Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"Dual Loyalties"

Let me get this straight: Someone accuses Cole of filling his writings with the obsessions of a notorious antisemitic hoax that he in fact decries, and we include the accusation in our article. Cole dismisses the accusation as "propaganda" and calls it "outrageous," and we refuse to cite this response because it constitutes "name-calling"? Calling someone a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theorist is not libel, but describing that argument as propaganda is? This seems so patently ridiculous that I think I must be missing something. If so, could someone please explain?

I assume good faith, but there are appearances to think about. Is anyone concerned that when we search out the most incendiary words ever written about Cole, create a special section for them, and then suppress the response from him, it might look like a hit job?

On a secondary but related note, Isarig, why do you object to specifying what publications the charges against Cole were printed in? There are 10 words given over to Karsh's academic job title; we can't give two over to name the popular publication that printed his non-academic op-ed?

Is this dispute still in arbitration?--G-Dett 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, yes, this is in mediation, and you might want to stay out of contentious editing while it is going on. To you arguments: We are not suppressing Cole's response, it appears in the article. Karsh gave his reasons for claiming that the themse of the Protocols are common in Cole's writing (and you might want to tone down your own hyperbole about "Calling someone a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theorist " if you are so concerned about "appearances"). The issue of this being libel has been discussed, at length, please familiarize yourself with previous discussions. I object to listing the publications for several reasons. One is that the list of references is not (and was never intended to be) a comprehensive lsit of any and all media sources that carried the charge (and there are others). The second is that it is redundant - the references are given, and anyone who reads them sees where they were published (what will you do when I add the WSJ, or any other source? continue to list each source, in-line?). And third, because it smacks of a not-so-subtle attempt to poison the well (as is implictly conceded by your last sentence). Isarig 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Isarig.

1. Is it well-poisoning to name a publication? In Karsh's case, if we give his Oxford position at length, then don't mention that his piece is an op-ed for the New Republic, doesn't it look misleadingly like he made his attack in an academic article?

As I wrote, anyone who checks the refernce sees where it was published. You are not suggesting the we preface every Cole quote made in his blog with the statement "On his Blog, Cole said..." , but surely that may be just as misleading, as a reader may think his personal partisan observations and attacks were made in an academic journal? Isarig 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't litter the article with robotic formulas ('On his blog, Cole said'); but yes, where appropriate (and with an eye to stylistic fluency and felicitousness) we should be clear when a claim is being made on a blog, on an op-ed page, or in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These distinctions are always important, but especially so when the claim in question is incendiary, probably defamatory, and possibly actionable.--G-Dett 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim in question is neither defamatory nor actionable, for numerous reason discussed at length previously. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant material. Your answer basically says that where you think its appropriate, we should poison the well, but where you think it is inappropriate, we shouldn't. That's nice, but won't fly. Isarig 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, can you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand how including the name of a publication can be well-poisoning. I've never heard the term used in this way, and I don't get it. Thanks for your patience.--G-Dett 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to peruse Poisoning the well, specifically, the part that says "In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result". Isarig 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ten-word savoring of Karsh's job title also presents "information that may produce a biased result." Everything in this section does. A more useful (because less all-inclusive) definition of "poisoning the well" is provided by the first sentence of the article you've perused but not read: "Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem." You're arguing that the mere inclusion of the phrase "argued in the New Republic" suffices to discredit all that follows. I share your implied low opinion of the magazine, but surely the credibility issues raised by this are the New Republic's problem and not ours. It's true that if we used some unusual formulation that called attention to itself, such as "Karsh argued in the New Republic, which is owned and edited by Martin Peretz, that Cole's work 'resonates powerfully' with the obsessive themes of the Protocols," etc. etc., that would be poisoning the well. The strange phrasing would suggest to the suggestible that they look into this intriguing Mr. Peretz, indeed that doing so might unlock the secret of how claims so spurious as Karsh's have managed to make their way into print. But the phrase you won't allow ("argued in the New Republic") does no such nodding or nudging; it is as normal as can be and calls no attention to itself. It is very common in wikipedia, indeed standard practice, especially when the subject matter is controversial, to specify where this or that controversial allegation has been published.--G-Dett 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

2. If the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theory, what is it? Why is this hyperbole?

The protocols are certainly an antisemitic conspiracy theory, but Karsh did not say that Cole is an " a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theorist". there is a differnce between those two statement, and eliding that differnce, as you have done, is hyperbole. Isarig 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I read this, it looks like Karsh did everything but state it out in the open, leaving nothing more obvious than the backdoor implication that Cole and the Elders share similar ground. Take away the protocols implication (which, if intended, would indeed be scurrilous and unfounded) and what substantive statement is left?

If this accusatory element isn't present (as you suggest) what substance is left in the quote that is even meaningful? If I asked "what quote could be included that says the same thing without the protocols accusation" what would that quote even contain?

Suppose Cole's writing resembled that of Jack Kerouac and that Karsh was merely noting this. What then? There is nothing to say of his ideology, there would be no implication about the protocols, there is no commentary on who Cole is and there is no relevant observation of the subjects he covers. In what way does this improve the Wikipedia article? What characteristic of Cole or his writing is this commenting on and what is it saying? Regardless of whether Karsh openly and positively calls Cole an anti-semite (or some other half associated thing) I can't come away from this with anything besides the subtle hint that Cole is in some way like anti-semites and I'm not sure what else any lay-reader would conclude.

Lastly, if it were true that Karsh was stating out in the open that "Juan Cole is an anti-semite", or if it were true that he was intentionally implying something to this effect with the protocols quote as the rest of us seem to believe, would you hypothetically agree that such a piece of material would constitute a personal attack (or scurrilous attack, or sufficiently contentious...) such that it would not belong in the article? Or do you believe, even as an intentional accusation, there would still be an alternative justification for including it? I apologize if this comes off as weaselly in any way, and invite me to rephrase it if necessary, but your answer to this might prove very constructive and consensus building as we figure this out. Abbenm 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Karsh has made his case in the TNR article - he referred to specific Cole allegations (e.g. that a pro-Zionist Cabal is pulling the strings in Washington) and equated them with similar themes in The Protocols. This does not come out in the current quote, and that is unfortunate. I'd be happy to provide a fuller context by quoting more of Karsh (though similar attempts have been vigorously opposed by the pro-Cole editors), but it is false and misleading to claim that the Karsh accusation is a personal attack that does not belong in the article. Isarig 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

3. I have familiarized myself with the discussion on the talk page. It struck me as so fatuous and absurd on its face that I wondered if some crucial part of it wasn't visible here; as I'm totally unfamiliar with the mediation process, this seemed possible.

It does not seem that you have carefully read it, then. Isarig 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4. If the list of attackers isn't comprehensive, who else is on it? --G-Dett 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The list of sources who have accused Cole of antisemitism and/or promoting a dual loyality conspiracy theory includes the Wall Street Journal, The Yale Herald, The AMerican Thinker, and others. Shall we list them all in-line? Isarig 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I remember at one point scanning this entire talk section for sources backing up the notability of this Karsh piece. I believe there were two provided in an attempt to do this: a WP Op-Ed and Karsh's original article, though the WP Op-Ed made no direct reference to Karsh that I could see. And it looks like you are saying with these other sources that there are sources for general claims of antisemitism against Cole, but that they don't involve Karsh ("The list of sources who have accused Cole of antisemitism and/or promoting"). Perhaps there would be a less disputable case for a generalized, theme-oriented section on this subject than there would be for Karsh's claim alone? Perhaps you could share a few sources and quotes in the talk section (again, I've only seen the two), and we could trade this section in for a more general section on Cole criticism? Just an idea and not necessarily one I wholeheartedly approve of. And acknowledged that this is a fragile paragraph already and any major changes would come after mediation. Abbenm 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have written before that I am not "married" to this particular quote. If you'd like to substitute this indirect accusation of antisemitism with a more direct one (e.g. Michael Oren's description of Cole's writing as "clearly that’s anti-Semitism; that’s not a criticism of Israeli policy.”, related to a Cole claim that Neocons 'can deliver the Jewish vote to [Bush] in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon’s ass.” ) - I don't think I would object, but I think you'll find the pro-Cole crowd here opposed to any criticism of Cole. Isarig 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps "the pro-Cole crowd here" is opposed to criticism. However, a number of other editors (myself included) are interested in producing a clear, comprehensible, (maybe scholarly? too much perhaps) article in which the words that go in it are chosen with care to exclude ambiguity or misinterpretation. I don't think I've ever said anything to suggest I favor excluding criticism of Cole.--CSTAR 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anything explicitly about you, and I'm happy to hear that you are not opposed to clear criticism of Cole. I don't think there is anything ambiguous or unclear about the Karsh quote - he is clearly and unambiguously accusing Cole of espousing themes from the Protocols. but if you prefer to have a quote from another academic, who clearly says Cole's writing are antisemitic, I don't have a problem with that. Isarig 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To be specific, by "clear criticism of COle" I assume you actually mean including quotes or paraphrases of scholars that are critical of Cole. I don't think it's the business of this article to be critical of COle.--CSTAR 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Isarig 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Karsh quote. I'd rather not comment here specifically on that (and the Cole response) as that is the subject of an ongoing mediation.--CSTAR 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "pro-Cole," I think the charge of dual-loyalty is potentially incendiary and usually irresponsible (whether applied to Arabs, Jews, or whomever), and I think criticism of Cole belongs in this article. A more influential, tenacious, not always fair but at least serious body of Cole-criticism is to be found in the work of Martin Kramer (who is every bit as right-wing as Karsh, if less prone to unhinged and defamatory remarks), but I'll leave it to the dedicated to look into that and figure out what to include.

I am not in the slightest bit dedicated to burnishing Cole's career; if anyone needs to know, I think he's a media blowhard in the Dershowitz mode (i.e. a little expertise goes a long way). I think it's strange that he's become such a go-to person for left-wing comment on Iraq, when the one thing he hasn't done and won't do is go to Iraq.

What is flatly ridiculous, however, is to suggest that Cole's response to gravely serious and possibly libellous attacks, i.e. that they are "outrageous," "beneath contempt," "propaganda," etc., cannot be quoted in a wikipedia article because it amounts to "name-calling." Name-calling is the playground word for ad hominem, and this is playground logic. You may find Cole's response compelling or uncompelling, but it isn't defamatory to call an argument outrageous or propagandistic or whatever. It may well, however, be defamatory to call someone a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theorist. That is what should be discussed in mediation, if anything. And regarding this last, I neither accept nor understand Isarig's claim that there's a significant distinction between a paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theorist, on the one hand, and someone whose writings "resonate powerfully" with paranoid antisemitic conspiracy theories and who actively "promotes" them, on the other. I write from an office, not a laboratory, and I lack the instruments to properly see these hairs being split, but I can sense that in this case they're the very finest and downiest. --G-Dett 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to including these incendiary remarks, and even creating a special section for them as we have – and will take neither of these matters to mediation/arbitration – provided that:

1. The publications that ran the remarks be named in the text. No serious argument can be made that giving the name of a source is "well-poisoning." If these remarks have been echoed by a wide variety of mainstream sources, then that's a different matter, but this claim has yet to be demonstrated.

You have already conceded that the reason you want to include the sources is to poison the well. Too late for this back pedaling now.

??????????? --G-Dett 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well aside, doing so is impractical given the numerous sources. Isarig 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us some of those sources? Especially for the alleged influence of the Protocols on Cole's writing?--G-Dett 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Cole's direct response to the remarks is included. It is dismissive, but no serious argument can be made that it is defamatory. A general, only tangentially related remark Cole made regarding a speech by Larry Summers is not a suitable substitute.--G-Dett 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole's response is, as you have conceded, an ad hominem. That's not accpetable. Find one that is a direct response containing non-ad ho9minem arguments, and I'd be happy to include it, as I've written many times.Isarig 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is conceding these silly claims, and where?--G-Dett 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By my reading of WP:BLP, the Karsh quote should not even be here since it is inflammatory, partisan, hysterical and makes a point (re. the protocols) which is peculiar to Karsh (rather than representative of Cole's critics). --Lee Hunter 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My view on the matter is roughly similar; see my comments above. However, the issue is already in mediation, in which I'm an outside participant.--CSTAR 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point, Lee. WP:BLP does specify that citations from inflammatory material, when included, should be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." This is my concern. These remarks are part of the critical landscape when it comes to Cole, but a small part (I'm speaking here only of the "antisemitism" label; the argument about the Protocols is truly minor and marginal, and I think not one writer has backed Karsh on it). When we give these attacks their own section, omit mention of the specific publications that printed them (thereby making it look like a general groundswell rather than an emanation from a recognizable place on the political spectrum), and then suppress Cole's own dismissal, we do indeed appear to be siding with the critics and "representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."

This is really a matter of basic protocol; it's cause for wonder that we're going to arbitration to establish it.--G-Dett 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett: Clarification. It's currently in mediation, not arbitration.--CSTAR 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CSTAR.--G-Dett 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with G-Dett. This is truly obvious, and it should be to anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy. This is even more obvious given that the same people putting this stuff in the article and suppressing its source -- a classic propaganda technique by the way -- are also suppressing Cole's explicit response to some of the charges. csloat 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction regarding dispute above: An editor has erroneously described me as concurring with him that giving the name of a publication is poisoning the well, and that describing an argument as "outrageous" is ad hominem. In fact I regard both of these positions as foolish, and have said so repeatedly.--G-Dett 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2 suggestions

Hi, I notice that the contentious section of this article deals with the "dual loyalties." Can I make 2 suggestions? First, it would be proper to link to the dual loyalties article on the topic. Second, risk of accusations of dual loyalties are intrinsic to diaspora politics, as denoted in this section of the Diaspora politics in the United States article, an other article section to link to to give proper context. Also the concept of "dual loyalties" is mentioned in context in the Ethnic interest group article. Hope that helps. --70.48.69.25 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, both were posting on the same topic. --70.48.69.25 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to wikilink these. Isarig 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation (!), but I can't -- you see, unlike most articles, this article doesn't have an "edit this page" tab (it has only a "view source" tab instead.) --70.48.69.25 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

?? It has an edit ytab as far as I can see. Isarig 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not to an unregistered editor. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's far too much on this subject. Karsh is not an expert on Cole or on antisemitism. So his criticism is not really very important. He is not a source for Cole, nor is he an expert analyst in this area. I don't see why we should include his actual words because it's not really relevant to a biography of Cole what some guy with a grudge has to say outside his professional capacity in some rightwing rag. As a compromise with the anti-Cole POV pushers, I've left the criticism, which I feel has absolutely no place in this article, in place, but I have removed the wording of the smear. We don't need to describe who Karsh is either. His qualifications are not relevant to his smear of Cole. Grace Note 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: “He also responds to Cole's criticism of Israeli policies and the influence of pro-Israel lobbies, comparing them to accusations that have been made in anti-semitic writings.”

Does anyone disagree that this is an accusation of antisemitism, by implication?

To accuse someone of antisemitism, even by implication, is a serious charge. Do the editors who advocate including this accusation in the article claim that it is credible?

Does anyone disagree with the following two statements?

If some editors believe in good faith that this extremely serious accusation is credible (even if others don’t), then it should be part of this article.

If the editors agree that the accusation is not credible, then it shouldn’t -- even if the accusation comes from a reputable source. --Llajwa 03:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. According to Wikipedia policy, our opinion of whether the charges are credible or not is utterly irrelevant. Notability and verifiability of the sources of the charges are relevant, however. If all of a sudden every scientist on Earth woke up and claimed that the sky is orange, even though we can all see that it is blue, we must still report it. - Merzbow 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

added Zelikow claim to 'dual loyalties' section

I added info on Bush Admin official Philip Zelikow's claim that the US entered the Iraq War 'to protect Israel'. The edit is here Here Article here: 'IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser' - Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly keep your original research and soapboxing out of our encyclopedia. Isarig 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's neither. Cole noted Zelikow's claims here so for this reason among others, its pertinent info, not OR, and relevant to the claims discussed. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is both. It is OR, as Cole doesn't mention Zelikow's claims in the context of the allegations against him , or as a defense of them, so your use of it is your personal research that the 2 are connected. ANd your editorializing , complete with the unencyclopedic "Even though.." and "who is in fact Jewish" commentary are a clear case of soapboxing. I repeat my suggestion that you review the relevant WP policy. Isarig 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig. Zelikow is not admissible in this context as you have introduced it -- adding stuff to a Wikipedia article is like introducing evidence into a court case in some aspects. --70.48.69.25 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig. The addition was phrased using weasel words, like "even though".- Merzbow 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig. Elizmr 11:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Technorati

The technorati top-blogs page linked in the References section, as of now, does not contain a link to Cole's blog. I am insufficiently expert as an editor to figure out how to fix this. Perhaps someone else could do so and then remove this note, too. Tim Bray 09:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest as a fix? Informed Comment has dropped off the top 100 at this point, so we could either remove the statement from the article or use an Internet Archive URL for the reference. Chris Cunningham 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Technorati rank sentence. We really need a better cite -one that tracks the rankings. For all we know, Informed Comment could have been #1 for a while. <<-armon->> 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies - Notice

I'm not surprised that Karsh's dirty accusations about Cole got onto this page, but I am disappointed nonetheless. The accusations are, in fact, libel, and anyone who has taken the time to read some of Cole's material knows that they are baseless. Karsh's juvenile smear against Cole - stating that he believes in something akin to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - is not important to an encyclopaedic article about the latter, and should be removed. The only reason why it is currently on this page is because someone who disagrees with Cole's left-wing views would like readers of Wikipedia to get the impression that Cole is an antisemite, which those familiar with his works know to be patently false. There has been little sign of action on this talk page for almost a month now, so if nobody replies to my comments within a few days, I will edit the beginning of the controversies section. -Thucydides411 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, the arbitration page is still active and current. I suggest you comment there first. Chris Cunningham 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in removing the entire disputed section until mediation is done; Thucydides has a point here that we shouldn't leave a really objectionable version of the page up while mediation is on (especially when the mediator is still offline and we have no idea when he will be back). It's probably best to delete it entirely until the discussion has reached some conclusion. csloat 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Either quit the mediation, or leave the disputed text alone. <<-armon->> 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. So let's get this straight - on this page, disputed text should stay in the article for all to see until mediation and discussion runs its course, yet on the MEMRI page, the disputed text should stay off the article completely until every word is agreed upon. csloat 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no overarching principle here other than the expectation that everyone will act and discuss in good faith. Martin asked us to leave it alone. <<-armon->> 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Armon, if we go back, it was you who reverted at the beginning of mediation, adding the disputed text, and it was only my good faith that held me back from changing it. The discussion is above and I'm sure you remember it. So your claim about overarching principle is incorrect, or you would have reverted yourself when asked to at the beginning of mediation. A passage that is this much in dispute should not stay up on the version of the page that is displayed to the world until that dispute is resolved in some way -- at least, that seems to be the principle you defend on the MEMRI page, and I think it is a reasonable one. I do see another principle at work here, however -- you want your preferred version of the page to stay up while disputes are being resolved (and you don't seem to care whether the dispute is resolved as long as your version stays up). Seen in that light, your actions here and on the MEMRI page are entirely consistent. This is the problem with people acting strategically rather than communicatively on wikipedia in general.csloat 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. You've already made this accusation, and your preferred version at the time (your last rv) didn't blank that section. Take your own advice. <<-armon->> 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That was not my "preferred version" and you know it. I said the beginning of mediation - before Martin agreed to mediate (several weeks) I explicitly called you on making edits after we agreed in talk to move to mediation (as you are well aware). As you know, all along I have consistently preferred deleting the material entirely or, barring that, allowing Cole's response to be available. csloat 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We hadn't. My reticence was because I didn't see the point in entering a mediation with a disruptive editor. You have the choice whether to either prove, or disprove, my point. <<-armon->> 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that your temporary reticence was disruptive but I don't see what the significance of that is in the context of this conversation. csloat 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about Armon's temporary reticence. Mediation is a voluntary process, and editors are not obliged to agree to it. In hindsight, Armon's was clearly right to be reticent - as you have made a mockery of the process, obstinately refusing any and all compromises that were not 100% to your liking, and now, egging on a disruptive user to continue and edit the very sections under mediation, and ludicrously suggesting that there's no harm in "removing the entire disputed section until mediation is done" - IOW, getting to your favored outcome while the issue is supposedly being mediated. Isarig 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Read the exchange; he was being disruptive -- like you, trying to avoid the content discussion by hand-waving about the behavior of his opponents. But that was a couple months ago and all is forgiven -- it was totally tangential to the point here so I'm not sure why he brought it up in the first place. As for the Cole mediation, I urge you to withdraw your personal attacks against me. I have offered several compromises on the Cole page; you are simply incorrect when you say I have "obstinately refused" them, and I'd like you to acknowledge now that you were either confused or deceptive when you wrote that. Otherwise you are the one making a mockery of the process. I have not egged anyone on, and I have not changed this page, and my suggestion was in no way ludicrous -- it makes a lot of sense considering how much in dispute that particular section is. Please cease your disruptive, abrasive, acrimonious, and annoying personal attacks. Thank you. csloat 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked you,, I have accurately described your actions. Please review WP:NPA, as you seem to be unclear on the difference. Suggesting that it is ok to remove entire sections, according to your POV, while the issue of them being appropriate for the page is one of the main topics of mediation makes a mockery of the process. Isarig 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No; I have in no way mocked the mediation. Your extremely hostile interpretation of my comments notwithstanding, I made an intelligible argument in favor of my point. You are free to reject the argument and even respond to it if you like, but there is no cause for you to attack my intentions in that way. You may wish to review WP:AGF for useful guidance. csloat 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting that it is ok to edit the disputed paragraph out of the article, while the issue of doing so is supposedly being mediated - at your request - and the parties have agreed not to edit under mediation (and at the same time, elswhere on WP, you are lying about what your real position with regards to edting content under mediation). You are making a mockery of the mediation process, and of WP:ANI at the same time. Isarig 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop making baseless accusations. csloat 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am making very well founded accusations. At the top of this section, you state "I don't think there is any harm in removing the entire disputed section until mediation is done". On the WP:ANI page, you claim "I share Isarig's concern about changing text that is under mediation". The latter statement is clearly a lie. Isarig 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. I do share your concern about editing text that is under mediation, which is why I did not do so. Nevertheless, I do not feel that there is any harm in removing the entire disputed text -- not just changing it -- until mediation is done. So the statement is not "clearly a lie." Please withdraw your accusation and apologize; thanks. csloat 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's no harm in it, what's the concern? Isarig

The concern is a concern about engaging in discussion before making controversial changes. Do you actually care what I think, or are you just asking so you can use my response to attack me again? Can you just leave me alone and focus on substantive discussions? I'd really appreciate it. csloat 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On the WP:ANI page you did not claim you're concerned about changes w/o discussion, which is a fundamental principle of WP that goes without saying. You claimed to share my concern about editing pages that are under mediation - but you clearly don't. I don;t care what you think - I care about what you say about me in an attempt to paint a misleading picture of me and my actions. Isarig 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that answers my question. csloat 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since there have been so many citations of Wikipedia policy, I'll obey them very strictly here: Firstly, referring to edits and comments: The contents of the comments and edits of some users, such as Isarig, display a heavy bias against any well known figure critical of any aspect of Israel. The content which Isarig is insisting upon is an attempt to discredit Juan Cole based on ludicrous charges by a far right-wing author. The attacks is a variation of the theme that, in effect, any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism or "new anti-semitism." The argument implies that the only reason anyone could have for criticizing Israel is hatred of Jews - an assertion that, given the very real moral questions surrounding the expulsion of nearly one million Palestinians from their homes, is absurd. Yet this is the view which Isarig would like to suggest to readers of the Juan Cole page. Wikipedia policy specifically states that one is not obligated to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. I do not assume good faith in this dispute, and given the haranging going on in this talk page and in the mediation page, do not think that discussion is going anywhere. I kindly request that those intent on pushing insinuations of anti-semitism in the Juan Cole page stop their disruptive editing, although I am aware that little can be done on a Wiki to stop such behavior. I am thus asking such editors to show some temperance in this issue, and to let the objectionable passage drop. -Thucydides411 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Thucydides411. There is great coverage of the issue in a recent article in The New Republic available online at Split Personality: The New Anti-Anti-Semites (reg. req.):

"There is a paradox that haunts these charges of anti-Semitism. On the one hand, Rosenfeld, Harris, and others want to deny that American Jews and American Jewish organizations like AIPAC suffer from dual loyalty in trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. It's anti-Semitic or contributes to anti-Semitism, they say, to make that charge. On the other hand, they want to demand of American Jewish intellectuals a certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and to Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists. And that's probably the case. Many Jews now suffer from dual loyalty--the same way that Cuban-Americans or Mexican-Americans do. By ignoring this dilemma--and, worse still, by charging those who acknowledge its existence with anti-Semitism--the critics of the new anti-Semitism are engaged in a flight from their own political selves. They are guilty of a certain kind of bad faith."

--70.51.233.103 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the disputed text, and have thus reverted its removal. The accusations are severe, but they come from notable sources, and should not be whitewashed. - Merzbow 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you see a problem with allowing Cole's response to the disputed text? csloat 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Is the last sentence of the paragraph a response to this particular allegation and you want to expand upon it, or is there another reponse? - Merzbow 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That sentence cites an article that is being taken somewhat out of context as a reply to those charges. Cole specifically responded to Karsh's comments in a passage that Armon removed when mediation began; it is still an item under mediation. The relevant quotation is "Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." This was part of the compromise solution I agreed to in mediation. I prefer the entire passage be struck based on lack of notability and WP:BLP concerns, but if it is to be in, I think it is unconscionable that we would censor Cole's specific response to the ridiculous charge. csloat 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Response has been added. - Merzbow 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is subject to mediation. Please read that page, and note that there are objections to this particular response. Please just leave it until we actually have an agreement. Thanks. <<-armon->> 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable to have a mediation that appears to be in an indefinite hold pattern. The mediator has been absent for a while now, and it appears he will not be back for about a week. I'm inclined to think this section shouldn't be here at all, but if it is, there's no way Cole's response shouldn't be here as well. R. Baley 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to AGF that the mediator will be back when his computer problems resolve. As this is in mediation, we should hold on changes until it is settled. We shoudl ahve some respect for Wikipedia process, shoudln't we? Elizmr 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd that his reliably-sourced response to this particular charge shouldn't be in the paragraph; mediation is not carte blanche to freeze an article in an improper state. The issue is as black-and-white as any I've seen on Wikipedia - the criticism is impeccably sourced, and so is the response. I highly encourage someone to restore the response, as I cannot do so in the near future after having battled Thucydides' equally unjustified removal of the section. - Merzbow 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cole cite is self-published (blog), possibly defamatory itself, an attempt to meatpuppet, and doesn't address the issue (this is not simply a Karsh/Cole "fight"). These are some of the issues which are being mediated. It is very unlikely the passage will remain in it's present form, but as the mediation is on hold, there should be no problem in interested editors getting up to speed with the discussion there. <<-armon->> 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my voice as a lowly contributor, that I agree with Merzbow on this point. Nobody is displaying disrespect for the process, but the article is frozen in an unacceptable state right now. I have no love for Mr. Cole, but I have been watching this play out for weeks. There is no reason to remove Cole's response except to colour the issue. All the good faith in the world (I'm assuming) doesn't change that. I'll not revert (for now, though I only have 1), but I invite other editor's to at least make your opinion known. Not everyone is ok with perpetuating these defamatory statements. R. Baley 08:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple accusation of bad faith is a poor argument. <<-armon->> 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we move towards Arbitration in the near term? This was one of the ideas the mediator suggested as the next step if mediation didn't get anywhere. The case will revolve around BLP and what exactly is tenuous editing. I think it will be fairly clear cut. --70.51.231.13 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the things I'd like to see such a case decide is whether the existence of a mediation case on an article (in this case, a long and drawn out mediation) is policy grounds for granting involved editors the right to freeze the article in its pre-mediation state. Especially when the mediation case is effectively on indefinite hold. - Merzbow 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case wasn't getting anywhere mainly because both parties are fairly stubborn. They tired out the mediator, although he won't admit it. ArbCom is the next step and it they are very likely to accept given the number of prior attempt at mediation and how long this has gone on. --70.51.231.13 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)--70.51.231.13 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree, Arbcom seems the next step.

Several weeks ago, I suggested here that the mediation process had dealocked and seemed to require arbitration. The mediation does seems to be at an impasse, with peripheral issues taking up a lot of space. I had also said that the issue taken to arbitration should center around this one point (the Karsh quote); User:Armon responded An arbcom limited to the Karsh quote would be a waste of time IMHO. and There are other major substantive issues such as editor behaviour, BLP, and RS to sort out. Isarig responded with what I interpreted with a similar response. In fact, I realize now that what I should have said about the issue to be referred to Arbcom is the following: It should concern the more general policy on how to write about views (positions, theories, interpretations) that have generated controversies.

I reiterate that I am not opposed to including (sourced) criticisms of Cole which allege anti-semitism. The general issue is what particular quotes in support and against should be included, particularly to preserve the neutral and encyclopedic tone of an article. This proposition requires refinement before taken to arbcom, but I think it should be along those line.--CSTAR 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a consensus supports allowing Cole's specific response to Karsh in the article. I agree with those who state that it is unacceptable to leave the article frozen in the current state, and claims that we should wait for mediation appear to be wikilawyering at this point. Certainly if a different result comes out of mediation, the page can be changed again. I don't know what happened to the mediator but I agree with CSTAR that if we move to arbitration we should seek a broader ruling on what to do with such criticisms in BLP articles. I can't imagine someone adding a racism section to the George W. Bush page, quoting Kanye West and suggesting that there is a valid debate about whether or not Bush hates black people. But that's basically what we've done here -- even worse, since we've handicapped one side of the debate by censoring Cole's explicit response to the ludicrous charge. We have also censored every attempt to show the things Cole really wrote about Jews and conspiracy theories (e.g. Cole's comments about Mel Gibson). We've turned a WP:BLP into a one-sided smear. csloat 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"One-sided smear" is not too strong. See WP:BLP—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs)

I think ArbCom is the way to go. ArbCom will expand its scope as necessary, thus there is no need to write an absolutely comprehensive statement to initiate it. In order for it to start, most editors involved will post statements as to what they believe are the problems, thus in that sense there is no definite statement/summary. CSTAR can write what he feels is the case, Armon can write something else and csloat can give another perspective. ArbCom then decides of those problems which it will deal with. Additionally, the scope often changes during proceedings depending on the arguments presented and the judgments of the arbitrators. --70.48.68.62 22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the opinions of socks are inherently suspect. <<-armon->> 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Armon Though it is preferred that users register, to suggest someone is a sockpuppet (in an underhanded way, by not coming out and saying "you are a sock") undermines the principle of assuming good faith. In the future, I suggest that if you believe a contributor is a sock, please say so explicitly and give your reasons why. --CSTAR 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Anyone want to get the ball rolling? csloat 22:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, to be clear, are you are withdrawing from the mediation? <<-armon->> 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. csloat 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK so what's "Anyone want to get the ball rolling?" to the next step in WP:DR supposed to mean? If you don't want to wait for Martin, say so. <<-armon->> 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: We need to file a request, obviously. Note that this particular ball rolls very slowly.--CSTAR 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought the same thing for a while, but not being a party and being relatively new I held my tongue. I would think CSTAR is plenty capable of neutrally representing the issue if that editor is up for it.

Another concern keeping me silent on this is that it seems the arbitration committee normally deals with serious issues that are complicated and require some thought, or at least grave or significant in some serious way. The last thing I read that the ArbCom dealt with was apparently a lawyer editing an article on a case they were a part of, and people's personal information being made openly available on wikipedia.

While necessary, it is regrettable that a partisan charge that no one contends is factually accurate or biographical needs to be brought before any arbitrator, when unwritten principles of common sense give us plenty of instruction. What substantive improvement has does a factually meritless charge make to an article? The silence on this point is deafening, and most of the side arguments hovering about it, that the charge is not explicitly barred, are hard to take seriously. Though regrettable it is necessary, and the sooner it gets to arbitration and the self-evident is recognized and made binding, the better. Abbenm 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reeply. I never claimed to be neutral in this issue. I have said that that section, as it stands now, is not acceptable.--CSTAR 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. But I think the same can be said of everyone discussing this issue, so unless it is common practice to solicit a totally uninvolved party (maybe it is, I wouldn't know), we would be choosing among non-neutral editors regardless. I think there are several involved parties who could overcome their bias for long enough to merely represent the issue before ArbCom, holding their tongue until an alloted space is set aside for their own statement, thus giving the issue a somewhat neutral representation. Sorry for volunteering you out of the blue, but if no one is going to fetch a third party I would say you are just as competent as anyone available, but it was a mere suggestion among several others I think could equally well represent the case.

So for a clear-cut bottom line, I'd say fetch an outside party, or someone here can do it. And looking briefly at WP:AP, I didn't see any rule against a biased editor writing up a case, so it seems like whoever wants to, can. Anyone? Bueller? Abbenm 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a neutral third party to request an arbtration. We do need a clear, well thought issue to arbitrate about. I am certainly now thinking about formulating it.--CSTAR 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have some content issues here, some policy issues, and on top of this strong behavioral issues. I think the content issues would fall into place if the behavioral codes of wikipedia were adhered to. Elizmr 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if people didn't treat content issues as if they were behavioral issues the discussion would be much more productive. I agree there are some behavioral issues but I suspect we will differ in opinion about what those issues are. csloat 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An arbcom request which attempts to sideline behavioural issues, and presents a content dispute which would otherwise have been resolved long ago, would, in my opinion, be unacceptable. I have already suggested that Martin, the mediator, compose the request for us if, when he gets back, it is decided that the mediation has failed. If you think it has already failed, then I think you should just say so and we will move on to that step. <<-armon->> 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom rarely rules on content issues, and won't take a case unless behavioral issues predominate. I think I made a reasonable proposal on the mediation page, that both the Karsh material and the Cole response be paraphrased instead of quoted directly. - Merzbow 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, and you will notice, if you can bear sifting through the page, that it's been repeated stated that no one is "married" to the Karsh quote. We are still dealing with filibustering that Cole's critics are libelous and fringe. <<-armon->> 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, it's a good suggestion, one I've agreed with and one which has been brought up before, more than once. But it's exactly because of the adversarial nature of behavior that these content disputes exist, and even when reasonable compromises seem to pop up, there are new disagreements, new assumptions of bad faith and new arguments introduced as to why this or that is unacceptable (see "Isarig's Compromise" on the mediation page). Behavior that is just within the rules but fixedly focused at furthering adversarial disputes in such a way that is obviously detrimental (no dispute over content should have to last a year) to every article that the conflict occurs on, would have to be the focus of an arbitration case, and if I suggested otherwise previously I was mistaken.

That said, your suggestion on generalized language is one I find agreeable and if you think a solution can be forged on that basis, go for it. I'll help. But my guess is, you would be in short company among the disputants if you feel that a solution is just around the corner. Abbenm 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I find Merzbow's suggestion aggreeable. In fact I have agreed to similar compromises in the mediation already. csloat 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see the diff. If you have, it's been buried under a lot of usenet. <<-armon->> 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor, Armon, don't bother to address my comments at all if you have nothing to add but insulting condescension. I'd really appreciate that. I'm not going to go digging for diffs to satisfy you; you can read the page yourself or simply take my word for it. csloat 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The diff is right here. Abbenm 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW the diff says "If he's willing to go with the first, with my minor modification, certainly -- I've been saying that all along." Sloat's "minor modification" was to his preferred non-neutral version. Just to keep things straight, that's not a compromise. <<-armon->> 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat take a deep breath. Why are you letting yourself be affected by what anybody says here? Ba, maybe it is condescending; however, unless you're under direct physical threat, the empowerment provided by retaliation, verbal or otherwise, is overrated :) --CSTAR 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I'll try to quit responding to such nonsense. The problem is that he and his friends are claiming that I am intransigent, when I have explicitly announced my agreement with compromises posed by Isarig and Grace Note among others, and now Merzbow. I also explicitly stated that I was inclined to be flexible about other possible solutions. Yet the "party line" - repeated over and over by Armon, Isarig, and Elizmr - is that I am intransigent, that I am holding up the mediation, and that my behavior is the problem rather than the content. I'm really at a loss as to what to do. csloat 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were simply misunderstood, I don't see the objection to clarifying. But if you'd rather go to arbcom, you'll still need to provide diffs. <<-armon->> 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "simply misunderstood." I've been saying the same thing all along; I don't think anyone has misunderstood it. Anyway, best to drop it at this point and let the discussion move forward. I don't particularly like Merzbow's change, but at least it's a start in the right direction. I'd prefer to see the spat about how much ME history Cole knows dropped and the actual quotes used rather than the paraphrasing. csloat 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

reply to sloatI take great exception with your statement that that any users here are holding up some kind of a "party line" concerning characterizations of your behavior as an editor here. In using this phrase, you imply that we are all acting in concert, that our ideas are not informed by our own observations but rather based on some externally imposed plan or goal, and you thereby discredit them. Armon, Isarig and I are members of some monolithic editing block out to achieve some particular goal. We are individuals, I'd wager to say from very different backgrounds and with very different political stripes, who have all found you to be very difficult to work with to the point of being disruptive and obstructive. Elizmr 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)