but I suppose people will say the damnedest things. csloat (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he criticizes, it is better to mention. Kasaalan (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, I think these individual country/region sections are a bit wordy, and not quite wiki, if you know what I mean. (I can say more if this isn't clear.) IronDuke 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean, but would like you to say more on this subject anyway. My feeling is that you are talking about the same sort of concerns that myself and other editors expressed above in the Coatrack tag section. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking so much in terms of coatrack, just that it's sort of unweildy. Can we not use a more summary style? IronDuke 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims

"Cole has mentioned being contacted by a lawyer representing Gibran's heirs, who asserted the family's claim to copyright, although these works (published 1905 - 1915) were clearly out of copyright."

I am not very familiar with US copyright laws, yet the starting date of copyright expiration is not the date of the publish, yet the date the writer passed away in some parts of the world. Do anyone familiar with the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue was resolved. No further dispute resolution or mediation was demanded by any editor.

Hey IronDuke: (1) Stop vandalizing the talk page to make a point. I'm sorry you felt insulted when I asked you to stop being disruptive before, but you are just compounding the problem by deleting my comments. (2) Stop vandalizing the article. Deleting "public intellectual" after a thorough discussion of the issue, backed up with evidence from several reliable sources including Foreign Policy and the Chronicle for Higher Education, led to a concensus that in fact the term "public intellectual" was entirely fitting. You then left the edit alone for, let's see, over 2 weeks, and when I tried to press the issue by making the case clearly in talk one more time, you dismissed the entire debate and said you had no argument with any of this. If that is the case, your most recent edit was completely disruptive. Now, just stop it, ok? Thanks, csloat (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had no problem including the phrase in the article. I do have a problem with it in the lead, as I made clear. Where do you see consensus for this in the lead? Also, please stop attacking me. It's unhelpful. I hope you can see that. IronDuke 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not make it clear that you had any disagreement; in fact, when I summarized carefully the arguments on both sides for putting it in the lead you said "I think you've pretty much summed up the debate. I have no idea who the debate is with, but you have summed it up well." So at that time you were conceding that the phrase was appropriate. Now you are stating the opposite; I don't know which of your positions was disingenuous but I don't care. Please respond to the points I raised above and state why you think the fact that Cole is a public intellectual should be censored from the lead of this article? Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - asking you to stop being disruptive is not "attacking you." Please do not mischaracterize it as such. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comments have been extraordinarily unpleasant to deal with. I don’t know why you insist on that, and I’ll resist the urge to speculate. However, I must respectfully insist that you stop. It isn’t only that’s personally unpleasant for me to deal with, but it sets a very bad example for other people.
I find it odd that continue to not comprehend my argument—you almost sum it up in your latest post—but I’ll try to explain it more clearly. You argue that the term “public intellectual” should appear in the article. I can accept that. It still seems a bit peacocky, but I’ll live. Putting a term like that, with weak sourcing (and I haven’t seen you show that the source in question is so strong anything in it must go in the lead of any subject it mentions) in the lead, however, is wrong. It contravenes what most people understand by a WP:LEAD. The detail, even if it were objectively true (and it’s a pretty mushy term at best), is simply too small for the lead. Nothing to do with “censoring.” Is that clearer?
I asked you about consensus and you didn’t get around to replying. Can you say where you found consensus to include the term in the lead? IronDuke 01:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I do feel like some of this is getting to be a distraction to the main issue. In terms of what should and shouldn't be on this talk page, I'd be willing to have an informal mediation, if you and I could agree on a mediator. IronDuke 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, please remove or refactor your first paragraph since its not relevant to the question at hand (your objection to the article as it presently reads). I would really like to put to an end this emotive guessing of other people's motives. It serves no purpose other than to irritate.
To your main point, you so far have not defined why the two prominent papers Chronicle of Higher Education and Foriegn Policy are "weak" in this context. I honestly do not understand your argument. What is wrong with them? How are you defining "weak"?
As far as whether or not the term is "objectively true" or "a bit peacocky" in your words, your argument does not make sense to me either. Doesn't the term 'Public Intellectual' exist? Is it not a valid term? What makes it invalid and objectively false whereas other terms like 'Expert' or 'Academic' or 'Scholar' are okay? This all seems like specious reasoning. The Squicks (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about with regards to the 1st paragraph? I literally have no idea. Amd I don't have to define why a single source isn't enough to cram a peacock term into the lead. IronDuke 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can call other people "unpleasant" if you so wish. I was merely pointing out that, in my opinion, such statements are unhelpful and tangential to the main point here, so re-factoring the text seems like a good idea. The Squicks (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amd I don't have to define why a single source isn't enough to cram a peacock term into the lead.
(a)There are two sources here. And one of them was cited for other information already.
(b)It takes up bare nineteen character spaces, which is hardly "cramming" or overloading anything.
(c)It's no more of a peacock term that the other terms that I just quoted like 'Scholar' or 'Academic' or 'Historian'. You still have not come up with any evidence as to why the term is objectively invalid. Even if it is indeed a peacock term, which I believe it is not, Wikipedia guidelines allow it to be included since it is a quote.
(d)I'm still waiting as to why you consider those reliable sources to be "weak".
(e)Since you represent the minority position, the burden of proof is on you to disprove the majority. The Squicks (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Scholar" a peacock term? "Historian?" Look, it doesn't belong in the lead. Passing mention in two sources (even one as extraordinarily illustrious as The Chronicle of Higher Education) just doesn't cut it. And I've yet to hear a rebuttal of my point re WP:LEAD. Or why there is a consensus for inclusion. Having said that, if it's your fondest desire to have this in the lead, so be it. I can't agree, but it's not worth fighting over. IronDuke 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point; "public intellectual" is no more "peacocky" than "scholar" or "historian." You see how you reacted with contemptuous ridicule when you considered whether "scholar" is a peacock term? That is how many of us feel when you claim that "public intellectual" is a peacock term. For me, the meaning of the term is just as clear as the meaning of the term "scholar." You say "it doesn't belong in the lead" but you never say why. You -- again with contemptuous ridicule -- now concede that the Chronicle of Higher Education is an impeccable source, and yet you assert that "passing mention ... just doesn't cut it." First, where is your source indicating there is a question or a doubt about whether Cole is a public intellectual? There simply is none - every source that even considers the case states that he is one. Frankly, IronDuke is the only source I've ever heard question that fact. Second, the mention is not "passing" (in the Chronicle's case, it is the central point, and in Foreign Policy, the case is made with analysis and eloquence), but it's unclear why you think that matters. Passing or not, it's clear he is a public intellectual. Finally, you claim you have not seen a rebuttal of your point re WP:LEAD -- that's because you never made such a point. All you did was say "per WP:LEAD" but you never explained (even when pressed by The Squicks) why the lead should exclude such a well-established and notable fact. That is not an argument. I am glad to see that you say it's not worth fighting over; I hope that means it won't be deleted again. Thanks for going with the consensus on this. Cheers, csloat (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did miss TS's point about "historian," et al. Thanks for the correction. My point about the lead, which I made many, many times, was that it didn't adhere to WP:LEAD, that the lead be a precis of the article. Even assuming that Cole is undeniably a public intellectual, the fact itself is so minor (and nebulous) as to have no place in the lead. But I said I wasn't going to fight over it, and I'm not, unless consensus should change at some time in the future, which I don't have any specific reason to anticipate will happen. Cheers. IronDuke 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about the lead; it's just wrong. The fact that he is a public intellectual is neither "minor" nor "nebulous." It's actually quite central; it is in fact the reason any of us have heard of him in the first place. Hope you will come to understand why it must stay in the lead; thanks for your input. csloat (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to responding to the excellent points above, IronDuke, can you please explain what is "peacocky" about the term "public intellectual"? I mean, let's get down to specifics here -- which word don't you understand, "public" or "intellectual"?

I'm not going to continue reverting your vandalism to the talk page but please stop pretending I have personally attacked you. I haven't. csloat (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about whether the lack of solid sources for a term means the term should not be included in the lede. But I would err to the safe side. It's probably best that the lede's content be solidly sourced. But what's more important at this time is the abuse that IronDuke has incurred at this talkpage. I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the multiple personal attacks [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] or the subsequent denials of any personal attacks.[9][10].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think those are personal attacks, report me and be done with it -- this isn't the forum to complain about such things. I think I was accurately pointing out that IronDuke is wasting everyone's time here, and I fail to see a single personal attack in any of the links you have here. We've got a clear sense from at least two unimpeachable sources that Cole is a "public intellectual"; and we don't have a single source anywhere expressing even a hint of doubt about that fact; it's pretty clear this belongs in the lead.
By the way, going back over the previous arguments above, and this is the post that IronDuke said he agreed with previously. That refutes clearly both of his main arguments, that the term "public intellectual" is squirrely and that the sourcing is "weak." He's effectively buried previous refutations of his contributions in paragraphs of nonsense about personal attacks that never occurred -- in the meantime never actually bothering to respond to the arguments here other than to repeat without evidence his original assertions. csloat (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your not restoring your previous remarks. IronDuke 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am completely mystified by the idea that the two ironclad reliable sources- Chronicle of Higher Education and Foreign Policy Magazine-- are "weak" or "not solid". I mean this in the most truthful way; I don't understand where this objection comes from. The Squicks (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the personal attacks issue, IronDuke has dished it out as much as (or more) than he has taken it in- and any fair reading of the above commentary shows that clearly.
Obviously, I cannot speak for Sloat and I won't. As for me, my reverting of IronDuke's deletion of talk page material (material that I explicitly stated that I did not agree with myself) 'is not a personal attack, and I'm speechless that it's being labeled that. My comment why are you whining about it now was indeed completely silly, and I do apologize for that. The Squicks (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also apologize for statements like "Sigh", "Stop it", and the like. I fought IronDuke's mud-slinging with my own mud-slinging, which was not appropriate at all. But I am only human, and I would like him to apologize to me as well. The Squicks (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Squicks, I appreciate your apology, but do not think your behavior (in tandem with csloat's) was comparable to mine. I said before, and say again, if you have some specific thing you want me to refactor, I'd be willing to consider it. IronDuke 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to apologize for your hateful mud-slinging and naked personal attacks, than that's fine with me. I'm more than willing to let it die. Of course, you and I had a negative personal history of editing articles before this article, and that negative history will live on. But that history is not destiny, and I can let it go. The Squicks (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you continue to feel bad about our interaction. IronDuke 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

I seem to remember hearing him referred to as "Juan Cole" very often around 2004, 2005, and more recently as "John Cole". Are these the same person or am I just confused? Should this be noted in the article? 174.21.16.199 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Cole, the author of the blog Balloon Juice, is a different person. Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Cole&oldid=315539321"