Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 7

message: We need to merge and/or add more content here. So let's list his notable views here so we can agree on what is and isn't. Armon 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views section 

message: Since the article is currently locked, could the admin who did so please tag it? Wachholder0 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Wachholder0 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: The currently protected version of the page contains the following passage:
Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - DarlingJuan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies
Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." Juan Cole's Bad blog Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. The Misuse of Anti-Semitism
Csloat's objection to the inclusion of this passage is noted. I think it's fine the way it is because it's concise and simply reports the criticism. Comments? Armon 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good and addresses Sloat's position which I agree with that we should include Cole's responses to criticism. Elizmr 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  First, scurrilous attacks should not be on Wikipedia even if they are sourced.  Armon has been asked to provide a neutral third party source discussing this and he has come up dry.  But if we are going to include this smear, Cole's response should be included more clearly.  It would require a quote from Cole specifically responding to the claim.  Another sentence may be enough to do the trick, but if more is added to the smear, more will likely need to be added to the response (as you know, Cole has indicated his thoughts on this in a number of places).  If this goes up, I will help with the process of adding the response, but I think it's time for some kind of RfC or admin ruling on whether this smear belongs here at all.  It would be nice if the admin who protected the page entered the discussion.-csloat 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please propose the sentence. Armon 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already proposed a solution - remove the scurrilous attack.  If the attack is going to remain up, I will help work on a response.csloat 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if you're unwilling to participate, that's fine. As I said, your objection is noted. Armon 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For your convenience I have hilighted my comments indicating my willingness to participate.  Please stop mischaracterizing my comments - it is highly annoying.  And please stop condescending to me - it is a WP:NPA.--csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will let you know when my objections have been addressed.  You are well aware of my problems with the WSJ citation - please stop distorting my comments.  Thanks. csloat 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your problem with the WSJ is that it quickly met your stated requirement - "even a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal would do the trick."- which forced you to move the goal posts. Your objections were noted, but since you keep inventing new objections every time we meet your previous ones, they are rightfully treated as disruptive POV, rather than a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. Isarig 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make false claims about my motives.  I did not move the goal posts nor invent new objections -- you are well aware I was asking for a neutral third-party analysis, not a smear piece from someone with a horse in the race.  True, my bad for using WSJ as an example, because it allowed for the mischaracterization of my claims, but it was nonetheless clear what I meant (and, if it wasn't clear, I explained it after the ludicrous Fund article was cited).  Stop condescending to me and stop personally attacking me.  You may wish to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA for details on wikipedia's policy in this regard.csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making false claims about my motives - I am accurately describing your actions. You did not ask for a "neutral third-party analysis, you asked for a "a single third party article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed or the Wall Street Journal" - and you got it, at which point, by your own admission above, you realized you had made a mistake in asking for a WSJ article, and changed your request to "a neutral third-party analysis. That is defined as moving the goal posts, a term you are apparently unfamiliar with. You have some nerve to ask people not to attack you, when every single one of your edits is either a personal attack, an uncivil comment, or a condescension, and more often than not, all three. Isarig 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please.  If you read the comment in context you can see that I meant a neutral third party analysis but even if you don't, you can see that I explained that afterwards.  That is not changing the goal posts; it is re-explaining something to someone who claimed to have understood it incorrectly the first time.  I have attacked the arguments here, not the person, so stop characterizing my claims as personal attacks.  Thanks.csloat 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that csloat, at this point, is simply being disruptive, but let's keep things on topic. Armon 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the personal attacks Armon.  What am I disrupting exactly?  It takes a lot of nerve to personally attack me after making phony charges of personal attacks on my page.-csloat 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "allegations of antisemitism" passage 

message: Regarding csloat's disruption:
Regarding this supposed personal attack: Article talk pages are for discussing the article. They are not chat-rooms, Usenet groups, or blog comments, in which to fill with off topic cruft and silly tit-for-tats. Despite meeting all of your requirements, you've quite clearly shifted position in order to invalidate it. That is your prerogative. It is also the prerogative, and quite reasonably so, for others to view that as a less-than-good-faith position, especially as you haven't shifted your objection to the passage one iota. Rather than submit the improving sentence you alluded to, you are instead flailing around for another means of scrubbing the section, and impeding any progress forward on the article. Your position has been repeatedly shown to be untenable, so now you want an argument about NPA. Stop it. Armon 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing the article, specifically, the attacks on Cole that you wish to put in the article. Why must you make this personal? I have not shifted position; as explained above, I was reexplaining my position because it obviously was not clear to you the first time. If you read my comments in context it should be clear what I was asking for -- but what's the difference? The editing on this article should be done in accordance with WP:BLP, not in accordance something you happen to catch an individual editor saying. Please assume good faith when arguing about this. Your characterization of my motives is incorrect and demeaning.csloat 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your motives aren't my concern, your behavior here is. Cut it out. Armon 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree on something - my motives are not your concern.  Please stop commenting on them.  And do not order me to "cut it out" - as I have explained, I have done nothing to "cut out."-csloat 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sigh* I made no mention of your motives. OK, keep it up then, it'll just be more evidence at some future RfC or arbcom. Armon 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For your convenience, I have highlighted where you mentioned my motives (feel free to remove the highlighting once you have seen it; I highlighted only for your convenience, and not to make it seem as if you had done the highlighting).  Also, RfCs are procedures that are in place to help improve wikipedia, not to be used as threats against other users.  Please don't threaten me again.  Thank you. csloat 06:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article disruption