Talk:Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole/Archive 3

message: This page looks terrible.  I don't think the cquote tag should be used for every quote; just for the really long ones.  I also don't see the point of adding many more really long quotes -- additional drunk talk from Hitchens is particularly unnecessary, since his main argument is already summarized in that section.  It's bad enough that this page was started as a hit piece against Cole in explicit violation of WP:BLP.  Some of us have tried to correct that, and we've even worked together at times in spite of disagreements.  But the current arrangement of the page with every quote separated out like that makes it look like a giant he-said-she-said debate -- not much of an improvement over a hit piece (though I suppose I should be grateful that Cole is allowed to state his views on a page allegedly about his views -- many of the Cole quotes have only been allowed after extended debates).  Frankly, I think those who are so invested in bashing Cole day after day should either read what he actually has to say with an open mind (instead of reading it filtered through the gin-pickled brain cells -- what few of them are left -- of the likes of Mr. Hitchens) or simply find a new hobby.  This page has existed for months now and 90% of it is made up of attacks and defenses of arguments that are less than 10% of what Cole actually writes about on his blog (never mind his academic publications, which are hardly mentioned).  There is not a word about his invaluable translations of material from the Arab press.  Not one word.  There is some discussion of his views on the Iraq war, allowed on a page allegedly about his views only after an edit war in which Armon ridiculed such commentary as "soapboxing."  But no mention about his daily news updates on Iraq or the Middle East.  Nothing about Cole's posting of interviews and articles from third parties on important middle eastern issues, or about his analysis of the Iraqi insurgency.  Instead we have near-hysterical focus on dubious charges of anti-semitism and belabored defenses against them (from someone who has defended Israeli academics and frequently criticized real antisemitism).  And the only real mention of his academic work is in the form of an attack from Karsh in a non-academic publication that borders on ad hominem.  That particular quote -- which is not, to my knowledge, cited in any print source other than the place it appears -- is quoted not once, not twice, but three times in Wikipedia (it's also on Karsh's page), making its status on Wikipedia more important than any quotation from, say, Thomas Paine, Napoleon, Sigmund Freud, or Ulysses S. Grant. 
Forgive me for ranting about this.  I'm not sure what to do here.  I could throw an NPOV or Totally-disputed tag up but neither of those are totally accurate.  The problem is not really a specific POV or accuracy dispute; the problem is a page designed to circumvent WP:BLP issues that has turned into a huge debate page between Cole and his adversaries.  That is really the role of a blog and not an encyclopedia.  I could submit an AfD on this page but I'm not sure it merits that either.  I don't think we're ever going to settle any of this -- the Cole bashers have shown that they have more free time than anyone else and that they are willing and able to spend that time making sure that Cole is attacked as much as possible on this page.  The Cole defenders will keep adding Cole's own words to try to balance out the onslaught of attacks.  So we have this ongoing he-said, she-said that is totally unencyclopedic, and it appears that it will keep going on forever.  The article is already almost as long as the History of the World article.
I'm open to suggestions from all sides here; it would be really nice if those of us who disagree about Cole could actually agree on a NPOV article about him.  Perhaps the next step is an RfC, to bring in some voices who aren't so committed to one side or another.  I'm just not interested in continuing an endless back-and-forth debate with people who won't ever budge (and perhaps I am one of them).--csloat 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a suggestion. Scroll waaay up and you'll see my concerns about what this page is supposed to be -the problem is in all that time it's never been properly sorted out. I suggest we look at other examples like Noam Chomsky. There are "views" and "criticism" sub-page for him. Why don't we just split this article into 2 like that and agree that once the edit box shows up the article-size warning, each one is too long and will have to be trimmed. Armon 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chomsky pages on "politics" and "criticism" are even worse than this one.  I mean, you're right, that solution has the advantage of avoiding the he-said she-said smackdown approach we have here, but only by sending each party to a corner.  Both pages seem too long, and the Chomsky criticism page is atrocious -- lots of "expand" tags, a poorly organized (and poorly written) hodgepodge of everything negative people could find published about Chomsky.  This page would be worse like that because all this criticism focuses on Cole's blog, most of it on nitpicky or non-notable issues (I mean really, the Yale thing? for example), and much of it from sources that aren't WP:RS.  Chomsky has written dozens of books and been criticized in dozens of other books -- Cole has a few books but all the criticism is about some of the comments in his weblogs, much of it from other bloggers.  The other problem is that Cole has specifically addressed much of the criticism directly, point by point; separating these points leads to a pretty incoherent presentation.  I don't like the way this page is organized like a debate, but if we're going to have all this junk in here, the refutation should follow the criticism rather than being segregated on different pages.--csloat 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: I removed the cquote tags from several of the shorter quotes using the (admittedly arbitrary) standard that quotes shorter than 4 lines long should be in the text rather than separated out.  After doing this I realize that it is even more an arbitrary standard than I thought, since if I widen my browser, other quotes are less than four lines long.  I can come up with a word count to use instead if anyone cares but I do think too many short cquotes is very distracting; that should only be used for longer quotes.  I made some other minor changes but one that people might have a problem with is I moved the wikipedia self-referentiality comment to a footnote; it seemed distracting from the flow of the text.  I think the footnotes should be used more often for such purposes.  I;m mentioning it here because I don't want to be accused of trying to hide this fact; it's pretty obvious to anyone who clicks the link that Cole is commenting because of the wikipedia page.  I think this should be done with some other stuff on the page too as it will flow better if we move some of the tangential commentary to the footnotes.  I also removed this from the Kramer quote -- "This is what Yale political scientist Steven Smith must have meant when he said that Cole's blog "opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind."  I'm not sure what is gained by quoting Kramer speculating what Smith might have meant when Smith speculated about what Cole might have thought.  The point Kramer is making is certainly intact without this extra sentence.--csloat 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that footnotes should be used more often. --CSTAR 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cquote and other changes 

message: I'm back from my self-imposed break from this page.  Rather than entering back into the edit war over the disputed content, I am starting an RfC on this page.  I think there are many problems with this page (most notable are several explicit violations of WP:BLP), but I'd like to at least start the RfC on the content that was the most recent subject of an edit war.  Hopefully the addition of new voices on this page will help improve it.  The content at issue is the following quotation:
:"This is what Yale political scientist Steven Smith must have meant when he said that Cole's blog "opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind."
I think this quotation should be removed.  The sentence before it is the reason for it being there, and it is already in the article.  The part quoted above, I believe, represents unencyclopedic third-hand speculation.  This is a quote from a Mr. Kramer, suggesting that he thinks a Mr. Smith might have meant something similar, when Mr. Smith speculated about how a blog might allow us to see "something" (Mr. Smith isn't clear about what) about "the quality of his mind."  I'm not sure why some editors feel it is so urgent that this third hand speculation remain in the article -- , as well as an anonymous IP () who suspiciously entered this debate only to make this particular revert and one related revert have pretty much indicated he will fight tooth and nail to keep this sentence in the article.  I grew tired of battling with him and withdrew from the debate; rather than reverting I would like to hear what others have to say.  Am I crazy for believing that this sort of quotation has no place on wikipedia?--csloat 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. —Centrx→talk • 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on this page

message: Someone with an anon ip has started a revert war on the recent changes to this page.  Since he won't say who he is or what purpose his reverts serve, I am treating these reverts as vandalism.  If they are not vandalism, the person using that ip should discuss them here.  Thanks, and have a great day.--csloat 09:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. That's why I try to explain each of my edits on the talk page.  Unexplained edits are summarily reverted as vandalism.  If you have a reason to make a certain edit, please explain your reason.  Then discuss it with others.  If you already have a login, please use it; otherwise, you might try getting one, and becoming part of the community.  Thanks.--csloat 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't necessarily support the edits made by this anon user, and while I encourage him/her to discuss his edits here, I object to your categorization of them as "vandalism". It is a clear cut content dispute (with anon's version being the one in place in the article before you changed it). Please stop your misleading descriptions of them. Having a login is encourged, but not having one does not in any way diminish teh validity of his edits, and your insinuation sto the contrary are worrisome. Isarig 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. Until anon explains his edits, they are indistinguishable from vandalism; he is reverting to information that has been shown to be invalid.  I did not say that not having a login makes him less valid, only that it makes him less a part of the community.  If he wants to see his edits stay, it would help to participate in the ongoing conversation.  If he already has a login, then what he is doing is simple sockpuppetry.--csloat 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits are quite easily distinguishable from vandalism, by virtue of them being part of this article for a long time before you changed them. No one accused you of vandalism when you made your changes without explaining them on Talk, please extend the same courtesy to other editors. Isarig 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how long nonsense has been in the article; it has been rejected for valid reasons and shown to be invalid.  I always try to explain my edits; if I forget and am called on it, I respond with an explanation.  I did not accuse him of vandalism until after he started revert warring and continued to refuse to explain his edits despite being asked to.  After a certain point I do not feel I need to keep bending over backwards to take seriously edits that the editor obviously doesn't take seriously enough himself to even bother with an explanation for.  If this really matters to you, why are you pestering me about this instead of asking the anon to explain himself?  I suggest that we treat this as a WP:BLP page rather than as a place for pointless ego battles.--csloat 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is/was not nonsense, and I categorically reject you describing it as such. It was Kramer's former title, and a valid argument can be made that it is very relevant to his commenatry on Cole. Nowhere has it been shown to be an "invalid" description. I don't think this point is so critical that I would edit war over it with you, but I will not have you calling another editor a vandal, or the previous version "nonsense". The anon editor had a good point in sayign you do not own this page. Be mindful of that. Isarig 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we revisit the IDF discussion, then, if we're interested in former titles?  If you have a reason it should stay in, present it, but let's be consistent.  I never said I own this page, and when he said that I agreed with him; there is no reason for you to reassert a claim I never refuted.  Again, why are you pestering me about this?  It makes no sense.--csloat 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in my first post here, I don't necessarily support the edits made by this anon user. I don't think the Karsh/IDF and Kramer/TAU are identical, and I could see an editor making a case for one and not the other - but I don't think this point is so critical that I would edit war over it with you. I am not pestering you, but I do want to set the record straight that we are not dealing with vandal who is inserting nonsense, but with an editor who is having a legitimate content dispute with you. So that if/when this ends up being the topic of an RfC or some other dispute resolution , it will be clear what the actual situation is. Isarig 04:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the editor has a legitimate dispute, why doesn't he bother to mention what it is?  Why are you so set on defending an editor who does not even think his position is worthy of defending himself?  Or even articulating for that matter?  Isarig, please drop it.  The only reason you are pestering me -- and, yes, you are pestering me, in a manner that borders on violation of WP:NPA and WP:DICK -- is because you have had disputes with me in the past.  This has nothing to do with Kramer or the IDF or anything; it has everything to do with your insistence on objecting to everything I say no matter how trivial, just because I said it.  If CSTAR or Armon was the one reverting this nonsense you wouldn't bother saying a word about it.  Since I was the one who spoke up, however, you have gone out of your way to make arguments -- arguments you insist you don't even believe -- for an anonymous user who does not even think his edits are worth speaking on behalf of himself.  Can we please just drop it?  If you have suggestions about improving this page, I'd much rather talk about that than continue our little ego war.  It's embarrassing to both of us.--csloat 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to ask the editor why he hasn't participated on talk to clarify his objections. the reason I am defending him is, as I wrote, that you are mis-characterizing his edits and his behavior, and have approached administrators with a false description of his behavior as 'obvious vandalism'. (and I note that those admins have politely told you to lay off, since you haven't made a case that this is vandalism). I have not attacked you, but your bad faith assumptions about my motives which you articulated above are not only a violation of WP:AGF, but a violation of WP:NPA. Isarig 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the edit I referred to as "obvious vandalism," and I was just quoting CSTAR's edit summary.  If you would like to defend that edit please feel free to; I would be interested to hear your argument.  As for asking the editor to participate in talk, I have; see above, and see my edit summary from 10/30 at 1:06.  As for admins asking me to lay off, you are the one mis-characterizing things. I reported the anon for a 3RR violation and he was blocked for 24 hours; he came back with another ip and added the "obvious vandalism" to the Cole page, and an admin suggested page protection if it continues but added that "we're not there yet." I agree with him, and I don't see any point at which he (or anyone else) asked me to lay off. You have a lot of nerve citing AGF at me when you have never, not one single time in the months you have been attacking me, assumed good faith on my part.  Not once, in hundreds of edits.  It is telling that you have no better explanation of your motives, but I will drop the point if you just leave me alone.  Are we through here?--csloat 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps that wasn't you, though it seemed like it was due to the timing.  If you have a substantive reason for your other edits, please discuss.  You might familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  My apologies to you if you did not commit the vandalism.  If you show yourself willing to participate in the discussion about your changes, you might find it more productive than hit-and-run edits (which I have interpreted as vandalism).  If they are not, it is up to you to explain them.  Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon ip revert war 

message: An RfC was filed on this page regarding the Kramer issue.  Another editor has stepped in to the revert war, but we haven't had any further discussion.  If people think the discussion of Kramer's agenda is not relevant to Kramer's actions in support of that agenda, they should make the arguments as to why they feel that way here.  In addition, there is a second (logically prior,actually) question that must be addressed in the RfC, which is, should we have extensive quotations from non-notable blogs to begin with?  Armon has stepped in and added even more quotes from the blog (as well as an OR interpretation of Kramer's views that is not supported by the quote - I refer to Armon's sentence "Kramer asserts Cole's definition is applied inconsistently, and is essentially polemical").  Kramer's blog is not well-known, not nearly as much as Cole's, and this article appears to be about Cole, not Kramer.  I am of the opinion that Kramer's blog is not appropriate for citation here under WP:BLP.  It is blatant attack journalism (expressly forbidden under BLP), and the reason I wanted Kramer's agenda mentioned in a footnote here is to allow readers to see that agenda when reading his quotations.  But the reality is, such quotes don't belong here at all.--csloat 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the charge of OR -Kramer wrote: But Cole's grasp of world history is so light that he's perfectly capable of forgetting this for at least as long as it takes to write a paragraph, especially if doing so serves his polemical purpose. -please explain how what I wrote is OR. Re: the blog issue. 1) Kramer is not non-notable, his would be a) an expert blog, and in any case, b) presented simply as Kramer's opinion as are Cole's blogged opinions. Again, it seems you are simply looking for excuses to remove criticism. Armon 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is what Kramer wrote, we can quote it without editorializing.  Kramer's blog is not notable; he himself may be notable due to his anti-intellectual attacks on MESA in the US Congress.  But his blog's opinion of Cole is not notable - shall we add every blogger's opinion of George Bush to that page?  I am not looking for excuses Armon - I am saying if the criticism is in let;s be honest about where it comes from, but if it is criticism from a non-notable blog, let's follow WP:BLP.  Thanks.--csloat 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply making an assertion, such as: "Kramer's blog is not notable" is not an argument. Armon 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not notable as it has not been cited by other reputable sources as a reliable or even reasonable source of information.  There is one quote from Kramer's blog cited in an actual article; we can leave that one in (even though Kramer edits the magazine that cites the blog).  Blogs are not inherently notable; you are the one who must establish an argument defending its notability; presumption is against its notability.  I'll thank you not to be condescending about argumentation theory with me in future discussions.--csloat 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false, as even this very article bears out: Kramer's blog has been cited by the MEQ. Other reputable sources which have cited his blog include CAMERA , The History News Network , Engage Online , WGN Radio  and many others.Isarig 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, it is very frustrating to argue with someone who ignores what is said.  I agree Kramer's blog is cited by the journal he edits; I made that point right above and said it is fine to cite that quote (even though the fact that Kramer edits the very journal does make the citation's claim to reliability ridiculously circular). So we are not debating that quote.  We are debating about quotes that appear on Kramer's blog and nowhere else.  If one of the other blogs you cite specifically cites Kramer's attacks on Cole, let's see the link.  Thanks.--csloat 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is frustrating is arguing with someone who makes both a statement and its contradiction in the same paragraph, enabling him to both make a point, and have enough wiggle room to assert he agrees with that point's detractors. What you wrote is the Kramer's blog "is not notable as it has not been cited by other reputable sources as a reliable or even reasonable source of information.". That statement is false, as evidenced by numerous WP:RS who quote him, a subset of which I listed in my response to you. The fact that even you conceded, in the very same paragraph where you claimed he's not quoted by reputable sources, that the article actually lists a reputable source quoting him, only makes your argument laughable and false on its face, but takes away nothing from my response to you. Isarig 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You listed what appear to be more blogs, first of all.  Secondly, please remember WP:AGF and stop hurling accusations.  It gets annoying.  Third, stop mischaracterizing my argument.  I acknowledged that Kramer was cited in one journal that he himself edits but I said that these other quotes did not come from such sources.  Nothing "laughable" about this.--csloat 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Kramer is notable expert on the ME therefore his blog is. You've also pointed out that his blog has been cited. It is the blog of an expert. We use them on WP. You also didn't bring this up as an issue before when asserting that the first quote, referring to Smith's opinion, was unencyclopedic. As usual, you're simply attempting to shift from one weak assertion to another weak assertion in an effort to scrub criticism. This is a perfect example of what I mean when I point out that you're engaging in ad nauseum arguments. Armon 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are well aware of who Kramer is.  The quote from his blog that is cited is not at issue here.  The other quotes are.  The problem is not just that it is from a blog, however; the problem is that this material violates WP:BLP.  It is incredible how many times this has been pointed out.  The rest of your comment should be struck Armon - I have asked you to please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and please stop hurling accusations. Thank you.--csloat 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a biography. It is an examination of a person's views, and criticisms thereof. In fact, it was removed from Cole biographical entry precisely for this reason - to enable a critical review of his positions without running into WP:BLP issues. Cole is controversial. His critics need to be heard. Isarig 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His critics can be heard in a variety of places; but all these blog attacks do not need to be amplified by being put in an encyclopedia.  WP:BLP still applies (you might look at the note at the top of this page).  Your claim that this article was created to weasel out of WP:BLP is a good reason to either submit this article to AfD or for a conduct RfC against any editors who created this page with that intention.--csloat 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure his critics can be heard in a variety of places, and there's no reason why they can't be heard here, as well. If he's notable, and his views are controversial (neither of these points seems to be disputed) - that means we need a place to air out the controversy, and that means giving space to views that criticize Cole. The notice at the top of this page was put up by Will, arguing along the same lines as you - it is not some sort of endorsement, and does not carry any more weight than you asserting it is a WP:BLP. Go ahead and put this article up for AfD if you think its creation violated WP policy. It is clear that this article is not a biography of Cole, and it is clear that the subject is worthy of encyclopedic debate. Isarig 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is an offshoot of the Cole biography and thus should follow WP:BLP guidelines.--csloat 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it is an offshoot, but is not a biography, and thus does not have to follow WP:BLP. If it was notable enough or long enough , we might have created another offshoot, to discuss in more detail the Yale controversy, or the Iranian translation controversy, and neither one of those would have been edited in aaccordance with WP:BLP, either.  Isarig 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think your claim that we have an article created precisely for the purpose of weaseling out of WP:BLP is very problematic.--csloat 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If Isarig was asserting that this article is somehow exempt from WP:BLP, then I think he went too far. In any case, I've re-read the policy and this article doesn't violate WP:BLP so it's a moot point anyway. The controversies/criticisms presented on this page are intellectual/ideological debates, not accusations that he beats his wife. Armon 08:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was a hit piece on Cole that degenerated into a "he-said/she-said" debate between Cole and his attackers.  Oddly, Cole's defense of his own views were only allowed up after extensive edit wars and tooth-and-nail fights over often ridiculously minor points on the talk page.  It has been clearly in violation of BLP for a long time.  While I too am disappointed to see so much of my time and effort in working on the page deleted in one fell swoop, I think it was the only solution.  Much of the page consisted of nitpicking attacks on Cole and his often vehement responses; as I stated weeks (months?) ago, this page looks like a giant debate, and it should be on a blog, but not here.  Your characterization of BLP as only regulating pages that accuse the subject of "wife-beating" is just plain inaccurate; I encourage you to read WP:BLP for yourself.  Hopefully the editors who turned this into a playground for Cole detractors and supporters to nitpick over every word (and I am guilty of this as well) can agree to leave the Cole page as a biography and not try to turn it into the mess that this page had become.--csloat 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact it turned into a "he-said/she-said" debate is primarily due to your own intransigence regarding any criticism of a pundit who courts controversy. It's not credible, or intellectually honest, or NPOV to pretend it doesn't exist. It would be like whitewashing the Ann Coulter, Christopher Hitchens or Noam Chomsky articles -only serving to make them less informative. Armon 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not intransigent about criticism; I have just insisted on two things - (1) that Cole's response to criticism, and his views, be included on a page ostensibly about his views (something you have often opposed, deleting Cole's comments as "soapboxing" and even deleting his comments on antisemitism as recently as yesterday, even though you had made no arguments supporting that deletion in talk), and (2) that scurrilous attacks against Cole by writers with an agenda do not belong here (but that if they are placed here, then evidence of their agenda must be here as well).  If that is what turned the page into a debate forum, all I can say is that a debate forum is far better than the one-sided character assassination that this page would have been without my intervention (and, to be fair, I am not the only one who can take credit for saving this page from that fate).  I don't see how Coulter, Hitchens, or Chomsky have anything to do with this.--csloat 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on this page 

message: Armon has been censoring a quote from the section "On the Israel lobby and US foreign policy" dealing with Cole's comments about the Israel lobby and US foreign policy.  Specifically, the quote is Cole's comment about Mel Gibson's claim about Jews; Cole stated: "'Jews' did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided."  I feel this quote is directly relevant and germane to the topic, and Armon has never offered a reason to censor it.--csloat 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was typing a request for the consensus you referred to but you reverted before I had a chance. See here for my reasons why this should be removed. I'm sure there's a better statement of his position we can use than a straw-man re: Gibson. Armon 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That debate was settled a while ago; see here for one of the responses.  Again, the cited material is relevant, germane, and on point.  Why is it being censored?--csloat 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again we see you attempting to both play and umpire. Simply repeating your own assertions, and accusing people of "making shit up" is not a valid address of my concerns IMO. Armon 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only provided the link to show that your comment that you linked to had been responded to.  I do not wish to revisit old charges of incivility.  The Gibson quote, as I have said, is relevant, germane, and on point.  It stays in.--csloat 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The quote is relevant in my opinion. It is a well-publicized quote by Cole, in reference to a very public event that specifically addresses one current aspect of the issue of anti-semitism. This is the subject of that section under consideration in which quotes by third parties in reference to Cole are included.--CSTAR 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the Mel Gibson rant was well-publicized, but the Cole quote? Where please. I concede that it's broadly on topic, but I actually think it makes Cole look stupid because he's fisking an absurdity that even Hitler didn't claim. I don't want Cole's view "censored", I want a better example of it. Armon 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cole quote is on his blog, where many of his views are stated.  Please keep in mind the name of this article.  Your opinion that it makes Cole look stupid is not necessary here.  If you want a better example of his opinion, look for one; do not simply delete the one that is here.--csloat 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship in  "On the Israel lobby and US foreign policy" 

message: Hi, I've just removed a few wiki-links from quotes because it doesn't seem right to me and can be used a editorializing via emphasis. Is there actually a policy on this? Armon 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see examples of such links all over wikipedia and I do not know of a policy preventing them; they should be re-added. I also do not see any evidence or even charges of bias due to them, though I could see how they could be abused in the way you fear. I don't think they should be automatically removed, but only that problematic ones should go; e.g. a quote with the word "moron" linked to the Dan Quayle article would be inappropriate.--csloat 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki-links in quotes 

message: I think that Centrx's page protection and message that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." is based on a misrepresentation of the situation, and that while I'm not unsympathetic to the idea, I doubt it's going to work. Armon 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will work just fine as long as the people who edit the page don't try to turn it into an attack piece on Cole.  As for your claim about a "misrepresentation," may I direct you once again to WP:AGF.csloat 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole has attacked and has been attacked, reporting it doesn't constitute an "attack piece". The evidence of your misrepresentation is there for anyone who cares to look. "Pages created solely to avoid BLP policies" would not include this one, as a consensus was reached to create it, and not as a POV fork. You participated in the discussion at the time and know this very well. Armon 11:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus is not eternal, and it does not supercede BLP policies.  At the time I did not know that editors would turn the page into a POV fork.  Now it has been justified (by Isarig at least) as having avoidance of BLP as its main raison d'etre.  The decision to delete this page was clearly based on what the page has become, not what it might have been months ago.  Now, please read WP:AGF and do not accuse me of lying again.--csloat 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to have this material on the Cole Page where it originally was, that's fine with me. If you think that's an end-run to remove sourced material you don't like, well you've got another thing coming. Isarig 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No end-run necessary; simple application of WP:BLP.  Please WP:AGF.csloat 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Juan Cole