Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Talk Page revert war continued on Usenet

Readers of this talk page may wish to note that User:Thamarih (real name Nima Hazini, aka Wahid Azal), after revert-warring here in order to ensure that his personal attacks on User:MARussellPESE were allowed to stand, continued to make allegations against him on usenet - calling for help in his efforts to overthrow what he sees as "Baha'i control" of Wikipedia.

I notice that since his last suspected sockpuppet (SecretChiefs3)? put his allegations back on this page, they have been allowed to stand. PaulHammond (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest work

• Romney: Some Beliefs Are More Equal than Others, quoted on the template on: Talk:Mormonism_and_violence T (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cf my new reference. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You like frontpagemag as a reliable source? In any case, does it call him a "public intellectual?" IronDuke 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Thus, the article calls him a 'public intellectual'." Who is objecting to this? IronDuke 01:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are. The Squicks (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I placed it in the article, actually. Just not in the lead. IronDuke 01:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you whining about it now? The Squicks (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

<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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)