Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole

message: Could the involved parties please avoid editing Juan Cole until we can sort out the issues? Martinp23 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it to where it was. <<-armon->> 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not where it was prior to mediation, Armon.  Prior to mediation Cole's response to Karsh was included.  You deleted this response after mediation had been called for, and I called you on it, and I asked you to show good faith by restoring the material.  You refused to do so and you refused to respond to my arguments there.  It wasn't until Isarig agreed to the material being included and then backtracked just a few days ago that you entered the discussion again.  The pre-mediation status of the page included the material that you deleted.  Do not use Martinp23's request that we stop editing the page as an excuse to edit the page again, restoring it to a version you prefer!  Once again, by the way, your most recent edit went against a change Isarig and I agreed to in mediation, and you have never once made a single argument justifying that particular change. csloat 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation started in the middle of December, and from the 2nd, there were no edits until that date (or until about the 23rd).  It seems that Armon has indeed reverted to the state of the page at the start of mediation.  At least now we hopefully won't have any edit wars for the duration of the mediation.  Thanks, Martinp23 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon made an extremely controversial change -- removing Cole's response to Karsh -- after mediation had been requested.  You can verify that by reading the two links I provided in the paragraph above.  While your statement may be technically true if the start of mediation is after everyone agreed to it, it is not true in that I had asked for mediation (and Armon was part of that discussion) before that date. csloat 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well, fair enough, though I've been viewing the start of mediation from the day that this page was started, and from the cessation of editing on December 2 of Juan Cole. Martinp23 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my (continuing) inactivity, as a result of internet problems.  I'll get back to mediating here as soon as my phone line is repaired.  Again, sorry Martinp23 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

message: To start with, I'd like the involved parties to post their side of the dispute in the sections prepared below.  Try to ignore the comments left here by others in this preliminary stage and just write what your raw view of the debate is, what you're specifically supporting and why.  For now, please don't reply to the comments made by eachother in your statements.
Please respect civility, no personal attacks and assume good faith in all comments on this page and, for that matter, ever.  If you'd like to see another issue mediated upon, mention it in your statement and we'll take it from there.  Also, for ease of reading, please sign yourposts.  Thanks, Martinp23 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is public participation/input in this dispute encouraged, discouraged or ignored? -CSTAR 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For now, until I get the statements from the listed parties, I'm not encouraging non-parties to comment.  However, once we've got this stage out of the way, I'll (depending oon how I feel then) invite outside opinions here or on the article talk page.  Martinp23 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, but please keep in mind that some of the issues at stake here have wider ramifications in Wikipedia. Also, though I am not a direct participant im this dispute, I have been a participant in discussions that have preceded this dispute.--CSTAR 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful to add CSTAR to the list of disputants or otherwise encourage his participation as he has offered valuable mediating input in the past and he is very familiar with the nature of the dispute.--csloat 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be noted that I'm not neutral, so I don't have a mediating role to play. However, I am very concerned about the use of quotes from third parties in articles in general. As regards this specific quote from Karsh, a kind of modus vivendi had been reached by some of the parties involved. As a result I don't consider myself directly involved in this dispute, although I have an interest in oits outcome and the principles that are used to resolve it. For now it's best if I wait for a few days as suggested by the mediator.  Then I will make some comments as an "outside opinion", although as mentioned earlier I should not be considered neutral.--CSTAR 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: CSTAR, if you wish, you can add yourself to the list of disputants here and make a statement below or you can make a seperate "outside opinions" section further down - my thinking in delaying this is that it may be helpful for all of us if the named disputants present their points of view before we get outside opinions, so if you'd like to mske an outside opinon, would you be happy to wait for a few days until I've got the statements from the parties done?  To make it clear, I'm very eager for your opinion, but want ot make sure that it only surfaces at the right point :)  Thanks, Martinp23 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to note that I may also be interested in contributing as a non party, depending on what gets covered by all other commenters. As a newcomer to an already present dispute, it is very possible that my own (non-neutral) thoughts will already be represented, so it may not be necessary for me to contribute. In any case, I will likely be following this. Abbenm 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Cole dispute has ramifications for a whole number of articles, as well as the question of how contravetial subjects can be covered on WP. A group of editors have a bias against those who are critical of Israeli policy, and the tactics used in the agressive edit wars surrounding Juan Cole are typical of these cases, including quoting defamatory attacks on the subject from sources, and then reverting any attempts to add in the response of the subject. Fundamentally I believe that this is a question of conflict of interests. Good luck. Abu ali 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my capacity as mediator, to promote a healthy environment for discussion, I have refactored the inflammatory comments of Abu ali above, removing claims of biases and strongly worded attacks on the integrity of some editors.   If Abu ali is not happy with my actions, he is free to remove his comment :) Please assume good faith. Martinp23 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you planning to change everyone's words around?  This could get confusing, but if you're going to do this to get rid of inflammatory comments, please do so with the statement by Armon below, which has very little comment on the substance of this dispute and revolves entirely around his perception of my motives and conduct. csloat 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not be offended if you feel I'm overlooking certain comments - I'll be carefully reading through the comments below, and will refactor any inflammatory comment.  If I do make changes, although they will be open to discussion, I ask that such discussion be directed towards me on my talk page, rather than inflame the situation here.  I'll avoid changing comments wherever I can, and try to preserve the meaning of them. Martinp23 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Though this dispute may have ramifications in WP generally, for me at least the issues involved can be narrowly focused: suitably of certain types of quotes, suitability of certain types of responses. It doesn't help to bring in ancillary considerations which may flare tempers even further and may confuse the issue at stake here.--CSTAR 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes - I'll create a new section at the bottom where, if you can/will, you can give me an overview of your view of the debate, and your opinions. Martinp23 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation proper, initial instructions and offers of assistance from unlisted parties 

message: The mediation has now been officially open since December 15; all but one of the parties directly involved in the dispute have come forth with a statement. Would it now be acceptable for comments by other parties to be entered at this point?--CSTAR 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I'll create a new section at the bottom where, if you can/will, you can give me an overview of your view of the debate, and your opinions. Martinp23 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside comments now appropriate? 

message: === Armon ===
;Statement by Armon here
Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic, who, in 2002, made himself into a public intellectual and became notable as a blogger and then as a pundit. Cole is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators from the left, and is a strong critic of the Bush administration.  In doing so, his work has attracted both praise and criticism and he has been a player in several widely reported controversies. However, it is the criticism, and the criticism inherent in the controversies he's been involved in which csloat demands be erased from the record because it doesn't accord with his POV. As the evidence still remains, and his arguments for removal are based almost entirely on his opinions of what is the "Tuth" and wikilawyering about WP:BLP this left him in a rather untenable position so he and User:Will314159 took a "by any means necessary" approach to editing this and the defunct "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" page. Will314159 eventually went so far that he was finally blocked for an extended period. However, sloat's behavior has been less obviously egregious, but has been just as disruptive, composed of filibustering, incivility,  bad faith arguments along with continual accusations of bad faith, edit warring and tantrums. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, and I've repeatedly attempted to get him to understand that his POV is not shared by everyone, nor is it appropriate to slant or censor the article accordingly. I'd hoped that Will's block would have improved the situation, and cause him to self-reflect, but it seems to have had no noticeable effect.  
This is the context for the latest "battle". It came about due to V&C page never having an agreed mission and becoming an overlong tit for tat where the criticisms they couldn't remove where countered by extended soapboxing. Sloat then pretended that the page was created "so that editors can avoid following WP:BLP rules" and suggested the "the whole page be AfD'd". The page was finally put out of it's misery by Centrx, however, he also stated that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." He explained himself further here. Sloat then attempts to block merging the material and we end up here.
As I agreed, I am willing to have this mediated, but I want to make clear that regarding the properly sourced material we are merging (which Isarig has clearly explained below is properly sourced) that I am only interested in discussions which insure that the material from WP:RSs we decide to merge is presented accurately and in a NPOV manner. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, arguments outside this are completely untenable and are simply abusive. As this has gone on for an absolutely absurdly long time I consider this to be the very last stop before arbcom, and I think that's appalling. <<-armon->> 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - Darling by Jonathan Calt Harris, Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2004 Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006 13(1) Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Juan Cole, The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, The History News Network, September 30 2006; see also Juan Cole, "Criticize Israel? How dare they!" Chicago Sun-Times (23 April 2006) p. B2.
I do not feel this material comports with WP:BLP.  It consists of claims about what Cole must be really thinking rather than about what he says.  It consists of libelous name-calling that is explicitly at odds with what Cole actually has said publicly about Jews, about Israel, and about conspiracy theories.  We have had a long debate about this issue that I would not like to revisit.  The bottom line for me is this -- I do not see a dispute like this as notable unless there is a third party WP:RS -- authored by someone neutral, not an op-ed by someone with a horse in the race -- describing this as a notable controversy.  We do not have that here; what we have is extremely biased sources attacking Cole and Cole defending himself.
However, if this material is to be included, I would insist on three things: (1) that material from FrontpageMagazine and Middle East Forum -- two sources with extremely partisan biases -- be removed, (2) That material which shows Cole's actual statements about antisemitism be included here (including his explicit statements about antisemitic conspiracy theories), and (3) that Cole's explicit response to the claims by Karsh be included.  I had agreed to live with a version of the page that included Cole's response to Karsh but Armon removed that response, citing BLP issues.  I felt that was phony, considering he had no problem with violations of BLP as they affect Cole -- Armon seems to want quotes attacking Cole included even when Cole's opponents fight freestyle, but he seems to want any quotes from Cole defending himself removed.  I also found his actions disruptive and in poor faith as he removed this material after I requested mediation on this page.  I protested his removal on the talk page and I urged him to show good faith by restoring the material, but he refused to do so.  I am not asking for a judgement on his faith - I am willing to stipulate good faith in spite of the evidence here - but I am asking that Cole's response be included if we are going to have libelous charges of racism published on Wikipedia like this.  
(3) I think there should be a clear statement about what should and shouldn't be included in this BLP.  I do not think that it is notable every time a right wing blogger publishes a note attacking Cole's latest blog post.  I would prefer this article stuck only to stuff published in newspapers and academic sources, but I recognize that some of Cole's notability comes from the fact that his blog is very popular and well-regarded.  However, his blog is well-regarded (and controversial in some quarters) because he is a prominent and established academic, not the other way around.  I think it's reasonable to include some information about controversies stirred up by the blog, but I don't think such controversies need to dominate the page (and I don't think every one should be included).  A lot of material existed on a page Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole that was deleted because it was a POV fork of this page that had been created to circumvent WP:BLP.  I do not feel that we should be merging that stuff into Juan Cole; the material has the same problems that it had on the fork page.  A key question here is, how much "criticism and controversy" is appropriate in a WP:BLP of an academic?
Again I'd prefer to see a rule of thumb that if a controversy is not considered notable by a neutral third party publishing in a reliable source, that it really isn't a useful controversy to mention on a WP:BLP.  Even when it is slightly notable, I feel there should be some sense of propriety and proportionality at work -- Christopher Hitchens pontificating about a private email Cole wrote to colleagues is really not more notable than Cole's history of refereed publications, for example.
=== Isarig ===
;Statement by Isarig here
Cole's profession as an academic entitles him to the same protections afforded by WP:BLP to any other living person - no more, no less. On WP, there isn't currently, nor should there be, one set of standards for academics, and a different set of standards for say, CEOs or plumbers. If anything, Cole's high profile blog and numerous TV appearances places him in the ranks of Public Figures, where libel law tolerates much more criticism. So this isn't really about "how  much criticism" should we allow in the biography of an academic, but about what sort  of criticisms are appropriate on a biography of a living Public Figure, and about the notability of certain events.
With regards to the Yale issue, its notability has been established beyond doubt, through numerous articles published in reliable sources about the controversy, much of which, incidentally, was stirred up by Cole's supporters. I believe even csloat does not claim this incident is not notable. I am not taking a position on how much space should be given to this notable controversy, nor do I think there can (or should) be a hard and fast rule on WP with regards to this, along the lines of "6 lines is enough, 7 is too much". There should be enough space allocated to cover the main  aspects of the controversy. If it ends up taking up 4 paragraphs, so be it. If the main issues can be covered in 2 sentences - that's fine, too. The issue of "how much space" a specific item should be given on WP is not a suitable topic for mediation, in my opinion. 
A final note on Yale: Commodore Sloat makes much of the fact that Cole did not apply for the job. This is of course irrelevant to the notability of the incident (which is measured by public coverage, not by Cole's opinions of it). Additionally, while it is true that Cole did not apply for the job, and did not initiate the Yale process, it is false that he did not seek it once he was being considered for it. If he was not interested, he could have told Yale he was not interested and saved them much time and effort. If he was not interested, he would not have wasted his time interviewing for the position. 
The second issue, the accusations that Cole as a "new antisemite" is comprised of 4 different, though related, topics: The notability of the accusations, their suitability for inclusion in a biography, the sources used to support the accusation, and Cole's response to them. The notability I believe has been established quite well: the accusation was carried by multiple media sources, including mainstream publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and widely circulated magazines such as The New Republic. Furthermore, the people making the accusation are notable academics and journalists in their own right - the head of Middle Eastern studies at King's College, a well known historian  and anthropologist, and a well-known journalist who writes for the National Review Online, The Washington Times, & The New York Post - are the ones named in the article. On to the question of suitability: Commodore Sloat alleges that the material is unsuitable, because it is libelous, and because it requires speculation as to what Cole thinks. That is false. The accusation does not at all require us to speculate as to Cole's thoughts. As quoted in the article, the accusation is an opinion of a scholar on the nature of the material Cole writes - and that opinion is that that material contains themes that are common to those found in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This material, as opinion, can't be considered libel, and as discussed above, for it to be libel against a public figure such as Cole, it must not only be false (which it is not), it must be made with malice, that is, known to be false to the person making that claim, which is again not the case. And finally, that statement was made in a well known publication, years ago, and has never been challenged as "libel" by Cole or any of his supporters, but rather accepted as a fair comment on a matter of public interest. As WP:BLP tells us, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:BLP further uses an example of how to apply this policy: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source". Here we have a nearly identical case: A well known public figure (Cole) is alleged be a new antisemite. He denies it, but The New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is public controversy. Using the above example, the allegation may belong in the biography, citing TNR as the source. Which brings us to the third issue, the sources used in the article. I agree with csloat that blogs should not be used as sources. However, none of the allegations in the current version of the article use blogs as sources. The specific quote which irks csloat, from Efraim Karsh, appears in The New Republic, which is a reliable source by WP standards. The 2 sources he objects to, Frontpage Magazine and Middle East Quarterly are not cut from the same cloth, and should be treated quite differently. Frontpage magazine is indeed a partisan source, explicitly so.  While WP:RS does not preclude us from using such sources, albeit with caution, I personally am not a fan of using it, nor its equivalents from the other side of the political spectrum , such as Counterpunch, or Z magazine, or The Nation. (As a side note, Csloat exhibits an interesting double standard here. While demanding that Frontpage not be used as a source in the biography of Cole because it is partisan, he is quite happy to use an equally partisan (though of the opposite political ideology) source such as The Nation on other articles subject to WP:BLP which he has edited extensively, such as the Plame affair). MEQ, however,  is quite  a different beast. It is a scholarly magazine, with an editorial board comprised of academics who are known as experts in their respective fields, who come from a broad range of backgrounds and opinions. The contributors are similarly academics who are experts in their fields.  The argument against it is that because it is published by the Middle East Forum, a think tank that seeks to promote "American interests", it is partisan. That is a very weak claim of partisanship, which  is not even the editorial line of the magazine, but of a different (though affiliated) entity. And as noted above, WP:RS does not preclude the use of partisan sources. I see no grounds for questioning the reliability of MEQ or its suitability as a source. The final question is Cole's response. I have no problem with allowing Cole to respond, providing that the response is more than just name-calling. The article currently has Cole's response (it says Cole claims that those who accuse him of antisemitism do so in an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy), sourced to an article of his.  If csloat insists on an actual verbatim quote from Cole, saying the same thing, I would not object to it.
=== Elizmr ===
I have read Armon and Isarig's well written and well-reasoned statements above and concur with all of the points they both made.  I could not possibly do a better or more cogent job of summarizing the issues.  
Cole is an academic who has thrust himself into the public dialog on some very controversial issues by virtue of his blog and political commentary.  Criticism arising from his participation in these controversies is an important part of who Cole is and should be part of a three-dimensional, NPOV, and informative biography on Wikipedia.  The discussion should be well written, neutrally stated, and should encompass relevant viewpoints.  As editors on Wikipedia, we should apply Wikipedia guidelines in an even handed manner to all subjects.  The "ends" (ie--achieving an article devoid of criticism of a subect) do NOT justify the "means" (ie--failing to apply guidelines regarding sources evenhandedly).  
(SIDENOTE:  In terms of setting behavioral groundrules for this discussion and the discussion around it, I would ask that it be established in advance that all followers of this mediation refrain from attacking and discrediting participants here as being members of powerful Jewish conspiracy bent on domination of Wikipedia.  (To be crystal clear, Sloat has NEVER done this kind of thing, but other editors holding with Sloat on the points we are discussing---such as will314159---and editors who have already joined the discussion on this mediation page above have made this sort of attack).  It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this kind of nonsense.   Could we look at the content under discussion in a dispassionate and rational manner, and refrain from ideologically-based personal attacks? ) Elizmr 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial statements 

message: ;Statement by Armon here
Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic, who, in 2002, made himself into a public intellectual and became notable as a blogger and then as a pundit. Cole is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators from the left, and is a strong critic of the Bush administration.  In doing so, his work has attracted both praise and criticism and he has been a player in several widely reported controversies. However, it is the criticism, and the criticism inherent in the controversies he's been involved in which csloat demands be erased from the record because it doesn't accord with his POV. As the evidence still remains, and his arguments for removal are based almost entirely on his opinions of what is the "Tuth" and wikilawyering about WP:BLP this left him in a rather untenable position so he and User:Will314159 took a "by any means necessary" approach to editing this and the defunct "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" page. Will314159 eventually went so far that he was finally blocked for an extended period. However, sloat's behavior has been less obviously egregious, but has been just as disruptive, composed of filibustering, incivility,  bad faith arguments along with continual accusations of bad faith, edit warring and tantrums. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, and I've repeatedly attempted to get him to understand that his POV is not shared by everyone, nor is it appropriate to slant or censor the article accordingly. I'd hoped that Will's block would have improved the situation, and cause him to self-reflect, but it seems to have had no noticeable effect.  
This is the context for the latest "battle". It came about due to V&C page never having an agreed mission and becoming an overlong tit for tat where the criticisms they couldn't remove where countered by extended soapboxing. Sloat then pretended that the page was created "so that editors can avoid following WP:BLP rules" and suggested the "the whole page be AfD'd". The page was finally put out of it's misery by Centrx, however, he also stated that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." He explained himself further here. Sloat then attempts to block merging the material and we end up here.
As I agreed, I am willing to have this mediated, but I want to make clear that regarding the properly sourced material we are merging (which Isarig has clearly explained below is properly sourced) that I am only interested in discussions which insure that the material from WP:RSs we decide to merge is presented accurately and in a NPOV manner. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, arguments outside this are completely untenable and are simply abusive. As this has gone on for an absolutely absurdly long time I consider this to be the very last stop before arbcom, and I think that's appalling. <<-armon->> 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armon 

message: I have read Armon and Isarig's well written and well-reasoned statements above and concur with all of the points they both made.  I could not possibly do a better or more cogent job of summarizing the issues.  
Cole is an academic who has thrust himself into the public dialog on some very controversial issues by virtue of his blog and political commentary.  Criticism arising from his participation in these controversies is an important part of who Cole is and should be part of a three-dimensional, NPOV, and informative biography on Wikipedia.  The discussion should be well written, neutrally stated, and should encompass relevant viewpoints.  As editors on Wikipedia, we should apply Wikipedia guidelines in an even handed manner to all subjects.  The "ends" (ie--achieving an article devoid of criticism of a subect) do NOT justify the "means" (ie--failing to apply guidelines regarding sources evenhandedly).  
(SIDENOTE:  In terms of setting behavioral groundrules for this discussion and the discussion around it, I would ask that it be established in advance that all followers of this mediation refrain from attacking and discrediting participants here as being members of powerful Jewish conspiracy bent on domination of Wikipedia.  (To be crystal clear, Sloat has NEVER done this kind of thing, but other editors holding with Sloat on the points we are discussing---such as will314159---and editors who have already joined the discussion on this mediation page above have made this sort of attack).  It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this kind of nonsense.   Could we look at the content under discussion in a dispassionate and rational manner, and refrain from ideologically-based personal attacks? ) Elizmr 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizmr 

message: As mentioned above, we're at a deadlock here, and compromises have to be made if this mediation is to suceed.  I'm going to suggest one now: the claims are included, sourced to MEQ and WSY (or a more mutually acceptable source if possible), and Cole's response is also foactored in to the paragraph.  I realise that this goes against your feelings about MEQ, csloat, but I hope that you'll be willing to allow it, based on the neutral context that the source has been placed in by Isarig.  It would seem from the evidence that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, and I hope all parties can agree on that, if nothing.  Please keep responses to this section as short is possible (below 100 words) for now. Martinp23 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with this suggestion - including the claims of antisemitism from MEQ and WSJ, with Cole's response (sans the inflammatory adjectives). Isarig 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK (more opinions, anyone?) Martinp23 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been waiting for csloat's response because of the 4 of us, he's the only one opposed to their inclusion. We could claim a 75% majority, however think that would be misleading because I can think of 2 other editors, Lee Hunter and CSTAR, who have been involved in this debate for a long time and have tended towards csloat's position. I think they agree that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, even though they violently disagree with the charges, but I think it would be well worth getting clarification from them. <<-armon->> 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the issue of what can only be termed "external involved parties" is a little difficult here - would it be possible for them to raise thier specific objections here though csloat (as a "spokesperson")?  Would te parties agree to this?  We really have to work towards a fully acceptable compromise, becuase, as a mediator, I cannot enforce a consensus on the page - that is for ArbCom. Martinp23 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has been "violent."  I've been taking a break from this all and will continue to do so for a couple of days, but I'm responding here since it seems to be solicited.  I oppose the charges being included for BLP reasons as outlined above.  Fringe views, even when published by reliable sources, do not automatically get included here, and as has been demonstrated, nobody has shown how this would improve the page.  If they are to be included, the response must be included, and they must not be put in as "facts" in any way. csloat 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection a 

message: I won't respond directly to the most recent comments by Isarig and Armon because I think it's time for the mediator to summarize what he thinks is going on at this point.  I believe we are at an impasse but perhaps there is another way out.  Without addressing the most recent comments directly -- some of which are demonstrably false and blatantly misleading -- let me summarize what appears to me to be the position of Isarig and Armon: people have called Cole an antisemite, and that opinion is notable, but Cole's direct response to these people is "hysterical" and non-notable, so instead we should quote an article by Cole about Larry Summers (who is not part of the alleged controversy at all) on the grounds that some vague statements about the misuse of antisemitism in that article can cross-apply to the name-calling by Karsh and company.  Can we not use the same reasoning to quote Cole directly on anti-semitism, which he has vocally opposed?  on the "protocols"-style conspiracy theory that Jews run American foreign policy and started the war in Iraq, which he has vocally criticized?  It seems that Armon and Isarig want to be able to call Cole an antisemite and refuse to let Cole defend himself.  The charge of antisemitism is not based in anything Cole actually says about Jews, since he is not actually antisemitic and has thus never said actually anything negative about Jews as a group -- rather, the charge is based on what certain fringe voices (and we will have the debate about whether Karsh and friends are on the fringe after the mediator replies) believe that Cole is really thinking when he says certain things.  When you look at what Cole actually says about Jews as a group when such conspiracy theories are considered, he is very vocally opposed to the protocols of zion, to the charge that Jews run America, etc.  He vocally criticized the movement to boycott Israeli academics.  When Mel Gibson got wasted and mouthed off to a cop his own hate-filled invective against Jews, Cole spoke out against Gibson's words and stated plainly -- in a passage that Armon removed from the Juan Cole page a while ago on specious grounds -- "'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."  If you read the rest of that link it includes cole's discussion of Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ.  Anyone who reads it with an honestly open mind can see plainly that the charge of antisemitism against Cole is in fact "beneath contempt."   In one of Cole's specific responses to the Campus-Watch crowd that has organized this campaign against him, he explains how his accusers are twisting the meaning of "antisemitism" completely.  This is why I think the whole line of argument is offensive and is an affront to WP:BLP, but if we must pursue it, let us have an honest discussion of it, and include Cole's vocal statements that are obviously against antisemitism. csloat 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism section 

message: Should there be four long paragraphs of discussion about an appointment to Yale that Cole never received? 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be adequate coverage of what was a major controversy over Yale declining to offer him the position. I don't think it's particularly overlong at the moment but I'm open to tightening it up and making sure it's accurate and NPOV. <<-armon->> 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't think the Yale thing should be included in the article at all. Despite the notability, it is a bit of a low blow for a biographical page.  Elizmr 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Elizmr.  If it is to be discussed at all, four paragraphs is way too much.  A sentence or two is plenty, as discussed in talk ad nauseum. csloat 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, although I believe that we should not cover the topic at all, I believe that if the Yale stuff is in there, it needs a reaonably full discussion but tightened up and with an NPOV treatment.  I'm not sure what sloat would have in mind as far as the two sentences go.  I'm not sure that that would be enough.  Elizmr 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion subsection 3 (Yale) 

message: I don't know how the mediation process in WP works; perhaps it would be best if
* We allow the mediator to respond to (or at least paraphrase) any comment before replying.
* If this suggestion is too onerous on the mediator, maybe we could allow a "cooling off" (say several hours) period between comments. 
Is this useful or practical? --CSTAR 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, excellent ideas.  I think we can go for the first one, at least for now.  So, notice to all parties - please don't respond to a comment until I've left a note about it. Martinp23 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Isarig 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea.  Elizmr 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. <<-armon->> 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural suggestion 

message: Quick comments on my belief that the solution is to deal with the context of the dual loyalties/Likudnik/new anti-Semitism disputes:
# There are many others in respective and influence positions in media that use the term "Likudnik" to refer to "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration.  For example, Tony Karon (Senior editor for Time magazine), in his blog today wrote "Elliot Abrams, the last of the Likudniks in senior Bush Administration positions, has spoken openly of the need for the U.S. to fund, arm and train Fatah activists to launch a 'hard coup' against the elected Hamas government."   Tony Karon has written a large number of Time cover stories in the past two years.
# There is coverage of the general concept/accusation of dual loyalty in the following articles: Dual loyalty, Diaspora politics in the United States, and Ethnic interest groups.  One should deal with this in context as a service to our readers.  Critics have also written about specific US-based think tanks as not distinguishing between US and Israeli interests -- see JINSA#Criticism.  Additionally, others have made claims about a document known as A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm#United_States_foreign_policy.  Such issues could be dealt with in a more coherent and integrated way in order for both sides to be accurately represented.  The number of respectful commentators on both sides of the issue is large -- to single out Cole's words outside of proper context is unfair and only leads to issues.
Thus the solution would be to create an article about this specific topic which presents both sides of the issue in full context so that the reader can judge the issues properly.  This moves it away from being a simple matter of which specific sources to include, and towards a full debate on the issues.   --70.48.71.143 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. csloat 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do tend towards this opinion - it is a far reaching concept, and needs proper discussion. Martinp23 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a non-issue. Please see discussion at Criticisms as part of larger socio-political conflict. There is no disagreement about providing context. <<-armon->> 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully agree with Armon.  Also, a comment left by an anon editor on this very Wikipedia specific mediation page discussion is strange.  Anon--why not identify yourself if you want to join this discssion?  Elizmr 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any issues brought up by external parties are theirs, and being external parties it would be improper for this mediation to focus on them. Martinp23 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, this is an issue that could help resolve the subsection a issue above.  If a party to the mediation (me) agrees with a point made by an external party, when does it become acceptable to consider it?  In this case there is a valid point being made (with no counter-argument, I might add) that the "dual loyalty" issue is part of a larger question and that using that larger question to focus on Cole is an improper use of a WP:BLP.csloat 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear - the whole point of me allowing the external parties to be involved is so that we can get ideas like this.  By "issues", I mean that I would refuse to begin to mediate if an external party said "I wanted to add this link to the lead section, but was reverted.  We need to resolve this".  So, I do welcome suggestions from the external parties. Martinp23 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plea for context

message: I've still been following the discussion here, it is interesting.  Another thought is that the current discussion focuses on one issue which received some media coverage in specialized publications to the exclusion of a related issue that received significantly more media coverage in more mainstream publications.  Namely the accusations of anti-Semitism didn't receive much play from mainstream publications, but the Yale non-appointment controversy, arguably related to concerns of some about Juan Cole's stances (some of which triggered round-about accusations of anti-Semitism) and the added legitimacy that could be lent to those stances by a Yale appointment.  Here are some of the mainstream coverage of that controversy:
* NEWS: Blackballed at Yale, Scott Jaschik, June 4 2006
* Free Speech, Israel, and Jewish Illiberalism, Alan Wolfe, November 17 2006
* Burning Cole, The Nation, Philip Weiss
* Search for scholar spotlights politics in classroom, Yale Herald
* When free speech costs a career, Yale Herald
* OP-ED: Cole Fire, John Fund, Wall Street Journal
* Yale's Next Tenured Radical?, The NY Sun
* No Tenure for Juan Cole, Michael Rubin
The issue is a long running battle between neoconservatives supporters and Juan Cole which goes back to 2003 and earlier as evidenced by these columns:
* The New McCarthyism], Juan Cole Salon.Com
* Why Are Arch Conservatives Ganging Up on the Middle East Studies Association?, Juan Cole History News Network
To simply cover in isolation two accusations and a limited response from Cole is to ignore the full context of the issues at hand.
--70.51.232.12 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced coverage thoughts

message: As I have posted on the Juan Cole Talk Page, the attacks cited against Juan Cole are baseless, are not based upon anything Cole has said or written, and are known to be blatantly false by all those who have read any of Coles work and to the thousands of University of Michigan students who have taken his courses. There are plenty of right-wing attack dogs on the internet who love to go in for personal attacks against anyone writing from even a mildly left-wing perspective - the comments quoted in the Juan Cole article are of this nature. Further, they are only there because of some Wikipedia editors' dislike of Cole's views on Israel, and more specifically his views on the Likhud Party, which they grossly conflate with his views on Jews. They make the ad hominem attack that anyone opposed to Israeli policies is antisemitic, disregard everything Cole has ever written against antisemitism or antisemitic conspiracy theories, in an effort to villify Cole. We can argue the question of what constitutes a Reliable Source 'till kingdom come, but we are just throwing up legalistic screens that obfuscate the issue: the disgusting charges of antisemitism against Cole are dishonest character assassination by those who dislike his political views, and do not belong in an encyclopaedia entry on Cole. If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section. Thucydides411 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to your personal opinions, but as you can see, they are hotly contested and this issue is currently in mediation. Please don't edit the contorversial sections on theJuan Cole page while this mediation is in progress. Isarig 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, there is no need to belittle the comments of everyone you disagree with by stating "you are welcome to your personal opinions."  His opinions are no less valid than your own, and in fact they are well backed up by the evidence presented on this page.  Thucydides' contribution to this mediation process should be welcomed, not shot down. csloat 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His "contribution" consists of an ultimatum, and a threat to unilaterly force the outcome of the mediation is a certain way. This is not only unwelcome, but a violation of numerous WP policies. He may contribute to the mediation as an outside party, as similar outsiode parties have done, but ultimatums along the lines of "If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section" have no place on Wikipedia, and certainly no place on a mediation page. Isarig 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to pounce on every editor you disagree with for alleged violations of wikipedia policy.  His post looks to me like an invitation to discussion and an offer to help unilaterally if nobody else is interested in pursuing the discussion.  It's not only newbies whom you shouldn't WP:BITE. csloat 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone writes "If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section" that looks like an ultimatum to me. I did not pounce on him, I asked him politely not to unilateraly force the outcome of mediation in a certain direction. He can add his contributions to the discussions here, like any outside party. Isarig 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think calling someone's contribution an "ultimatum" and warning them of violations of "numerous WP policies" is "polite," but YMMV. csloat 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone posts an ultimatum it is not only polite to call that spade a spade, it is required. I did not warn him of any violations - I posted that as a response to your pompous and inappropriate butting into something that does not concern you. Isarig 02:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "pompous and inappropriate butting in" -- also impolite.  It may help to re-familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. csloat 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot, meet Kettle. Isarig 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute has been taking a long time to resolve  - that's true, but that is all the more reason why you should not unilaterally force an outcome in a way desirable to you, as it is evidence of strong opposition to that outcome by numerous editors. I don't necessarily share your opinions of Cole - but that is wholly beside the point. Your personal opinions of Cole's alleged antisemitism have no place in the article, and neither do mine. If a WP:RS published the opinions of notable critics - we may reproduce them in the article.  Isarig 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that you may believe Cole to be an antisemite? And let's stop talking of "opinions" here, because you're conflating two types of opinion - one grounded in reality (all documentation establishes that Cole is decidedly not antisemitic), and one held in denial of the facts of the case. Are you pushing for the latter type to be given voice in the article simply because it has been published before, or because you want readers to draw from the article that Cole may brook antisemitic beliefs? -Thucydides411 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting that my personal opinions are of no significance here, as are yours. I assure you that in every dispute, each side believes his opinions are the "right" kind - i.e, "grounded in reality", and that the other side's opinions are "held in denial of the facts" - so that line of argumentation is not going to convince anyone. Feel free to add your comments here, in the section set aside for outside parties, but please don't unilateraly edit the actual Juan Cole page while this is being mediated. Isarig 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice from Juan Cole Talk Page

message: Isarig, I'll call your spade a spade: you write that your personal opinion does not matter here, but the fact is that this entire controversy is based solely on your negative opinion of Cole. I say this because I am fairly certain that you have not read, or at least not paid attention to, any of Cole's writings. It is your unfounded conviction that Cole is somehow anti-semitic that is keeping this whole issue going. For your benefit, and for the benefit of this mediation, here are some texts relating to Cole's views on Israel:
:A Guest Editorial on Cole's Blog by Elik Elhanan of "Combatants for Peace" from 29 January 2007:
::"Both societies, the Palestinian and the Israeli, seem to be locking themselves in a violent nationalistic mindset where the needs of the other simply do not exist.
::How should one deal with such a situation? The simplest answer would be to play along. The other answer is to confront these false notions, to insist on telling truth to power, to work and expose the contradictions that exist in any black-and-white vision of reality.
::Our organization, Combatants for Peace, is trying to do just that. Through our dialogue group, where Israeli and Palestinian former combatants meet regularly, we try to touch the hearts and minds of both societies. We try to help our communities become more aware of the reality of the other side, so that nobody can say "I didn’t know." We want Israelis to comprehend the full scale of the oppression inherent to the Israeli occupation, and we want the Palestinians to know that behind the occupation there are humans, who are also suffering. We want both sides to understand the price of violence. Our message is simple: Peace is possible. The only way to reach peace is through dialogue and negotiations, and the only solution is a two state solution -- an end the occupation, in keeping with UN resolutions.
::People frequently respond to us as if we were detached from reality, yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Our Palestinian members were all active in violent opposition to the occupation, serving long prison terms for their activities; the Israelis among us all served many years as combat soldiers on the conflict's front lines. We know the lay of the land, and we know the reality. We know the price we’ll have to pay for peace, and we’ve learned with our very flesh that the price of war is a hundred times greater. We live among our peoples and we see and suffer the consequences of this conflict.
::...
::We don't contest the right of Israel to exist in security and prosperity; nor do we contest the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation and achieve their own state. We question only the methods that have been employed to achieve these goals in the past. These methods were not only ineffective, they were wrong.. Israel is not safe, Palestine is not free, and only the cemeteries are flourishing. Let us try another way.
::It is very easy not to believe in peace. The chances of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the near future seem slimmer than ever. The mistaken perception that Israel has “no partner” and that “we gave everything and got nothing” is still widely held. The radical elements currently in play in both political systems, Hamas on one hand and right-wing Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman on the other, combined with the violence between Israel and the Palestinians, between the Palestinian factions, and between Israel and its neighbors can make the search for peace seem at the very least misguided."
:Cole on the Proposed Boycott of Israeli Academics, from his Blog on 15 May 2006:
::"Yet another attempt is being made to institute an academic boycott in Europe of Israeli professors. Academics, please sign this petition and stand up. Israeli academics as a class have not done anything wrong and it is not right to subject them to a blanket ban."
:::The petition that Cole was urging academics to sign contained the following argument: "Academic boycott actions are antithetical not only to the principles of academic freedom, but also to the quest for peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Academics often have the knowledge and skills specifically needed for conflict resolution, and can work with colleagues and policy makers from opposing sides on developing equitable solutions to complex problems. Boycotting would deprive the world of the potential contributions of Israeli scholars in these and other humanitarian efforts and would confer no benefit to the Palestinian people."
:Juan Cole: From "The Misuses of Anti-Semitism," 30 September 2002 :
::" Harvard President Lawrence Summers has equated favoring university divestment from Israeli stocks with anti-Semitism. Summers has for some time misunderstood the duties of his office to include bullying professors, and in this recent equation he is profoundly wrong. He and others who are taking this tack are also pursuing an extremely dangerous and troubling course with dire implications for civil liberties.
::In twentieth century American history, Jews were excluded from admission to some private universities, denied the right to rent or buy certain houses, and suffered from false stereotypes. Prominent Americans like Henry Ford spewed vile slanders about them. These bigoted exclusions were profoundly wrong, as were those visited on African-Americans and Asian-Americans.
::Prejudice and discrimination against Jews is iconic of ethnic hatred because of the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust makes the dangers of a pervasive hatred of a particular people palpable, and for that reason it is a deeply human event, in the sense that it affects all humankind. The cry of "Never again" is a key support in the struggles of all civil libertarians and human rights workers.
::But some use "Never again" in a far more disturbing way, as a warrant for imprisoning, crushing or dispersing the Palestinian people. The state of Israel is a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project. But Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism.
::The Israeli state is in violation the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (which forbids the mistreatment of civilian populations under military occupation), and of too many Security Council resolutions to list. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems intent on seizing more Palestinian land. Over a fifth of Palestinian children under Israeli occupation are acutely or chronically malnourished, according to US AID and the United Nations.
::Ariel Sharon's arrogant trampling on the basic human rights of Palestinians is often justified by reference to the horrible incidents of terrorism suffered by Israel in the past two years. These suicide bombings are unspeakable. A sober estimation of their impact, however, would reveal that about 300 Israelis have died in them per year. More innocent Palestinian civilians, including women and children, have been killed in Israeli military action against the terrorists than have Israeli civilians in the terrorist attacks. The terrorists have amounted to a few dozen individuals, whereas almost all the 3.2 million Palestinians in the occupied territories have been peaceful.
::Israel's current harsh lockdown of the entire West Bank would not be countenanced in other similar international situations. Would the United Kingdom have been justified in militarily occupying all of Ireland and keeping all Irish under strict curfew in their houses because of the terrorist attacks of the Irish Republican Army? In the 1970s, after all, the Northern Irish death toll was similar to what Israel has suffered in the past two years. It is hard not to conclude that a certain amount of racism toward west Asians like the Palestinians allows the world to turn a blind eye to such collective punishment."
:Again, Cole in his blog: "Why We Should Not Boycott Israeli Academics," originally published 16 July 2002:
::"Israeli academics tend to be left of center, and finding one who expresses something other than deep distaste for Sharon is no easy task. It seems especially inappropriate to punish academics for the actions of a government they largely oppose. Many Israeli academics have been involved in the peace movement, which, although badly damaged by the suicide bombings, struggles on.
::It is surely that movement which, however dark its prospects now seem, holds the greatest hope for a better future. Kimmerling says that an increasingly chauvinistic Israeli public militates against the independence of journalists, whereas tenured faculty retain the ability to speak out on human-rights abuses.
::...
::As for the recent sacking of Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University from the editorial boards of the British journals The Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, respectively, here individuals are being sanctioned for the policies of their government, and that is wrong. Ironically, Shlesinger is a prominent Amnesty International activist who has been highly critical of Israeli government policies in the West Bank. In contrast, I could support the divestment campaign at some American campuses, aimed at university investments in Israeli firms, because the business elite in Israel is both more powerful and more entangled in government policy than the academics.
::I am not unaware, of course, that in some circles such a position would immediately raise the question of anti-Semitism. For those of us actually involved in the Middle East, that reaction is simply unhelpful. Israel is a state -- just as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan are -- and it is not exempt from censure for illegal or unethical behavior because it is Jewish. I would argue that treating the Sharon government with kid gloves in order to tiptoe around the issue of anti-Semitism would itself be a form of anti-Semitism, a way of cordoning off all Jews as somehow unlike other human beings. In any case, this non-issue was irrelevant to my own thinking, which was more pragmatic. An academic boycott is a political act with a political goal, and if it is unsuited to the purpose then it is bad politics.
::I recently appointed an Israeli academic at Hebrew University to the editorial board of the journal I edit. At the Istanbul conference I attended with my Israeli academic colleagues, they promptly led others in working up a petition to protest the policies of the Sharon government in the West Bank and Gaza. I signed it in solidarity with them. Refusing to meet and talk with a concerned party to an epochal set of political and cultural negotiations is the farthest thing from a progressive act."
It is also important to note that Cole does not obsess over the Arab-Israeli conflict, but spends a great deal more time discussing Iraq, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern issues in his Blog and in his published articles.
I hope that Isarig and others involved in this mediation read through this material and then come to a decision on whether to include Karsh's accusations of anti-semitism against Cole in the article. The passages above demonstrate clearly, I believe, that Cole looks at Israel, and the broader Mideast, from an academic rather than racist perspective. After reading even a bit of what Cole has written on Israel, Karsh's insinuation smacks of libel. Defamation is not necessary in this article about Cole. And yes, Isarig, I am calling for speedy resolution of this issue - I'm glad you recognized the spade. -Thucydides411 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the debate here is not at all based on my negative opinion of Cole - my opinion is entirely irrelevant. The debate here is based on Karsh's negative opinion of Cole, and Oren's, and Joffe's, and Harris's, and Kramer's, and many others'. These are all notable critics, who have voiced their criticism of Cole in reliable sources, and have alleged that he is an antisemite or that his writings contain antisemitic ideas. On Wikipedia, our task is not to debate these allegations or attempt to prove them false - it is to present them in a NPOV way, alongside Cole's responses to them. Isarig 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe the allegations against Cole to be defamation? -Thucydides411 06:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We are also not merely talking about Karsh's "negative opinion" of Cole, but about his accusation of anti-semitism specifically. -Thucydides411 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. Isarig 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is obvious why you think his accusations are noteworthy. You yourself agree with them. I can only postulate as to what has brought you to this conclusion, but that has little bearing here. The question is whether desultory attacks that are patently false and made only by dogged political opponents of Cole should be included. If they should be included, then at least Cole's equally strong words in his defense must be included. -Thucydides411 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that those who believe the accusations are noteworthy refuse to acknowledge evidence from the real world (e.g. Cole's actual comments and articles about Israel, Jews, the war, etc.)  Instead, the only evidence that appears to "count" for them is the statements of his political opponents.  Lacking any actual textual evidence for such charges, these commentators invariably rely on speculation about what Cole is actually thinking when he writes -- the comment that the Protocols "resound powerfully" in Cole's writings is just silly.  Either Karsh can point to textual evidence to support that claim or he can't -- and it is clear that he can't (or, at least, won't).  Tangential textual evidence is pointed to by other critics (e.g. Cole's comments about Admin officials with close ties to the Likud party) -- this "evidence" requires logical contortions to support the point, and such evidence would only be persuasive if there was no other textual evidence to refute it.  However, Cole's explicit comments about Jews, Israel, etc. are diametrically opposed to this view -- he states clearly that Jews are not behind the war, that Israeli scholars should be supported regardless of their government's actions.  He even points out that he would have an equal problem with American govt officials with close ties to the Syrian Baath party.  The textual evidence on this issue is absolutely conclusive, but it is waved away by those who insist that Karsh's view is equally valid because he has an endowed position somewhere.  I tried to raise these issues above (see "Antisemitism section") and I'm hoping the mediator will eventually come back to them, but so far they have been ignored. csloat 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Isarig, I don't understand why you're interested in editing the Wikipedia page on a man whose work you've never read, and of whom you clearly know next to nothing. Given the utter lack of knowledge you've displayed about Cole, you should recuse yourself from editing his page. You have a political grievance against Cole - that he is critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and you would therefore like to edit his page to cite accusations of anti-semitism, while not even including his response to that slander. Of course, I don't have to tell you this, as you know it yourself. -Thucydides411 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've crossed the line in this last post between  opinionated POV-pushing into personal attacks on me and lack of civility. I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedia policies. I have read plenty of Cole, as even a cursory examination of my contributions on his page shows. I am done interacting with you. Isarig 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. I stand by what I've written. -Thucydides411 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shedding Some Light on the Subject of this Debate

message: 1. Karsh's charge is trivially notable for inclusion. He is a distinguished professor, and the charge comes in an article written in The New Republic, a major magazine. Verifiability, not truth, is the policy here, people. WP:BLP speaks against poorly-sourced charges, which this isn't, and undue weight - and one sentence in an article of this size is not undue weight, especially given that similar charges are made by the two other cited reliable sources in the paragraph - Middle East Quarterly and Front Page Magazine.
2. Juan Cole's response is also notable for inclusion. WP:V states that "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." His blog obviously applies. It is not relevant that he responded "because" he saw the charge on Wikipedia. Who cares how he came to know of the charge? What policy allows us to remove material simply because it may have been produced in response to other material found in Wikipedia? Meatpuppetry does not apply here because the response is notable in its own right, given the subject is well-known, he's responding to an attack upon himself, and his blog is well-known. - Merzbow 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an issue in that these sources are not third-party, which is a requirement of BLP -- third party would be someone neutral such as the New York Times writing a piece that notes that there have been some charges, which is clearly not the case here.  Also Front Page Magazine is not considered a reliable source in and of itself.  Additionally, the author of the article in the Middle East Quarterly is a pro-Israel lobbyist, not an academic.  The lack of third party sources indicates to me that this is more of a minor spat between partisan ideological camps than a truly notable event.  --70.51.231.13 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what "third-party" means. There is no requirement that the originator of the charges cannot be the author of the article cited as the source of the charges - the requirement is that the article be PUBLISHED by a reliable third-party - which is, in this case, The New Republic. I disagree that FPM is not a reliable source - it is not AS reliable as other sources, but reliability is not the black-and-white issue you seem to think it is, which is why WP:RS is a guideline and not policy. And whatever your opinion is of the author of the MEQ piece, if MEQ is reliable as a source, which is also so, then so is everything that it publishes. - Merzbow 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you familiar with MEQ?  It is published by Middle East Forum, which also runs the pro-Israel Campus Watch program.  The pro-Israel lobbyist, Jonathan Calt Harris, that wrote the piece in MEQ gives his credentials as being affiliated with the Campus Watch program.  The problem with MEQ is that it blurs the lines between political advocacy and scholarly research, and in this particular case, it is engaging in straight forward political advocacy.  Campus Watch criticized Juan Cole, Juan Cole responded, MEQ publishes a piece by a Campus Watch person attacking Juan Cole.  Yes, things aren't simple in this area and thus I recommend ArbCom.  --70.51.231.13 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sequence of events is quite correct, anon, and I think the article would be much improved by describing this as a political dispute between Cole and his Campus Watch enemies rather than as a legitimate controversy over whether Cole is actually racist, which is just absurd.  The current state of the page basically makes Wikipedia a participant in this political battle.  That shouldn't be Wikipedia's role. csloat 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the most accurate portrayal of reality.  --70.48.68.62 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Answer me one thing - is or is not Karsh a distinguished history professor in this field? You can take all the potshots at "Campus Watch" you want, but there's no way you're going to be able to avoid the fact that this criticism is being directly echoed by an absolutely impeccable source. - Merzbow 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon is not taking pot-shots at Campus Watch. It's a McCarthyite organization that encourages students to report teachers critical of Israel, and which keeps lists of such professors. The very name, "Campus Watch," is in itself menacing enough. I don't think any serious academic should involve themselves with such an organization. The editorials written by Karsh that I've read are written in anything but a scholarly tone - the one at the center of this debate, regarding Cole, is a good example. I'd say that just Karsh's association with Campus Watch should discredit him. In any case, his association with Campus Watch at least makes it clear that this is a politically-motivated charge. Given what Cole has actually written about anti-semitism, about Israel, etc., the charge is rather pathetic. -Thucydides411 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now who's playing McCarthyism? Because he has any association at all with a group that you dislike, he is entirely discredited? Wow. Can I now go through every article on Wikipedia and remove every cite from any professor associated with any left-wing organization that I dislike? - Merzbow 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzbow, I am not against inclusion of Karsh from TNR in the article with context and full response from Juan Cole.  I was mostly pointing out that MEQ is not reliable source as you had just claimed, it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge that.  Also, as I have pointed out before, the question of dual loyalties comes up often and it would be best to treat it in context rather than as a one off deal.  For example, see Diaspora politics in the United States and Ethnic interest groups and A Clean Break and another article from TNR (reg req) and even dual loyalties, right now we don't link to any other accounts and artificially present this as an isolated incident devoid of context.  The current way we are handling this is misleading.  Your inclusion of Juan Cole's full response was better than prior versions, but it would be best to treat this in context.  --70.48.68.62 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not acknowledging that MEQ is not a "reliable source", because there is no black-and-white divide between reliable and non-reliable, it depends on context. This comes back to the reason why WP:RS is a guideline and not policy. Cole is a hybrid scholarly/political figure, therefore criticism of him is going to be found primarily from hybrid scholarly/political sources. The fact that they are echoed by a noted professor in a noted magazine is further evidence this is not undue weight. Anyways, we can disagree on this point but still agree on the inclusion of Cole's response. Believe me, I am going to continue to work hard to make sure that response gets in there. - Merzbow 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzbow, pointing out that someone belongs to an organization that would like to silence professors through intimidation is not McCarthyism. What I was trying to point out is that Karsh would like to silence Cole's criticism of Likud and neoconservatives, or at least discredit Cole through assertions of anti-semitism. That is why I do not think Karsh is a reliable source here; he's using the charge of anti-semitism as a tactic to discredit Cole, and not because Cole has actually written or said anything anti-semitic. The dual loyalties charge is something which has been widely asserted. Cole views himself as a pragmatist when it comes to foreign policy, and thinks that people who claim that Israel's interests are automatically American interests are not necessarily representing the interests of America. For example, some think that unconditional support for Israel has been harmful to American relations with Arab states. But rather than respond to these concerns, which are based on Cole's views on American interests, Karsh claims that they come from hatred of Jews. Doesn't that sound a bit dishonest? Especially since Karsh presumably should know better, it sounds to me like he's using a ploy to undermine Cole's credibility. -Thucydides411 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Karsh article is long and meaty, and he expounds at great length upon the particular charge of Cole's obsession with Jewish power. What if, instead of quoting Karsh and Cole's response, we summarize them without repeating the most objectionable parts of either (Protocols comparison, etc.), while keeping the substance intact? This technique has worked successfully in other articles. - Merzbow 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we did this in the past, after the Karsh article came out.  Elizmr 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole certainly does not "write as though there is some rich and powerful conspiracy" at work here, and in fact, he has quite explicitly stated on several occasions that there is not such a conspiracy (case in point, his statements about the war in Iraq, and about Mel GTibson's comments, and about Jews in general).  Stating that there is a pro-Israel lobby is not a conspiracy theory; it is a well known and open fact.  There is plenty of debate in the public arena - among Jews and non-Jews alike - about whether that lobby's influence is exaggerated, but the fact that such a lobby exists is an undeniable fact.  That is no surprise, of course; in a representative democracy, there are all kinds of lobbies that promote certain interests.  To equate the existence of such lobbies with conspiracy theory is more than a bit hysterical.  As for Cole's statements on MEMRI, the very idea that these comments have anything in common with the Protocols of Zion is absolutely ridiculous - I don't even know where to begin addressing such a charge.  The dual loyalties issue is one we have debated to death, so I'll not continue it here; suffice to say that Cole has explicitly rejected the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in the US government with regard to the war in Iraq.  So, again, to equate a concern with dual loyalties (a valid concern if, say, there were individuals in the US government with close identifiable ties to the Syrian Baath Party) to a "Jewish conspiracy" is a ridiculous stretch. csloat 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: REPLY to CSTAR  Please do not try to paint me as intransigent.  I apologize if I have not made my point well enough, but you should know by now that I am always willing to discuss and am usually quite reaonable.  You said (I think) that Karsh is notable but not to make the particular point he is making, is that fair?    Karsh is a recognized expert in mod middle eastern affairs.  He has made an observation about Coles blog.  The subject of Cole's blog is in keeping with the area of expertise that Karsh has.  Right so far?  OK.  That part I didn't address above, but only beasue others have done so.  The part I did address was that Karsh's point is a reasonable observation fo Cole's work.  I would ask that editors allow this POV to come through, as well as the POV that it is a spurious charge, politically motivated, or whatever.  That's another take on it.  I'm not asking you and Sloat to agree with me, I don't want to convince either of you of anything, and I don't expect you to convince me of anything.  We can all disagree.  It doesn't matter.  I just want all sides to be aired in the article, as they should be in ANY Wikipedia article.  Elizmr 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to emphasize what I think are the two key points here, one by Elizmr and the other by Csloat.  I agree with Elizmr that both views should be represented, that Karsh has expertise in Cole's area and can be quoted along with Cole's response.  It should be stated in-line that the charge was published in the New Republic, taking care with the phrasing so there's no whiff of well-poisoning.  Csloat writes that this represents "a political dispute between Cole and his Campus Watch enemies rather than as a legitimate controversy over whether Cole is actually racist."  He's right.  Framing is more important than phrasing in this case.  The feud between Cole and a handful of figures associated with Campus Watch has been bitter and continuous since 9-11, covering many themes.  It has only once or twice surfaced in the mainstream media; this is one of those times, and the charge du jour happens to be antisemitism.  But the context here is not a mainstream debate about Cole's antisemitism; there is no such debate.  The context is the clash between (so-called) liberal academia and its critics after 9-11.  We need a good article on post-9-11 proposals for reform of American universities (comprising Campus Watch, the David Project, H.R. 3077/509 and "Title VI reform," David Horowitz's state initiatives, etc.), that we could then link to from passages like this.--G-Dett 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with you starting a new article about the clash between liberal academia and its critics after 9-11, and perhaps some of this stuff deserves a mention there, as well. However to frame this controversy as "a feud between Cole and a handful of figures associated with Campus Watch" which did not get into the mainstream media is a gross mischaracterization of the events. The charge that Cole is an antisemite has appeared in numerous mainstream media outlets, as has been shown, with cites, on this page, again and again. And the association of Cole's critics with Campus Watch exists almost exclusively in Cole's head, and in the minds of his supporters. Michale Oren is associated with Capus Watch? How? John Fund? Isarig 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, of course you're right that Oren and Fund aren't associated with Campus Watch.  And I do not mean to suggest that anyone who is should therefore be discounted (as someone here has pointed out, that would itself be an instance of McCarthy-esque guilt-by-association). My point is that insofar as there's any notable controversy about Cole, it's rooted in the clash between liberal academia and its would-be reformers after 9-11.  This isn't a fantasy of Cole's.  If you read Martin Kramer's work (both his various blogs and his 2002 book Ivory Towers on Sand), he is obsessed with Cole because Cole is for him emblematic of what's wrong with the institutional culture and mechanisms of peer review within Middle East Studies.  That feud with Cole is part of a general feud with what Kramer calls the "higher education lobby," which began in 2001 and has continued unabated up to the present.  Kramer still blogs about it every time he so much as thinks he's caught Cole in error.  But this feud has only surfaced in the mainstream media once, in two sources so far as I know, one mention apiece – so "numerous mainstream media outlets" is very misleading.  The little flap about "dual loyalties" provided the occasion.  The Wall Street Journal and the New Republic may be mainstream in many respects, but their Middle-East-related commentary is generally thought to be hawkish verging on extreme in its "support for Israel" (I never use these question-begging phrases outside of inverted commas).  Their charge of antisemitism has simply had no legs with Cole.  No one's taken that baton and run with it, as they did with Carter or Walt and Mearsheimer, for example – not even Andrew Sullivan, who is a hawk himself, very "pro-Israel," and quite thick with the honchos at the New Republic, his alma mater after all.  Sullivan continued and continues to link respectfully to Cole.   The main news media just ignored the charges against Cole completely, perhaps rightly smelling a campaign of character assassination, who knows.  His blog has continued to be highly popular, and he continues to be consulted for his expertise by a range of mainstream media organs.  I have no objection to including the Karsh quote and other criticisms, in context, with Cole's response.  What would be very objectionable, however, is if we were to use Wikipedia to inflate the notability of criticisms that appear to have had zero influence, and were indeed almost dead on arrival.  Two op-eds in two highly partisan sources does not a controversy make.  There should not be a bolded section on "Dual Loyalties," for G-d's sake.  --G-Dett 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? There is even more on this. Look at Hitchens' piece in Slate here to see his dismantling of Cole's irreponsible mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's (the holocaust denier) invocation to "destroy" Israel. Slate is a very-well known web magazine and I'd say it merits inclusion in the article. Comparing Cole to Carter is ridiculous; Carter is a former president, Cole is a professor of middling talent at a middling university; the fact Cole has gotten this much press given his position is notable. - Merzbow 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with CSTAR.  Merzbow, your brief post is silly in so many ways it's difficult to know where to begin.  Whether your comment reflected snobbery or ignorance or a delicate hybrid of the two, the fact remains that Michigan is in the top tier of research institutions in the country.  Cole may not be as prominent as Carter but he's far more so than Walt and Mearsheimer, so nice try on that front.  Now then, I like Hitchens as much as anybody, and he's certainly a much better writer and livelier debater than Cole.  Note however that the column in question says nothing about antisemitism; it's about apologetics for Islamism through the prism of a translation debate.  If you think a quibble about Farsi translation from a magazine columnist who doesn't speak the language belongs in a Wikipedia article about a professor who does, please explain why.  And while you gather your thoughts on the subject, do note that Hitchens' piece is a mere variation on a theme from Martin Kramer, who, as I mentioned, is a connoisseur of supposed errata like this from Cole, which he lovingly and wittily and bloggily curates under the heading "Cole-slaw."  Google all day for ephemeral insults made about Cole, and you'll find that most roads if not all do indeed lead back to Kramer, Campus Watch, and the boys.  That, as I've said, is the context here, not any debate about antisemitism, which – despite the dogged efforts of a few – never gained the hoped-for traction.  The debate we're having here is about whether Wikipedia should give those accusations a prominence they never earned in what is fondly called "the marketplace of ideas."  You know my feelings on the matter.  More relevant, however, is Wikipedia policy – namely WP:Undue Weight. --G-Dett 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bottom line on Karsh 

message: It seems that we have now started editing the contnetious issues that have been debated on this page for weeks, without any acknowledgement of the arguments being made by the particpants to the mediation. This makes the "mediation" process an irrelvant side show, and I have no intention of participating in this side show. I am wthdrawing from the "mediation" process. Isarig 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to close the mediation based on this, as I'm sure the parties are aware. I regret that my absence has probably contributed in no small part to the failure of this mediation - unfortunately, the internet and phone line problems are out of my hands, and still prevent me from editing from home - my usual location.  I have to say, looking through the page now, that I am shocked that so many external parties have waded in and have made the mediation process into a sea of (from the point of view of the mediation request) unrelated opinions.  In my absence, this page has simply turned into an extended Talk:Juan Cole, and hence everything has broken down.  If another mediation request is to be filed, I would encourage a more substantial list of parties, to avoid al of these external parties who do seem to have a vested interest in the article.  MedCab remains a viable option, as does further input from BLP specialists in the community.  I would only expect this issue to be accepted as a case for arbitration if there were substantial behavoir issues across mulitple articles amongst the parties - it is important to remeber not to threat mediation as a loop to jump through to get to arbitration, as it is rare that the ArbComm accepts a case which is purely based on content.  Although tried already, ANI is a viable place to ask for input.  I hope that the dispute can be amicably resolved soon, and would be happy to see another mediation request in future. Martinp23 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to the above, I would like to thank the parties for, on the whole, being highly mature and flexible in their requests, helping to find a compromise.  We were getting there - don't forget that - and please take what we have found here and use it to form compromisies between yourselves or in another mediation case.  This page can be deleted if the parties request it - get in touch if you want this. Martinp23 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  withdrawing from the mediation