Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Front Page Mag link

I removed this link on grounds of reputability and notability. One does not have to look far on the Internet to find critiques of public figures on partisan websites, and I hadn't previously believed that the mere existence of such critique was grounds for inclusion. The link in question calls Cole all sorts of crazy. The article as-is already does a pretty good job of pointing out that the Right generally thinks Cole is a terrorist sympathiser, so I don't see the value in exaccerbating this with more partisan links. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a supporting cite for the statement regarding his critics POV. It doesn't violate BLP, so please stop removing it. <<-armon->> 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How doesn't it violate BLP? It's weaselly ("some people"), it tars by association (strong claims given legitimacy by inclusion) and it's from a site for which no-one has vouched notability (and which is plainly partisan). In other cases (Hitchens) at least the hosting site had legitimacy, and aside from the name-calling the claims contained within were facts which could be backed up and not just opinions. I'm removing this again; Hitchens is one thing, but leaving in random freeps is quite another. Chris Cunningham 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've taken to reverting copy-edits now. I'm sure there's a good-faith explanation for that. Chris Cunningham 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it simply a "copy edit" when whole sentences and citations are removed. You removed a response from Cole on the AS charge. <<-armon->> 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't. I either misread or looked at the wrong diff. You just removed mention of more than the 2 named critics. This is inaccurate and strange in a section concerning "Criticism". <<-armon->> 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"more than the 2 named critics" were given by the weaselly term "others". Of these "others", one is a hard-right site of no established notability. And yet again, you've reverted copy edits to tense. This is still a BLP violation and it's going back again. If it is established that Cole has received notable criticism from sources more reputable than random hard-right websites, feel free to cite them by name and this can be discussed. The current wording is a smear of no noted credibility and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. <<-armon->> 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content which violates BLP does not, to my knowledge, count as edit warring. I still maintain that this is a BLP violation. Chris Cunningham 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, this revert has been justified as sufficiently contentious BLP grounds. Chris Cunningham 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You were strongly cautioned on your Talk page that this is not a clear cut case of WP:BLP violation, and that you were being given the benefit of the doubt, provided you stop edit warring. I see you've decided to push it, so I will report you again. Isarig 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Push it"? Unbelievable. What does the benefit of the doubt count for if the smear remains indefinitely due to a series of like-minded editors using 3RR litigiously to prevent it from being removed? (this is obviously rhetorical, given this poor article's long and cynical history.) Chris Cunningham 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As your subsequent block shows, it is quite believable. The benefit of the doubt is with regards to your personal conduct - that you were operating under the (mistaken, but good faith) belief that this is a clear-cut case of a WP:BLP violation - and hence you were not intially blocked for an egregious 3RR violation, but strongly cautioned not to do so anymore. Since you persisted in the reverts, despite the warning, your actions could no longer be considered good faith, and you were blocked. Many editors do not share your POV that the criticism of Cole is a smear, and the soluion is for you to get consensus here, not to disruptively revert those parts you disapprove of. Isarig 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In armon's version (or at least the version he reverted to) it says this:Alexander H. Joffe in the Middle East Quarterly writes that "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme", and other critics accuse Cole of being anti-Israel and of apologizing for radical Islam.[45][46][20] Isn't this lumping two different criticisms? Apologist for Islam (noted by Hitchens as in the Wipe Out dispute) and the dual loyalties and antisemitism which is the subject of the section? For this reason I think Chris Cunningham's version is preferable. I am avoiding the notability issue of Front Page Magazine since the source is cited explicitly and any reader can find out its location in the political spectrum and possible biases.--CSTAR 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the reverting. It seems to me that either Front Page Magazine is the only source for the claim, in which case it shouldn't be used as a stand-alone source because it's extreme and it seems to give its contributors a free hand to say what they want, or other sources are in agreement with it about Cole, in which case those other sources should be used instead. But if Front Page Mag is the only source for the claim, then that should give us pause for thought. BLP takes precedence in situations like this, and I accept that this is a borderline example because no alleged libel is involved, but even so, we need to be careful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The repeated deletions eliminted not only FrontPage Magazine (which I agree is a source that should be used with caution), but also Slate, which is a reliable source which is not in the same category. Isarig 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FPM is NOT the only source for the claim. FPM, Hitchens in Slate, and Joffe all hit on both themes. The sentence should be rewritten to present just the general accusation, with all three cites included, instead of quoting Joffe in particular and then proceeding to the general accusation. - Merzbow 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just want to make a few points which I think are salient. 1) the BLP issue was raised later after 2 other editors, including an admin had reverted. As there isn't actually a libel issue, this is a misuse of BLP in order to get a leg-up on a content dispute in which he objected to "random freeps". This is just wikilawyering. 2) It's only "my version" in the sense that I was defending a formulation of the criticism section which had finally reached some kind of consensus until this BLP claim was thrown out. 3) I doubt anyone would argue (at least I certainly wouldn't) that FP isn't strongly partisan, but it's hardly "extremist" and I doubt it could be called any more partisan than Democracy Now!. The citation was one of three supporting the sentence. This, in my understanding, is the proper way of using partisan sources, not on their own, but supported by others. However, if it is simply an issue of the one citation, it's easy to replace, and the full sentence can be restored using the other two. CSTAR's observation that it lumps two different criticisms is a different issue which can be corrected with a rewrite, rather than a deletion. <<-armon->> 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with above. Elizmr 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't. Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now, which, although it is also partisan, also tries to report straight news. Frontpage is all partisanship (and it is quite extreme; it seems obsessively focused on character assassination of academics). More to the point, DN is not cited here as a source of praise or criticism whereas FPM is. If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim, what's the harm in just leaving out the FPM? csloat 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome to the POV that 'Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now', but please realize this is just your personal POV, and others see it differently. From a WP persepctive, there is no difference. I don't understand what you mean by "If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim"- the revert is there for all to see, and it revrted the Slate refernce. I'm ok with restoring the claim sourced to Slate. Isarig 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your POV that it is just my personal POV, but it is actually an easily verifiable fact. csloat 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? It's not only a 'fact", but an 'easily verifiable' one? Go ahead and prove it, then. Amuse me. Isarig 06:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanks; I'm not here to entertain you. csloat 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I didn't think you'd be up to the task anyway, and the previous edit was entertaining enough. It never ceases to amaze hoe partisna editors are convinced their their personal opinions and preferences are "easily verifiable fact". Isarig 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I won't be goaded into this argument by immature swipes here or on my talk page. csloat 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Slate link, I just consolidated it with an identical section (using the same citation) further up the article which concentrated entirely on Hitchens' claims. Whoever added Hitchens criticism all over the place didn't really know how to use the name attribute to avoid repeating citations. This was simply copy-editing. While I was at it, I noticed the ugliness of having two cites next to each other for different claims, saw that one of them was a hit-job from a questionable source and removed it. My post-3RR revert was a good-faith move on the assumption that you hadn't actually seen the 3RR nom. It appears now that you had no intention of following the spirit of said rule anyway.

As for this interpretation of BLP, BLP also says that articles should be edited with a degree of sensitivity. When the subject himself has noted that the article goes out of its way to inflate negative material on him, I'd say this was grounds for concern. I consider allegations that I'm wikilawyering to be psychological projection. Chris Cunningham 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologist?In his Slate article, Hitchens made two apologist claims: a specific claim that Cole was an apologist for Ahmadinejad and the different (and less specific) claim that he is in the fringes of the "academic Muslim apologist community." Is this the same "apologist claim" as the assertion thatCole is an apologist for radical Islam, made in the FrontPageMagazine.com piece by Harris? I think we are on flimsy ground if we assert that Harris and Hitchens are making the same point or even that Hitchens is making a single "apologist" claim. I think that without further clarification, this is an example of "name calling".--CSTAR 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Harris charge, which appeared in FPM has also been reproduced on George Mason University's History News Networks [1]. Can we put this back in now, or are we now going to claim that HNN is also a partisan, objectionable, character assassinating source? Isarig 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, that's not the question I was addressing. As I said specifically above, I didn't cite its appearance on FPM as the issue.--CSTAR 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We can reword it as we wish, but Hitchens is directly calling him an apologist in the very passage you quoted, how you can say that's not an "apologist" claim is beyond me. - Merzbow 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not responding specifically to you. If you'd like, we can reword to reflect which sources specifically claimed he was an apologist for radical Islam (HNN, FPM), and which sources claimed he was just an apologist for Islam or Ahmadinijad. Isarig 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but an apologist for what? In one case he's calling him an apologist for Ahmadinejad. Is that the same thing as an apologist for radical islam? In the other he's on the fringes of some "muslim apologist community". Could you clarify this: what is the specific apologist claim Hitchens is making?--CSTAR 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) or rather, is this the same claim as being an apologist for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are more sources for criticism, from a superior publication. From National Review: [2], [3], and [4]. Specific quotes in these articles echo the dual loyalties, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western accusations. - Merzbow 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but text search reveals that in none of them does the word "apologist" appear; (in fact apol does appear, but as "crapola"). So what specific criticism in any of these three articles is an accusation of being an "apologist" for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they supported that particular wording of the accusation, but similar accusations of equal seriousness. We need to come up with a new rewording that incorporates all these sources. Maybe we quote none and generalize them all, maybe we quote all a bit and generalize none. But they are certainly all echoing the same themes, even if their particular wordings are different. If we're not going to reduce this section to a quote-farm, we need to admit that we do have editorial discretion to draw inferences between differently-worded by similarly-themed accusations. - Merzbow 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that editorial discretion may be needed, but finding suitable compromise wording here isn't going to be easy.--CSTAR 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i haven't visited this article in a while on purpose. that's the defn of insanity, repeating the same futile actions to have them reverted. Surprisingly, i was able to read it w/o any hairs on my head standing up. I was amazed that some of my long ago edits were still there. the article seems fair and balanced. if anybody watched Ahmed Nejad and Diane Saywer on TV, he explained his "vanishing from history" remarks pretty well. He explained how the Soviet Union vanished from history w/o anybody getting killed or invaded. Anyway, good to see the article in fairly reasonable shape. I certainly not going to get involved. useless to contribute in this kind of format in controversial topics w/o strong allies. Keep up the good work. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Sorry, i was nonobservant, didn't even notice it was locked up again.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As the discussion seems to have petered out, I'm assuming it's okay to unprotect. Happy editing. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be

I think the article is actually in a very good state right now. It provides a comprehensive description of Cole's activities and presents a pretty balanced selection of statements in the various controversial sections. In an attempt to keep the article from spinning out of control again, I am going to insert tags in the article urging editors to discuss changes beforehand. Wachholder0 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is now one of these at the top and at the beginning of the "Hitchens" and "Criticism" sections:

!-- This is a controversial topic that has been the subject of heated debate and edit warring. PLEASE DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE before making any but the smallest edits. Edits made without discussion are likely to be reverted. --

Wachholder0 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags are a good idea. There are still some significant WP:UNDUE problems -- the Yale non-appointment, for example, still takes up most of the page, and appears high up on the page, whereas Cole's actual accomplishments are given short shrift. I'll try to attend to these issues in the future -- certainly the Yale section should be shortened to a couple sentences and not have a separate section. I think the wording as current is fine, it just seems way too long under the circumstances. Same with the Hitchens section but that may be unavoidable if everyone is to be happy with it. In the longer term however, the longest sections of this article should be about Cole's actual accomplishments and well known views (e.g. his peer reviewed works, his frequent translation work on his blog of the Iraqi and Arab media, his media appearances, and his articles in popular media) rather than his little spats. csloat 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

lead

I narrowed the lead sentence since it was misleading about Cole's appointment at Michigan. He is a professor History rather than a specific type of history. Assume this will be ok with everyone since all the qualifiers are amply discussed in the body of the text. Elizmr 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Elizmr 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this as your changes were misleading. I assume everyone will be ok with this since it is a fact easily verified from his vitae. csloat 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As Sloat says, the job description is copied directly from his CV. I don't understand how this could possibly be said to be misleading, unless Cole is lying about his job description on his CV. As for the expert comment, the reason he gets on the teevee is because of his "expert" status. Removing this from the intro has the effect of downplaying Cole's middle east experience, which is (or should be) the primary focus of the article. Chris Cunningham 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the UMich site, the appointment he has is in "history". My change was accurate, but I wont revert. Elizmr 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the University of Michigan site says. Your edit was totally inaccurate and, if you want people to WP:AGF, please check your facts before making edits that you know will be incredibly tendentious. csloat 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the most correct way to phrase would be that he is a "Professor of History" with expertise in x, y, and z. "Professor of" refers to one's academic appointment rather than one's research interests, doesn't it? Elizmr 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it appears on his vita or on the U Mich site, and it's also not what you put on the article. His appointment is in the Modern Middle East - I don't see what is objectionable about that. I think the lead is fine as is. csloat 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitchens again

Armon, if you refuse to explain your reverts, don't revert. I explained clearly the issue and you simply reverted without a comment. I delketed the sentence that says bloggers were getting their panties in a bunch about this because it is not notable at all -- what is notable is what is in WP:RS about this, not the fact that some bloggers got upset. Secondly, I provided context for the "drinking problem" quote. I'd rather it was not there at all - it is not at all the notable part of this dispute - but if it is to be there, it should be in context. (To be fair, we should also report that Cole later accepted Hitchens' friend explanation that Hitchens was not drunk when he wrote that nonsense). Overall though, I don't think we should have it at all, but if we do have it, it should not be deceptive. Armon if you wish to revert those changes please respond to these two points clearly. csloat 08:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon made in the edit summary the cryptic claim that this violates BLP. First, that does not explain why he is restoring the non-notable stuff about bloggers complaining about this. Second, it is false. It does not violate BLP; it only reports accurately what Cole stated (which is based on facts that Hitchens himself acknowledges, and is even proud of). Third, if it violates BLP, so does the "debilitating drinking problem" quotation, so it should go entirely. You can't have it both ways Armon. If you are going to be this stubborn about your ownership of this article, you need to at the very least be consistent. csloat 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. The notability of the bloggers sentence is established by the cites, but that doesn't mean Cole's blogged assertions about Hitchens are repeatable here. <<-armon->> 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment that bloggers are all abuzz does not become notable just by referring to bloggers. And all three references are to blogs, even the c|net blog. If Cole's blogged assertions are not notable, delete them entirely; that was my point above. You cannot have it both ways.

By the way, Andrew Sullivan commented that Hitchens was actually not drunk when he wrote his article for Slate, and Cole responded that he was "sorry to hear that," noting that he had "hoped that the purloined email and the bizarre characterization of my argument, and the attempt of this Western journalist who is clueless about reading Persian texts to correct my philology, was the mere result of too many whiskey sours taken too early in the morning." It does help contextualize the comments Cole made, though I'm not sure it helps with any BLP problems (especially when Cole says that if Hitchens wasn't drunk then he was "asinine" and without ethics). I'm not trying to whitewash Cole's insults here but I think they have a context, and simply placing "debilitating drinking problem" in quotes like that really distorts the conversation.

Again, I think we can solve all of this by simply leaving it out. But if we keep it in, it is both inaccurate and unfair to wrench it out of context like that. csloat 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, there is a third major argument that Armon must respond to if he expects his edits to stay in place. He reverted the intro so that it gives a completely false representation of Cole's title and expertise. That was discussed above when Elizmr made that change, and it was agreed that the change was incorrect. Armon are you claiming Cole is not a Professor of History in Modern Middle East and South Asia, as it says on the University of Michigan website, on his vitae, and everywhere else his title is given? Will you support that argument or will you simply keep reverting without comment like you have with your other reverts? csloat 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Would it help to have a sandbox to showcase alternative introductions to the article?

• /intro

I used to do something like this when I was an active Mediator, and it usually helped a lot. --Uncle Ed 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing /intro as an alternative introduction? If so, why do we need to say they are controversial? Some of what Cole says is controversial I will concede, although much of what he says as a commentator is fairly standard left-of-center political fare. Do we say Hitchens is controversial in his intro? --CSTAR 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CSTAR. There is no need to mention "controversial" -- in fact, outside of the worldview of right-wing blogs, what Cole has to say (both academically and on his blog) is completely noncontroversial (though somewhat left-of-center, as CSTAR says). He certainly isn't on the far left. Someone should also restore the word "expert," which was deleted by an anon ip, and has already been defended above. csloat 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So dive in and fix it. No one will be accused of 3RR in the sandbox. It's part of the talk page, make changes as often as you like. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why are you taking out the word "expert"? Nobody has seriously suggested Cole is not an expert in these matters, and that's the only reason his opinion is sought out by the mainstream media and by the US Congress. And nobody has raised a question on talk about his expertise. I don't think it should be controversial at all. csloat 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Karsh and Martin Kramer among others have challenged his expertise on the contemporary ME, especially regarding Israel. This doesn't mean they are correct, but I think Ed's sandbox version which simply shows not tells, is NPOV. <<-armon->> 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They have disagreed with him but they have not denied that he is an "expert." Again, his expertise is established by his credentials, not by the number of people who don't like him, and we know for a fact that his commentary is sought out by the NYT, by CNN, and by the US Congress, among others, because he is considered an expert. csloat 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, re-read the cites. He's also been criticized for speaking on topics outside of his expertise. Cole himself states:

"My main expertise is in the past, but if I have to extrapolate into the future, I would say: no good news any time soon and an obvious exit strategy is not apparent to me." and;

"Although I've focused on the early modern and modern periods, I hadn't, before September 11, written anything major on contemporary history. This was not for a lack of interest in contemporary affairs or a neglect to follow them, but because I felt that the roots of modernity in the Muslim world were still poorly understood, therefore that was the contribution I could make. Public interest in most of the Middle East was slight at that time; the Arab-Israeli conflict was all that people were interested in and that was not my specialty." [5]

This is why Ed's formulation is superior. We state facts, we don't imply that he has expertise on all the topics that he comments on -an expertise that he doesn't even claim. <<-armon->> 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In that passage you quote he actually does clearly claim expertise in the modern middle east. "Modern" does not mean "right now." And saying he is an "expert" in the intro does not imply he is an expert on "right now" (even though he certainly is in some aspects). There is nothing implying he has expertise on all the topics he comments on - that would be silly. When he excoriates the anti-semitic film "The Passion," for example, nobody suggests he has expertise in film criticism. Again, it is his expertise that makes his opinion sought-after. That much is obvious. csloat 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)