Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 10

message: There is already more than adequate coverage on this page of the fact that Cole didn't get the Yale appointment.  Let's not turn this page into the nightmare the V&C page became.  There is no need for a huge he-said/she-said section about the results of the Campus Watch letter-writing campaign or about a decision that was made behind closed doors.  Jobs that people didn't get may be notable for their "fifteen minutes," but those minutes are long over for this yale thing, IMHO.csloat 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion that the Yale controversy should be removed is noted. The consensus opinion is that this was notable and there is no good reason to re-hash it. << armon >> 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't.  What happened on the V&C page is not something that needs to happen on this page; as you recall, the issues on that page were different - in fact, it was specifically created as a POV fork in order to put up junk that doesn't belong here.  As I said, we already have information about the Yale appointment, so the claim that it is "notable" (even if such a "concensus" existed) is not a good enough reason to have this entire section in.  Please dialogue about this rather than reverting. csloat 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yale 

message: Please take care not to eliminate the npov tag until npov disputes have been dealt with.  In the section, even though I have capitulated to the browbeating of certain editors who demand that the earth stop if a bogus quote about the Protocols of Zion is not put in here, the npov issues have not been resolved.  Karsh aside, the frontpage and MEQ information about "new antisemitism" was specifically found to violate NPOV, BLP, and RS.  That is not just my opinion; I believe it was shared by Centrx and CSTAR (though I'd rather let them speak for themselves on the issue).  I could see removing the tag if that stuff is removed - as I've said, I'm not happy about the Karsh junk but I have capitulated on that particular issue.csloat 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are using the tag to make a point. That is not an acceptable use of it. Once it has been decided that the content is notable, the issue narrows to whether it has been presented in a NPOV manner. << armon >> 05:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; the only point I am making is that there is an NPOV problem here.  It has also not been "decided" that this content is notable. csloat 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are the only one to have made the claim that it's not notable, I suggest you limit yourself to any NPOV concerns you may have with the text as presented. << armon >> 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm not the only one to make that claim; see comments by Centrx above among others.  Second, you haven't addressed the NPOV, notability, BLP or RS issues I raised here. csloat 19:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov section 

message: I also removed material from the "dual loyalties" section that had nothing whatsoever to do with "dual loyalties." If we want to add a section about "ad hominems from Karsh" or something like that then perhaps the paragraph could go back in. I don't find it particularly notable, but I have fewer objections to the paragraph per se than I do to its inclusion as a "dual loyalties" dispute.csloat 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that needs some work. Cole has been criticized for commenting outside of his field of expertise re: Arab/Israeli issues, as well a strong anti-Israeli bias. This is a related, but not strictly the same criticism as that of his conspiracy theories. <<-armon->> 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved here. Second, this "criticism" is not one; it is simply a tendentiously worded statement by Karsh that says that Cole represents the mainstream of his field, along with a false charge that Cole doesn't have the background to research what he researches, and Cole replying that Karsh is wrong about the latter.  This isn't notable, but if it is, it has nothing to do with "a strong anti-Israel bias" (which is another bogus charge, of course).  Either put this nonsense in a separate section or leave it out. Stop the edit war. csloat 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK what do you suggest it be subtitled then? <<-armon->> 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be there at all; I already suggested one subtitle.  If you think it should be there, why don't you tell us what you think it is actually about? csloat 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your suggested subtitle for that paragraph, you simply deleted it. Also, I just told you what I thought it was about. How about: "Expertise and bias"? <<-armon->> 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing about bias in the paragraph; "expertise" is fine if anyone else thinks it is notable.  I don't; I still think it should be deleted. csloat 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hitchens has nothing to do with this.  I suggest (again) removing the paragraph entirely; if not, I suggest the title "Expertise."  I also suggest getting other editors (without a horse in the race) to discuss this topic.  Frankly, it appears heading down the road to severe WP:BLP violations.  "Criticism/Controversy" sections are eschewed in general for good reason; if we must have them, we should be very careful not to make Wikipedia the source of a controversy's "notability." In general, if a neutral third party WP:RS cannot be found discussing the controversy as a controversy, it should not be treated as one.csloat 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  loyalties removal 

message: Please do not edit war Armon; if you want to make progress on this page it is not the way to do it.  You have not justified four long paragraphs on a "controversy" that your own sources say is "not controversial."  I have agreed to another sentence or two on  the issue to satisfy your complaints.  But you have not justified the changes you are making, and your steamrolling edit war -- which consistently has ignored an entirely separate edit, indicating you are not even reading what you are reverting -- is totally unproductive and unjustified. csloat 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armon disruption 

message: I strongly recommend all parties that you take this to mediation.  The situation on the article itself is bordering on blockable edit-warring.  Please relax and de-escalate the article edits in the meantime.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for this solution and have advocated it for days.  How can I take this to mediation?-csloat 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation is now commencing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole. Martinp23 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation recommendation 

message: I removed the material based on  this blog post of Cole's. With all the discussion of WP:BLP as relating to Cole, I believe that it's been forgotten that BLP applies to Karsh as well, and not only on his article. Any material we have on Cole should be able to be properly sourced and I'm assuming that where I've removed this cite, particularly in the biographical section, there will be no problem getting better ones. <<-armon->> 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the links isn't really the same as finding good sources, though these should be verified elsewhere. Also, in general keep in mind that it is okay, at least provisionally, to have plain, non-controversial statements sourced to reliable primary sources if the information is necessary to have an article without holes on an otherwise notable subject. —Centrx→talk • 23:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the links was only meant to be temporary. I didn't change the bio text and I avoided using {fact} or {cite} templates because they may be interpreted as me starting a fight. Cole's critics have challenged his scholarship on contemporary issues but, as he is president of MESA, I have no doubt that there are good RSs supporting him. In fact, citing them avoids any claim that he's being "self-serving". I assumed other editors had cites ready to go, but I'll look myself and fix them. <<-armon->> 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I removed Karsh's challenge to his expertise/analysis as well because even though there are RSs challenging him on this, the whole issue needs a rewrite if it's to be included. <<-armon->> 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't be touching this article until it enters mediation, but I vigorously oppose Armon's changes.  I'm sorry, but deleting an explicit response by Cole to specific criticism from Karsh is just a way of handicapping one side of the debate to suit your POV.  Claiming BLP issues is nonsense; Cole's response raises no more BLP issues than the Karsh charges in the first place.  If you want to do away with such issues, delete the whole section, as I have been advocating from the beginning.  I want to assume good faith but it is difficult to do so when Armon has so vehemently argued for keeping the Karsh criticism in (as well as the charge of "anti-semitism") despite BLP, and yet now he claims BLP as the reason for deleting Cole's response to the charges.  Now we have horrible NPOV issues as well as BLP issues, since we essentially have a biography entry that quotes Karsh and others calling Cole the equivalent of a Nazi and absolutely no response from Cole or any other indication that the charges are baseless.  I hope someone besides me has the good sense to restore Cole's response.csloat 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed cites and material based on blog post