Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 2

message: I set up a sandbox where the article can be worked on to address the issues that resulted in page protection.  It is located here Sandbox. •Jim62sch• 10:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox

message: Pick a section and write it. For example, Cole and Israeli academics. The section should clearly state Cole's (public) position, for example as stated in his blog. Criticisms (by notable critics- hopefully we can agree on who these are — Efraim Karsh is a notable critic, some grad student probably isn't) should be formulated in the form: According to So and so BLAH;. If 6000 critics say the same thing, we can say, something like it is "claimed by many critics that BLAH"
Is this too naive a proposal?--CSTAR 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too naive if we can just leave the word "BLAH" in place instead of actual content.  That is where we seem to get into trouble. :=)  Elizmr 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably there are critics that say more than BLAH. Note that none of the sections previously had this structure (the section on Cole and Israel, began with Karsh said BLAH, until I changed it to actually state Cole's position. Actually I took a quote direct from Campus Watch (not noted as a Cole cheerleader).--CSTAR 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS There's an ample supply of sarcasm on this page. I don't think we need more.--CSTAR 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but that was supposed to be comic relief, not sarcasm.  Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way.  Elizmr 23:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSTAR has a good point: less sarcasm (which is not easy for me) and just get down to brass tacks and get a valid NPOV article written. •Jim62sch• 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I already said that this wasn't intended to be sarcastic and apologized.  Elizmr 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know...I explained on your page.  •Jim62sch• 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: I've made a number of small edits to this section in the sandbox, mostly trimming awkward and repetitive sentences. I've also deleted yet another cite of that Badran the Blogger. Folks, I know you love him to death because he says the things you like to hear but he is, after all, only a grad student. --Lee Hunter 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me re: Badran.  Elizmr 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sandbox: On the influence of Zionism in US foreign policy

message: I have edited that section to reword the section on Cole's apparent change of stance on invading Iraq to include his rebuttal/explanation.  I also added more specifics to his viewpoints.  Does it need more references to his writings to back the fact that he makes those claims? (ie Iraq is in a civil war, or that the Interim constitution was problematic etc etc)
Without addressing the right/wrong of Cole's actual position, I do believe it is logically consistent to say "I would have supported a UN authorized invasion, and my support ceased when such authorization (in the form cole would have accepted, an explicit SC resolution) was not obtained."  So I feel his defence is a valid one to make, though I'd be just as happy not including the whole section on his alleged flip-flop on the war.
Actually, I'm not comfortable with the wording "interim constitution" Wasn't it called the "Transitional Administrative Law" or something?  I'm speaking of the constitution the Provisional Authority handed to the Iraqis as a starting point for their eventual constitution.
There's much more one could say about his critisisms of Post-invasion US policy - I don't want to drag it into minutae of every decision of Bush or Bremner that Cole questioned, or his disputing the success /failure of the insurgency, the percentage numbers of foreign jihadists/terrorists in the insurgency.
Thinking about it now, a mention of his concerns over the Fallujah campaign might merit mention as came back to that move frequently as a cause of a major upswing in insurgent violence and Iraqi dissatisfaction with the US precence.
Also, Cole has analyzed many of the choices the Iraqis themselves made, but I suppose his views on various iraqi politicians are not so controversial/noteworthy.--FNV 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great.  Thanks for doing the hard work to tease this out!  Elizmr 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks FNV but I would agree with you on something else - I too would be happy simply not including this sideshow.--csloat 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There can be no doubt by any informed person that Cole is one of the most informed persons alive on the middle east, in particular the Iraq War. But we have to face the fact that this article has taken a partisan hit and it has been frozen in an attack mode. The problem is how to unfreeze it. Since the people that have left it in the biased moded that it is in are given equal weight and quantity and not quality of argument is to prevail, the question presented is how to get out of this circumstance. The anser is clear. Just make this an article on Cole. Just the bare essentials. Cole can take care of himself in his own blog. The quality of his reasoning shines through. There he is not blocked or locked by administrators and can reply and defend hiself. All the crap the detractors want to talk about here, the Karsh quote, the minutae of Feith, the Iraq War, the occuption vanishing from the history of time, Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad, Walt & Mearsheimer, they all have or should have their own WP pages. Why must they all be fought over in a locked Don Juan discussion page while a hatchet page is presented to the general public. I have toned my comments down. And I don't know how to make my signature a hot link. All I do is hit the signature icon up at the top. Four tildes gets the same result. Take Care!--Will314159 11:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever you say something like "no one can doubt...", or "everybody agrees that..." it is something that is either extremely dubious or controversial, so yes, there can be some doubt by an informed person that Cole is the most knowledgable person alive on the middle east.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Superficial non-responsive response to the main point. More Ammo for a stub article. Take Care!--Will314159 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cole on Iraq 

message: Added a paragraph on Cole's participation in the translation project which is working to translate all the primary US founding documents and philosophy into Arabic, Persian and so forth.  --FNV 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career 

message: I'd like to create such a subsection and populate with some criticism on Cole's views from reputable sources.  We can trim the "views" section above.  Elizmr 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should model the page on the Christopher Hitchens article -- a views section that presents his views accurately and balanced and a section of criticism -- the criticism can be focused but it should not overwhelm the article.  Thus two sections should exist "Views" and "criticism" -- your above suggestion does not seem in keeping with this generally accepted practice.  --Ben Houston 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why don't you see what I did and then comment?Elizmr 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  You are not pushing the article to something that is within Wikipedia standards -- rather you ignore my comments.  --Ben Houston 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, I actually shortened a lot of the controversy sections--ie closer to Wikipedia standards.  I am not ignoring your comments, but find them overly directive.  Elizmr 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so confrontational?  I simply disagree with you -- this is allowed.  Views should be presented separated from Criticism like in the Hitchens article.  This is different from your "Views" within "Controversy" section idea.  The idea of following the Hitchens' article precedent was suggested above by someone else - because he is also a controversial character.  Your claim that I am "overly directive" is nonsensical -- I am just trying to follow WP standards.  --Ben Houston 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create "Views" subsection in "Controversy"? 

message: Are the necessary?  The second one is really long, out of proportion to the rest of the article.  What are the main points that various editors are making there?  Maybe we could trim this down and keep the essentials only if we decide that the translation disputes should stay.  Elizmr 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they need to stay, two paragraphs (of no more than 3 or 4 sentences each) total is more than enough to cover the issue.  Unfortunately, Arabic is not one of the languages I know, nor do I know anyone fluent enough in Arabic to translate the text in question.  However, if you had the original text, you could go here and request a translation, .  In this way, you'd have an impartial translation. •Jim62sch• 20:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would you (or any one of us) need to know Arabic (Farsi, actually)? That would be OR. We already have impartial translations - from the AP and the NYT. We also have the official Iranian transaltion, from INRI. And we have Cole's. All we need to do is provide his unique take on it and contrast with the others. Isarig 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not OR for the purpose of adding it to the article, it is a way of verifying the Arabic and Farsi.  You might find out that given the complexity of both languages (Arabic is extemely complex and nuanced, Farsi is one of the oldest continuous languages on the planet) that both translations are legitimate.  Also, as I am fairly competent in Italian, I can assure you that both the NYT and AP mangled the crap out of the translations when JPII was dieing last year -- why the hell should they be any better at Arabic or Farsi?  Also, INRI's translations into English are notoriously crappy. •Jim62sch• 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is the very definition of OR. If you doubt the translations by AP, NYT, Al-Jazeera etc... - you need to find a WP:RS that says this. Translating it yourself, no matter how proficient you are in Farsi, is the very definition of OR. I am shocked that I have to explain this to an admin. Isarig 00:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  re-reading your comments, I see you may have intended to say that while it is OR, it will not be added to the article, so it's ok. If that's what you meant, I agree , but then what would be the point, other than to satisfy the personal curiousity of Elizmr as to who is correct in the debate between Cole and the rest? It certianly would not further the improvement of the article which is our goal. Isarig 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Isarig--what is your main point re: the second translation?  Sloat--what is your main point re: the second translation?  I can try to shorten it and tighten it but I don't want anything to get lost in the shuffle.  Elizmr 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main point is this: In contrast to the official Iranian transaltion and to the impartial translations of AP and the NYT, all of which translated the phrase in question as meaning Israel will be destroyed, Cole alleges the meaning is that Israeli occupation of Jerusalem needs to end. Cole is alone in this interpretation, which caused the controversy with Hitchens. Isarig 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above. •Jim62sch• 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the above. I see an admin advocating that editors should perform OR to resolve issues on which there is disagreement. I refer you to Wikipedia:No original research Isarig 00:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who exactly is the admin and what is being proposed?--CSTAR 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Isarig -- when one is sourcing an article, performing research to find reliable sources, one is, de facto, performing "original research" in the sense that one is, I hope, determining the validity of the sources, and questioning those sources that just don't seem to ring true.  Thus, as I explained, I am not suggesting you ask for a translation for the purpose of adding it to the article, but to ascertain, for yourself, which translation is more likely.  It's really rather simple.  •Jim62sch• 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Csloat -- that "must be wiped off the map" makes no sense in Farsi is irrelevant.  When translating properly, one translates into the idiom of the target language.  This does not mean that Cole is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean he is right.  •Jim62sch• 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying, but what is at issue here is not whether Cole is right or wrong.  The WP page need not take an explicit position on that.  What is at issue is what Cole's argument actually is; it is this that Isarig, following Hitchens, gets wrong.--csloat 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation disputes 

message: While we are on the subject of translation, Cole has announced a new project to translate important Western works into Arabic.  So, could someone translate the Juan Cole page here into Arabic? Greg Kuperberg 00:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translate this page into Arabic