Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 5

message: Ben put Bahá'í religion into a new section.  I realized that we really discussed career in the top section, so the "career" section below was a bit of a misnomer and changed this.  I moved things around slightly to better fit in the new categories.  Elizmr 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, I've cut out most of the religion section to relocate to the controversies page.  Since only one sentence or so was left, I moved it to the top section.  Does this read ok for you?  Elizmr 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housecleaning and touch ups 

message: It's important that articles be referenced. I believe the section titled "Views and controversies" has no references whatsoever, yet makes a number of factual claims. I tagged the section as unrefernced, but it was reverted. I believe footnotes are required for:
#have attracted considerable controversy. 
#He has been critical of ... the decision to disband the Iraqi Army 
#questions the administration's motives. 
#questions the loyalties of some of Israel's supporters in America, whom he refers to as the "Israel lobby" and "Likudniks." 
#He has been challenged on many points by critics such as Efraim Karsh, Christopher Hitchens, and Martin Kramer.
I find numerous poor wordings and passive voices in the same section - "have attracted considerable controversy" - from who? "He has responded in turn with a variety of rebuttals." - meaningless. Needs work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did the revert, as that section is a brief overview of some of the controversies, and it has a main article that goes into the details and (I believe) references it.  We're loath to extend the article, as that whole section was contracted and abstracted into a separate article, but I suppose footnotes would be appropriate without extending the article. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the text is admirable from a balance standpoint, but what stands out is the no-footnotes. One or two would do fine, I think. I don't want to take bold action to fix an article that is teetering on stability, so I went for tag rather than fix, and I would hope that everyone could work together to footnote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edits as presented work for me, good job! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool.  I re-did the references using the <ref> tags.  It's too bad you can't have global reference namespaces, so I could just re-use the references by ID on the other page.  Oh well, cut-and-paste always works.  Incidentally, the <ref> tag is awesome.  No wonder Jeff3000 has been addicted to re-casting all the references lately. :-p --Christian Edward Gruber 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edits have made the Views and Controversies page redundant.  I'm trying to think of why it shouldn't be AfDd?  Having worked on it myself, I don't want to do that, but I'm not sure how much duplicate information we need, especially when this really isn't that notable?--csloat 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but no, these edits have not made the much more detailed Views and Controversies page redundant. Isarig 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good intent Israig. :)  Anyway, there is a lot more detail on the controversies page.  One other way to handle this is to re-do the references on the main page to point to sub-sections of the controversies page which go into more detail, and which are properly referenced externally themselves.  I think that was the intent of the main template use, but that didn't seem to be sufficient for Hipocrite (and possibly others) --Christian Edward Gruber 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gotten used to Isarig's personal attacks by now; he has never assumed good intent with me.  I think it would be really useful for him to read the Wikipedia policies concerning civility and biographies of living persons for that matter.  But in any case, he has not made any point in his above comment, as usual.  As I said, I don't really want to AfD the article -- even though it has severe NPOV problems to the point of embarrassment, I have tried to help correct these problems, but certain users, Isarig included, are determined not to let that happen.  In any case, I am not here to fight with him.  I just don't see why every silly argument that Cole has gotten himself into requires a lengthy exegesis.  Why not simply state on this page that Cole has strong views on certain topics and has had disputes with various figures and point to the other page?  I understand why people want references, but those are supplied on the other page.  This is a biography, folks, check out WP:BLP for more information.--csloat 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrences 

message: His full works need to be listed b/c he is under attack on the Views and Controversy page for haveing sparse works. Or is that part of the plan. To cut down his works here to bolster the claim that he has few works? Take Care! --Will(talk) 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, please stop being so paranoid and accusing editors of bad intent.  If you look at the edit history I'm sure you'll discover that no one has taken out any publications of Cole's to make the list shorter.  Elizmr 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected Bibliography

message: The page which the anon has referenced doesn't necessarily say what s/he claims it says.  There are other possible explanations (Juan and John are the same name, so it could just be presented like that to match the names of his ancestors).  Without further explanation, the assertion cannot be considered to be adequately sourced.  Guettarda 07:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page referenced says exactly what the WP article says, and is well sourced. There may be further explanations - you need to go and find them, not revert a sourced fact. Isarig 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It includes both names, but it doesn't explain what's going on there.  Taking that page and using it to argue things one way or another is speculative and violates WP:NOR.  Guettarda 14:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is arguing anything. Please read the article. It says "Cole's genealogical webpage lists his name as "John (Juan) Ricardo Cole.". This is factually true, and does not argue anything. It does not 'explain' anything, nor does it pretend to explain anything. It is a neutral fact, sourced to Cole's website. Stop removing it. Isarig 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it stands now this "fact" seems completely out of place. If you insist on including it, how about as a footnote in the introductory paragraph?--71.34.39.163 01:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it out of place to list the article's namesake's name as it is given on his own personal genealogical wepge, in the biographical section? Isarig 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THe way it is phrased now, it sounds like of awkward.  I'll try to rephrase it to make it less so.  Everyone please see what you think.  Elizmr 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for tracking that down.  Guettarda 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for suggesting email JC.  It was a good idea.  Elizmr 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John/Juan 

message: Hey 131.183.73.59, 
Sorry, had to cut that link you added.  Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for reference on what links are acceptable.  Also, I'm not sure why that article detailing the fight between Hitchens and Cole should be listed seperately in the External Links.  Including a synopsis of the blow-by-blow between Cole and his various critics is something we want to avoid (Even though I agree with the blog you added that Cole eviserated Hitchens substantively).  --FNV 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link removed 

message: Could somone explain what is wrong with the summary mentioning what area the political controversies have been in? JoshuaZ 00:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objectionable part of the sentence is "public controversies for his support of Arab and Muslim causes, and his criticism of U.S. and Israeli government policies."  Let's see, which "Arab and Muslim causes" provoke controversy, and in what way does Cole support those causes?  Most Arab-Americans support the second amendment in polls; is that an "Arab cause" and does Cole's support of that cause provoke controversy?  Or, to stick to what Cole has actually said, would his criticism of Hezbollah's "war crimes" be a "Muslim cause" that has garnered dispute?  Or his support of Israeli academics?  The statement that his "support of Arab and Muslim causes" led to controversy is too vague and contentious to be useful here; why not something like his advocacy surrounding Middle East issues, or something to that effect?  Same with his criticism of US/Israeli policies, though that is slightly better; there are some policies he criticizes and others he does not.  I think we're better off keeping the intro as NPOV as possible and being more specific when we have room to, down below, as we do.--csloat 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slight disagreement, the causes that he has been controversial for have been the ones which would be easily identified as Arab or Muslim causes and similarly for the US/Israeli matter. Furthermore, it is NPOV to say what sort of causes they were. However, I do think your suggestion of mentioning middle eastern issues as a more generic way of doing it might make sense. Do you have a specific wording in mind? JoshuaZ 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, but I do think "Arab and Muslim causes" is unnecessarily tendentious, particularly when Cole is also opposed to some things described as such "causes."  "Middle Eastern issues" would be much better - feel free to tinker.--csloat 00:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: I agree with Will's change regarding which Israel supporters are "Likudniks" (though I might say "neoconservative" instead of "right wing").  I think the phrase "Israel supporters" is itself unclear, since Cole is himself a supporter of Israel in many ways.  So perhaps there is a better way to rewrite this entire sentence?--csloat 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Likudniks

message: Shouldn't there be some mention that most (if not all?) of the controversies/criticism are actually driven by stuff on his blog? Armon 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have no idea what you mean. I'm talking about drawing a distinction between his academic work, which AFAIK is relatively uncontroversial, and his opinions on his blog, which are more so. Armon 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was a sentence previously about that in the lead, but it fell by the wayside.  Elizmr 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Will is mischaracterizing the past situation and seems to have a strange grasp of the passage of time.  The Karsh sentence here is a reasonable crit of Cole made by a fellow academic to which Cole has never replied.  It is not libelous.  It is made in a citable source, not a blog.  Sloat found one part of the quote particularly objectionable and that was removed to the other article.  The "views and contrav" section of the main article should be a summary of the larger article and can certainly contain some of the same material.   Elizmr 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Karsh quote was the reason that the V&C article was started; it was removed from here because of WP:BLP issues.  I did edit it down but then you restored most of it - yes you did take out the one sentence that was the most ad hominem, but the rest is still there (or was until Will's latest edit).  I backed off of this edit war because I don't see the point of continuing here; you are determined to violate BLP both on this page and the V&C page, and you have more free time to devote to this silliness than I do.  I wouldn't mind this particular quote so much if it was only used once; it appears on wikipedia three times, however -- here, V&C, and Efraim Karsh.  It is not an important quote in anyone's mind except you guys -- it is not quoted in any print source, and it is not from an academic article but rather from the New Republic.  Having this quote three times on wikipedia, as I said on the V&C talk, suggests that Karsh's off-the-cuff comment about Cole is more important and prominent than any quote from George Washington, Martin Luther King, Machiavelli, Hegel, or Jesus Christ.--csloat 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Karsh quote was one of many items critical of Cole which Cole's supporters on this page refused to allow, bogusly invoking WP:BLP issues. Isarig 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; the Karsh quote was the center of that discussion, and it was not only "Cole's supporters" involved in that discussion.  And WP:BLP was quite accurately and appropriately invoked.  The issues are even more profound on the V&C page.--csloat 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not. There were several issues, including the Hitchens/Cole dispute over the translation of  Ahmadinejad's speech, Cole's conspiracy theories and antisemitic questioning of the loyalties of Jews in the Pentagon, and many others, of which the Karsh quote was one. An important one, no doubt, buthardy the only one or the central one. As Elizmr pointed out, there is nothing libelous about the Karsh quote, and WP:BLP was bogusly invoked at the time. Isarig 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Karsh quote was at the center of that discussion - I didn't say it was the only issue.  And in fact WP:BLP was correctly invoked; you might enjoy reading it.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you can repeat that assertion as many times as you like, but it will not become more true for  it. I've highlighted several othe rissues that were equally "at the center", so singling out the Karsh quote as supposedly "the reason that the V&C article was started" is flase, and dishonest. Isarig 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you read WP:BLP, you might want to cruise over to WP:AGF as well, and tone down your accusations of lying.  Then you should look over the discussion on this page from a few months ago to see that Karsh was in fact at the center of this discussion.  I do not disagree with you that there were other problems with the page.--csloat 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My objection to the quote is not that it appears in several places but that it is more about Karsh's opinion of ME historians in general than it is about Cole in particular. Karsh's basic complaint seems to be that all ME historians (including Cole but not, of course, himself and his little clique) have got it wrong. Like I said before, there's two ways of reading this. That Cole is "derivative" or that Cole bases his opinions on the most widely-accepted interpretation of ME events (this is his blog we're talking about, not his academic research). In that sense, the use of the word "derivative" is an ad-hominem attack. --Lee Hunter 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really important point that so far nobody has actually dealt with.  I totally agree with Hunter on this point.  But I also do think it's a problem that the quote appears three times for no good reason.  Perhaps Isarig will tell us what makes Karsh's opinion of Middle Eastern studies more important than anything ever said by Oscar Wilde or Thomas Jefferson?-csloat 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have not been the one advocating the re-insertion of this quote, I don't see why I have to defend it's inclusion here or anywhere else. But I find it curious that someone who insists on having  a totaly non-consequental comment by a blogger (Cole) on yet another totaly non-notable antisemitic comment by an actor (Gibson) included in the article, is at the same time complainign about a quote by a notable ME scholar on the works of other scholars. Why the doubel standard? Isarig 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No double standard at all; I haven't had this quote inserted three times, once here, once on V&C and once on Mel Gibson.  If we are going to keep the V&C page as it is, that quote belongs there because it shows how Cole feels about anti-semitic conspiracy theories (quite contrary to the picture others here are trying to paint of Cole's opinion).  Also, it's pretty bogus to claim that Gibson's comments were non-notable; I heard about them for weeks on TV, the radio, the newspapers -- however, somehow I missed a single one of the no doubt copious NPR specials that accompanied Karsh's moment of pique in the New Republic.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the part of the Karsh quote that referred to antisemitism and use of conspiracy theorizing was what was most objected to, but there was a lot of other stuff as well that wan't found acceptable all of which was removed to the other page.  If the problem was the Karsh quote, no one was very clear on that at the time.  This came back because Lee didn't think a paraphrasing that had been agreed to by consensus previously was accurate so we decided to just add the direct Karsh.  Karsh's point is because COle hasn't done original research on the modern middle east, his opinions rest on the analyses of others.  He doesn't say that he, Karsh, is the only one questioning this particular view of the ME, but he does go on to discuss it.  In any case, it is not libelous or aviolation of BLP or anything else.  It is the only critical thing on the whole page.  Surely one mildly critical thing can be tolerated here???? And I really don't see what Oscar Wilde or Thomas Jefferson would have to say about John Cole that would be at all relevant to a wikipedia entry.  Elizmr 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag should not be deleted until the POV issues are resolved, even if it is intransigence about one sentence.  Hunter's position on the quote is not just his opinion; it is Karsh's opinion, which you are misrepresenting for some bizarre reason.  We also don't need this misrepresented quote three times.  Karsh may be "notable," but he is not more notable than, say, Jesus of Nazareth.  I didn't say Jesus (or Wilde) has anything to say about Cole; I said that they are more notable than Cole (and Karsh), and that it is strange that this one silly quote from Karsh, which has been blatantly misinterpreted, needs to be placed here not once, not twice, but thrice.--csloat 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is what bugs you, there's a simple solution to that: Let's merge the V&C article back into this one, where it should have been all along. Isarig 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think this page should be longer than History of the World for example?  Or are you suggesting that we eliminate the he-said, she-said nonsense from that page and merge in only a couple of paragraphs about Cole's most notable views?  I could support such a move.--csloat 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting that this article be as long as required to be useful. If that means it is longer than History of the World, so be it. What I am also suggesting is that editors who object to a certain quote make a better case for its exclusion than the fact that it also appears in other articles related to this one. Isarig 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took your suggestion at your word and suggested a way to approach such a move - it's not clear above whether you are agreeing with such a suggestion or whether you only made the suggestion as a form of WP:POINT.  Do you support the idea of deleting the V&C page and moving here a couple of paragraphs summarizing Cole's most notable views only? I'm not saying a version without criticism but I am suggesting a version whose main purpose is not to defame the subject or provide a debate/smackdown forum for Cole supporters and opponents.--csloat 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly support of a re-merge of the V&C article back into this page, where it belongs. If you are willing to include the criticisms of Cole on the page - including for example Karsh's criticism that his reserach on Israel is derivative, and that he espouses conspiratorial and anti-semitic views about Israel's supporters in congress and in the Pentagon, I'm all for it. Isarig 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said below (speaking for myself only) I see no reason to exclude that quote. However, there  are various other controversies in the V & C article which I don't see any easy way of merging into this article.--CSTAR 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the bullshit jew-baiting quote violates WP:BLP pretty clearly.  If it is to be included here, so must the quote about Gibson and the other responses to it.  Once again we're going to have an article that is longer than History of the World.  I'm sure Cole will be flattered that he is so important.--csloat 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you were talking about the Karsh quote that's already in this article.--CSTAR 14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not misrepresenting anything, but I think you might be misunderstanding Karsh's point or argument.  Karsh is making a valid point about Cole.  His actual scholarship is not on the modern middle east.  It just simply isn't.  It may be relevant to it, or may inform it, etc, but what he has actually done original research on and what he blogs about are two different things.  Is he ignorant about the modern middle east?  NO.  Does he know more than most people about the modern middle east.  OF COURSE HE DOES.  Does he have a right to blog about what he blogs about?  OF COURSE.  But none of that refutes Karsh's point.  Karsh IS a modern middle east scholar with a high level faculty appt at a university.  Why do you insist he is not notable?  Could you name even one valid reason other than the fact that he is not Jesus or Wilde or whoever?   What Karsh is saying has a right to be said here on this page and when you remove it you are essentially engaging in censorship.   Elizmr 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one misunderstanding Karsh.  Karsh is making a point - valid or not - about Middle Eastern scholarship in general, and he is singling out Cole for representing that scholarship.  Your claim that cole's scholarship isn't about the "modern middle east" is of course demonstrably false, but that is most likely because what you mean to say is "twentieth century" middle east (though he has some scholarly works on there, as I pointed out when we had this silly debate months ago).  The 19th century middle east is "modern."  Getting back to Karsh, the comment about how much research Cole has done on the 20th century is not what is at issue here.  What is at issue is that Karsh faults Cole for following the mainstream of his field.  I have never said Karsh is not notable; what I said was this quote is not notable and that it does not belong on wikipedia in three different places.  Please stop misrepresenting my points Elizmr, it is extremely annoying.--csloat 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I never berated you Elizmr, I just asked you to stop misrepresenting me.  My point about the quote appearing three times was cogent enough for everyone else to understand.  Tell me which word I wrote that you did not understand and I will help you out with it.  You still haven't responded to the point; your assertion that the quote is "notable and belongs in wikipedia where it is" simply evades the issue.--csloat 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't understand that you considered the 19th C ME to be modern in the same way that the late 20th C is modern, for one, and you didn't explain that until just now.  I think Karsh was probably referring to a more recent time frame in his article, ie--one which includes Israel's existence.  About the "three times" issue, I just don't see why it is so outrageous that the quote is repeated in two different articles, one of which (V and C) is summarized in the other (main Cole).  I think that Karsh's particlar point is important enough and far enough from libelous that it rightly belongs in the main article as well as the rambling morass of V and C.  I don't share your sense that a vital Wikipedia rule on proportionality is being violated here.  I don't know what you want me to say to fulfill your request not to "evade" the issue.  I know it is hard for you to see this because you feel so strongly about it.  That's it from here.  Elizmr 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In historical scholarship, "Modern" means "after the Middle Ages."  But that's not what I said you misrepresented about my comments; what you misrepresented was you kept claiming I said Karsh was not notable.  I said this particular quote from Karsh is not notable enough to be quoted three times in three different articles.  This is not a question of libel; it's a question of notability and of propriety as covered in WP:BLP.  As for evading the issue, this is the first time you've actually addressed it.  You haven't said anything intelligible about it, but at least you're finally addressing it.  Have a nice day.--csloat 05:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you think you are not berating me, interesting.  Elizmr 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views and controversies -blog driven? 

message: As long as the disagreement about the Karsh quote persists, this article remains the POV banner should stay.  Whether you agree with it or not, it is a valid issue--CSTAR 14:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Elizmr 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV banner 

message: James Joyner makes mince of Karsh's arguments but Isarig would delete it in a hearbeat because it comes from a blog and not therefore not WP RS. This is bullcrap b/c that policy refers to fact verifiability not to opinion. Here it is. Going to be sticking it to keep the article balanced.
"While there’s no doubt Cole in pole[mn]ical, the idea that he has “abandoned scholarship” is rather absurd. For one thing, one could argue that interpreting current events through an expert lens for the mass public is scholarship and provides a greater service than writing obscure articles read by a handful of other experts, mostly to cite in their own obscure articles. Moreover, Cole has continued to publish at a more than reasonable rate for a tenured full professor. If one looks at his CV, one finds nine book chapters or articles written since 2005."As JC would say Cheers Will314159 02:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does any included quote say Cole abandoned scholarship? --CSTAR 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LAYING Aside that CSTAR. That's a V&C issue. What's going on is the JC detractors are worried  that the WP reader won't make it as far as the V&C page to read the full Karsh quote  so they want to bloody up Cole with it on the front page where a snipped just won't do. So the fair minded editors then have to bring all the rehabilitating winesses from the V&C page to the front page to counteract it. Which makes the two pages dupllicate each other and redundant. Another approach is to expose Karsh's deficiencies. Respected Scholar or occupation apologist for the Dream World of the Settlers? A gentleman that wrote. What occupation? (Regarding Occupied Gaza and West Bank?)  As JC would say Cheers Will314159 10:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pages may duplicate each other, but that in itself is not a reason for deleting one of them. There is lots of duplication on WP. The argument that a given quote or source may be non-notable may be valid, but as I mentioned earlier it's a very hard argument to make. I prefer to come to an accomodation with those that argue that it is notable, particularly since it's the source making a claim not WP editors.  Karsh may very well be an apologist for IDF, but seriously, I wouldn't trust an encyclopedia that made assertions of that kind (to be honest, I don't trust wikipedia that much anyway). I also note that WP does say Karsh was a major in Tsahal. Any reader can make an independent assesment whether such a source is entirely unbiased.--CSTAR 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Joyner Karsh Anti-Dote CounterBalancing Quote would get deleted by Isarig & C0 

message: "Thursday, October 12, 2006
Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole
An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me.
I never replied to the smear of me gotten up by Marty Peretz of the New Republic and carried out by a far rightwing Israeli historian named Ephraim Karsh, some time ago. It was beneath contempt.
Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment.
Karsh charged that I am innocent of the 20th and 21st century history of the Middle East because much of my writing had been on earlier periods.
But in fact I have formally published in refereed academic venues on the Taliban, on September 11, the Ayatollahs of Iraq and democracy, on the historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and many other twentieth century and twenty-first century subjects. My book, Sacred Space and Holy War contains chapters on the twentieth-century history of the Arab Shiites and on the modernity of the Islamic Republic of Iran and I have also published a chapter at McGill University Press on the treatment of religious minorities by the Islamic Republic, especially in the 1990s and early zeroes.
In addition to my writing on academic 20th century and contemporary topics, which has been extensive, I have published a raft of op-eds on contemporary affairs in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, etc., etc. I am a sought-after commentator in the media on contemporary Middle Eastern affairs, which I follow on a daily basis, having made appearances on the Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, CNN Headline News, etc., etc. The news professionals are in no doubt of my expertise on the up to the minute happenings in the region.
I am a person of wide personal experience with the late twentieth century and contemporary Middle East. I worked as a newspaperman in Beirut in the late 1970s. I lived for several years in Cairo. I lived in Amman, Jordan. I lived and traveled widely in Pakistan and India. I have continued to visit the region frequently in the past 15 years, keeping in touch with the pulse of opinion and changing local views. I don't need to do that through interpreters. I speak fluent colloquial Arabic, Urdu and Persian, and can get around in Turkish.
I have written a lot about the earlier history of the Middle East and will go on doing so. But Karsh's attempt to paint me as a dusty antiquarian is simply implausible.
You will note, moreover, that a medievalist like Bernard Lewis, who for the most part wrote about the early Muslim period or the Ottoman Empire, is lionized by people like Karsh when he writes about current affairs. Lewis's experience on the ground in the Arab world is minimal compared to my own.
posted by Juan @ 10/12/2006 06:08:00 AM " wikipedia-karsh-and-cole-encyclopedia As JC would say Cheers, NO I like this one better, It's time to celebrate Wikis for the Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to Juan:  It is highly offensive for you to pretend to know anything about the politics of any editor on this page.  Since I am one of the editors you are talking about, I think it is reasonable for me to that your firmly stated assertion that editors who put any quote you might percieve as negative into your Wikipage are "far right wing activists" is complete and total bullshit (apologies for the language).  It is completely possible to be pro-Israel and liberal or left-wing or moderate or whatever at the same time.  Ironically, Israel as a country reflects the values of the liberals and left wing folks more strongly than any other country in the middle east.  It also completely possible to be left-wing without engaging in apologetics about repressive regimes which do not respect things like freedom of religion and women's rights.  It is also completely possible to be on the side of a nation for the Palestinians, but to respect Israel's right to protect its citizens with things like check points and buffer zones at the same time.  Elizmr 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again you are entitled to your opinion; However, as a I mentioned to Will, there is not much utility in espousing them here. I would also note that individuals self-perceptions of where they lie on the political spectrum or the quality of their values may not correspond to the perceptions of others. Karsh, Hitchens et al implicitly label large segments of individuals with some label or other.--CSTAR 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right about one thing, Elizmr, it is completely possible to be pro-Israel and liberal at the same time.  It is also possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Likud, just as it is possible to be pro-American and anti-Bush.  It is also possible to be on the side of Israel's right to defend itself but against such things like check points and buffer zones (to use your specific examples).  I think the problem with some of the people you insist on quoting is that they believe that anyone who criticizes recent Israeli policies towards the Palestinians (or who criticizes the avowed ideologies of certain neoconservatives who identify very strongly with the Likud party) must be "anti-Israel" by extension.  Something worth thinking about.  In any case, if you want Cole to read your comment you might post it to his blog - the above was posted by Will, not Juan Cole, and Will was citing Cole's blog.  Have a nice day!--csloat 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please sloat, let's avoid this proxy war. It's as hopeless as the real one.--CSTAR 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't offering to debate the issue; just suggesting it was "something to think about."  I'll leave it at that.--csloat 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  First of all Will I didn't allow him to be attacked. Moreover, I am trying to shorten it to make it more readable.  And there is quite a bit that is said about his rebuttal of Karsh. --CSTAR 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual you completely neglect to include anything besides personal snides, inapproporiate insults, and general rudeness in your statement. I hope you will soon come to understand that this is not only an extremely ineffectiove way of arguing, but also tends to make people not take you very seriously. Furthermore your insults do not even make any sense, so besides the occasional laugh I doubt it will affect anyone too much.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Will,  based on your say so alone and without independent investigation, Juan Cole decided to make strong ad hom remarks in his blog against the three or four folks who were putting a Karsh cite in his Wikipedia blog entry?  I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it were true it would be an interesting insight into his general credibility.  Elizmr 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, there is no way of knowing whether this is true.  Could everyone involved here please drop these speculations about personal traits? --CSTAR 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I just had to reply to this remark of Wills and thought that what I wrote was preferable to the epiphet that first came to mind :=) Elizmr 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Karsh & Cole: After a year of getting slimed JC has had enough 

message: It would be an improvement if WP policies weren't used as bludgeons. It's fine to invoke OR or RS.  However, much of what is reported in these Juan Cole articles is current and happening in a very fluid environment (blogs and online publications).  Therefore any sensible interpretation of the rules should take this into account. In other words, the article reports on events that overlap blogs, online publications, smallish periodicals and major publications. Any sensible account of such events should report on all these sources. If the prevailing opinion is that failing to do so violates OR and RS, then perhaps none of it should be reported.--CSTAR 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Will's latest edit. I think it is a significant quote, that should be linked, but should not be in the body of the article.--CSTAR 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Will, I do not object to including a short paraphrase (or excerpts) of Cole's response; However, including the whole quote is not appropriate, IMO. For now I deleted it, leaving only a link.--CSTAR 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will, I said I have nothing against inclusion of excerpts. Editing the quote should be done carefully. --CSTAR 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a paraphrase with some quoting; short and to the point.--csloat 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.--CSTAR 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Editors of good faith cleary dersrve some time to prune and excerpt. Take Care. Will314159 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cole can have his opinion. Regardless of whether any of it is true, is it really useful to discuss it here?  If you want to pursue this angle, I suggest you start something like a Wikipedia review for political bias on Wikipedia. Or try dKosopedia. There is certainly precedent for this.. lots of WP editors in the sciences are getting fed up with the unhindered access by crackpots with agendas. --CSTAR 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of WP policy and guidelines 

message: If you want the Karsh quote, then you also have to let Cole defend himself. What's in there now is a brief excerpt crafted by CSloat. If you guys keep on deleting it and messing with it, it means you don't believe in fair play, and I'm going to start deleting the Karsh quote. For your interest, a Wikipedia with Constables 
Best Wishes Will314159 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trolling. V & C has the whole tit for tat (which you and csloat complain about). I've suggested splitting it into 2 sub articles, "views" and "criticism" as has been done elsewhere. No response from you, csloat complains that there'd still be criticism. Isarig has suggested merging V&C back into this article, I doubt that's going to fly either, so why are you attempting to re-create V&C here? If you've got a better suggestion, suggest it, but I'm not going to engage with you otherwise. I've no patience anymore for your blatant disregard of AGF and NPA and your constant POV pushing and OR. If you make a decent edit, I'll help you, if you insert crap, I'll revert it, end of story. Armon 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Take them to ArbCom, Will314159. You've stated that there authors here with agendas; they'll continue to pollute this page until you take it higher up. 222.155.148.6 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A rooting gallery isn't necessary. If you have a complaint, make it. Otherwise, you're making  threats, which may be against WP policy but more to the point is a waste of time. Please stop.--CSTAR 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. That anon is giving you some rotten advice, Will. Armon 05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As usual, you mistake WP for a blog, and article talk pages for chat rooms. Armon 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Will, if you are suggesting that editors here are part of some kind of huge lobby/conspiracy that is an alarming display of assuming poor faith and patently ridiculous.  I will again direct you to WP:AGF.  Elizmr 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention Armon, Isarig, Silverburg Can't have cake and eat it too 

message: The article provides nothing useful by citing Cole's opinion of Karsh. Do we really need to inform the reader that Cole thinks "Karsh is beneath contempt" and that Cole "is not an antiquarian" (paraphrasing here). You are right, it is an article about Cole, but it isn't his CV. I can't imagine why you (or anyone else for that matter) thinks this is unfair. Could I ask you (or anybody) to revert this please? Thank you.--CSTAR 18:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Cole were right that Karsh is a rightwing fanatic (which incidentally, would be hard to prove within the context of acceptable argumentation on WP), it doesn't really add anything to the content of his rebuttal; it in fact dilutes his argument. This is one thing I'm really puzzled about you and other editors (on all sides) for these articles. This is not a question of personal honor or defense of your beliefs. It's a question of being sensible. --CSTAR 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will, what are you up doing? Please stop.  You are gaining nothing by adding these quotes; you are not advancing whatever cause you might gave.  If Karsh is a jerk, there are enough links in this article so people can figure that out for themselves.--CSTAR 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, it is weird to defend WP:BLP for one subject, while clearly breaking those same guidelines for another subject.  We need to uniformly apply guidelines in Wikipedia.  Elizmr 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Benny Morris quote is right from the Karsh wiki article. The publlic is entitled to know that Karsh is a rightwing nut job in Cole's opinion and not to be taken seriously. Of course with a little work a person could figure it out. 1) Cole speaks all those mideastern language 2) has lived and worked all those years in the mideast and south asia and 3) has written a ton of recent articles about modern events and is a recognized expert. Only an rightwinger advocate would insist on putting a rightwing comment by Karsh in this article. But the general public is not going to do the detective work to undo the smear. that's why it's in the article. to smear him because he has justly criticized  Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. The man has a right to defend himself in robust terms from a robust smear. Take Care! Will314159 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will what are you talking about? I didn't remove the link, I didn't remove the essence of Cole's reply. Is your objection that I removed that Cole said Kramer was "beneath contempt"? It may very well be true and this would be appropriate for a newspaper article but, honestly not for here. Assuming that COle weres slimed here, which admittedly be an injustice this is not the place to correct that injustice by adding something shouldn't be here (in my opinion)--CSTAR 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be more helpful if we dropped the last sentence. It goes without saying that people who are at each other's throats have differing motives, biases, interests and political leanings. Also Cole is not exactly economical with his use of the words "right wing" when talking about his critics so the fact that this is how he describes Karsh is not particularly significant. --Lee Hunter 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Will, you are again stuggesting that editors here are part of "the Lobby".  What exactly do you mean by that?  Do you realize how insulting and ridiculous it is?  I will again direct you to WP:AGF.  I think it is time to consider a user conduct RFC against you.  Elizmr 22:57, 18 
October 2006 (UTC)
Wikilaywering and evasion rather than response on the merits, do you have any objection to identitifying Karsh as Karsh, an Israeli historian and former IDF analyst,-- all stuff out of Karsh? Is that deragatory? let the reader be informed and give the criticism some context. I'm tired of wheel wars. Let us have some closure.  Cheers. Will314159 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is obvious that you are trying to imply that because Karsh was once in the IDF his opinion is less important, that is completely inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not deragatory, but it is an attempt to poison the well. If you want the reader to be informed, how about describing Karsh as the founding editor of the scholarly journal Israel Affairs? Or as Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London 9his current role). Surely that's more relevant to his ability to comment on Israeli issues than his decades old position in the Army? Isarig 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Israel have to do with the Middle East?Elizmr 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't often find myself on the same side of the fence as Isariq and Elizmr but I have to agree that Karsh's work for the IDF in the distant past should only be mentioned if it has some relevance to how he's quoted in this article. In this case, the Israeli military or Cole's opinions of the Israeli military are not being discussed so cherry-picking this factoid from Karsh's CV seems a little odd. --Lee Hunter 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for those who don't know (and I'm sure most everyone does except for the individual who insists on adding this factoid), pretty much everyone (except Israeli Arabs who don't have to) serves in the IDF in Israel after high school.  Adding this to an article to imply something sinister about Karsh (while not mentioning his equal-to-Cole's academic credentials), would be like prefacing a quote by Pope Benedict with a comment about his service in a Nazi youth movement and then vaguely calling him a "religious figure." Elizmr 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but not everyone serves as an analyst (and it's my recollection that Karsh worked specifically with intelligence).  I don't think anyone is advocating removing Karsh's academic credentials, but the question of his IDF analyst work is raised because published sources have raised it in the context specifically of his criticism of Cole.  It's not important to me either way but if I run across the source of this information I'll pass it on here.  I agree that this is probably not that relevant, but if it is mentioned in published sources as relevant it is not incorrect to include it here.--csloat 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone serves in intelligence, but a very large percentage of Arabic speakers and/or people with relevant background (such as Karsh's degree in ME history) do, and the intelligence corps is one of the largest (in terms of headocunt) in the IDF. IOW, you have cause and effect reversed - it is Karsh's academic background that led to his role with the IDF, not the IDF position which is relevant to his academic credentials. From your last comment I take it you do not have any citable published sources that make the argument that his IDF background is relevant. Given that, and the apparent consensus that the IDF role is irrelevant, I suggest we remove it. Isarig 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The IDF is certainly relevant to an article about the life of Karsh but there's no reason to drop it into this context. Karsh is speaking as a historian and he's commenting on the work of another historian. It's appropriate that we identify him as a university professor. If he were currently working for the IDF it might be ok, but when we add an irrelevant detail from his past it's obviously an attempt to send some sort of message to the reader. --Lee Hunter 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and calling Karsh a "former IDF analyst" would be like describing Cole (in the Karsh article) as a former member of the Bahai faith. Yes, it's a fact and no doubt the Bahai faith informs Cole's world view, but it would misrepresent who he is and why he is being quoted. --Lee Hunter 17:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's being quoted about his opinions about something related to Bahai, then indeed such a qualifier would be perfectly reasonable.--csloat 09:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Will 

message: I'm sure this will be reverted, but could we please reproduce what Karsh actually said about Cole for the sake of accuracy in the article?  It is weird to have Cole's reponse that he did extensive research without having Karsh's comment intact.  Also, I added Cole's actual response--that he published--rather than what was there--that he did extensive research.  The only reason to revert this would be to obscure the points of the dialog.  Elizmr 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "poisoning the well" remark is valid; however, the article fails to mention that Cole believes Karsh to be politically motivated; in fairness that should be said somewhere even if just as footnote. I don't like putting some of Cole's "stronger" statements, such as his saying Karsh's remarks are "beneath contempt". Though he did say that,  it seems to me that out of the blog context where it was made, it makes Cole look too defensive; I concur with Will that Cole should defend himself, and has every right to do so but randomly extracting bits and pieces of his defense in this article is not a good idea. The "elevator summary" for this graf in my opion i ssomething like this "Karsh has criticized Cole's expertise: it's derivative and echoes conventional wisdom; Cole has replied this is nonsense and he can prove it by his published record. Moreover, Cole believes Karsh has a right-wing  agenda".--CSTAR 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Elizmr, the word "extensive" was there too, and one could argue that it was your edit that seemed intended to obscure certain points of dialog -- best that we just don't go there and WP:AGF, however frustrating that is to do.  I should add that this section is already way beyond what seems permissable according to WP:BLP; that is a separate issue however.--csloat 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please put back "extensive"; I did not take it out purpousely.  There is nothing there that violates WP:BLP and we've been throught this before.  Also, I think that it is fine to have more of Cole's reply.  Why not put in the part where he says that someone else put Karsh up to it and the whole thing?   I just wanted Karsh's statement to be in there as it was written and not clipped up into unintelligibility.  The elevator summary just didn't convey Karsh's meaning in my opinion.  Elizmr 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. What is your summary?--CSTAR 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a note, Baha'is, as a general rule, do not go to Israel, unless if they are going on pilgrimage, or volunteering at the Baha'i World Centre.  Baha'is, from the time of the Ottoman Empire, do not teach their religion to others in the region of Palestine (now Israel).  So Cole going to Cairo, Beirut, and Amman, does not mean that Cole would have gone to Haifa. -- Jeff3000 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a social scientist, but I would assume that in any discpline a first author article can still be a review of other's research and this does not qualify as original research.  I'm not sure if Cole's publications fall under this rubric or not, but it really doesn't matter what I think.  Elizmr 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't matter what you think.  As Will points out below, all you have to do is click some links to verify this fact for yourself.  Your nitpick about whether an article qualifies as "original research" shows that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever with tenure committees, or that if you do have such experience, you weren't paying attention.  "A review of others' research" -- unless you're talking about a book review (or a review of several books), this phrase has no meaning.  Is Cole's article on the Taliban and the Hegelian private sphere unoriginal because it's a "review" of Hegel's research?  Is his discussion of Rashid Rida unoriginal because it is a "review" of Rida's work?  The notion is laughable.--csloat 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks will for trying to pick out interesting stuff for me to read.  None of this looks like primary research to me except for the Bahai stuff which is first half of the 20th century and about a sect who are not really currently big players (altho given their polite way of interacting on this page, I wish they were more prominent players).  I'm not trying to insult Cole here, I just don't think that this stuff refutes the point Karsh was making.  Any BTW, I'm not against human rights for the Palestinians; I'm for them.  I'm also for the right of Israelis to live in peace.  Elizmr 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Karsh quote

message: I have reorganized the sections and added more information about the blog, like what he actually writes there and its technorati ranking. I dont think any of it is controversial or at all political. Enjoy. Wachholder0 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization, blog information