Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 4

message: This seemed important enough to put in its own section, so I have moved it.--William Pietri 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sandbox/1 Take Care! --Will314159 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. I support it.--CSTAR 16:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: please put a link here for sandbox/1 in this subsection.. make sure i'm hitting the current version.  i'd like to look at it. i haven't had a chance to do any editing lately. if it doesn't have it. I'd like to put it in a pix. some bio details, that he's married to xxx, has a son, military brat where he's lived, flesh out personal details. see the bio sect for more details. stuff i found on his home page. If you all think appropriate. At this pointt, i don't really care right now. Take Care!--Will314159 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales put something on my user page clarifying his remarks and it is clear that he did not ask me to recuse myself.  I do not like sandbox 1 because there is nothing of the content of the criticism of Cole.  I think there needs to be a little more content there so the reader can get an understanding of what the critics main points are.  Is there some reason this is so unacceptable?  Other biographical pages have this stuff.  Why not Coles?  Elizmr 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If faced with sandbox/1, all that a reader would have to do is click on the link: Main article: Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole.  Maybe the paragraph could devote a sentence to this before the reader clicks there, but it shouldn't need any more than that.  I would be happy to write something in order to please every last participating editor, but the page is currently locked, so I can't do that.  In any case, if you could propose an extra sentence or half sentence that would make you happy, that would be fine with me. Greg Kuperberg 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go with sandbox/1? 

message: :(I added the above section header to separate out the change of subject in the discussion. -Ben)
Ben wrote about about "right wing movements" and characterized Cole as "liberal".  I have a problem seeing Cole as a progressive left wing person.  He seems to be very sympathetic to cultures and movements that are actually repressive towards women, homosexuals, rights of the individual, etc.  Israel, ironically, is none of these things.  Sure, he's against the war in Iraq, but overall I would have a hard time thinking of him as having liberal sympathies.  This doesn't make much sense.  Elizmr 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole has actually been quite critical of such repression in those cultures.  The point is not that important - you don't have to consider him "liberal" if you don't want to -- but your analysis is completely incorrect.  What evidence do you have of Cole being "sympathetic" to "cultures and movements" that repress women and homosexuals, etc.?  I don't think you'll find any evidence to suggest that Cole is sympathetic to such repression, whether or not he sometimes says positive things (or not-uniformly-negative things) about the members of certain cultures whose political institutions engage in such repression.--csloat 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never seen Cole endorse repressiveness towards women, homosexuals or try to diminish the rights of individuals. On the contrary Cole often refers to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (under Saddam) and Iran as having repressive governments to one degree or another. I think that you are also mistakenly interpreting his real sympathies for the people in these countries (remember that liberals classically have a "bleeding heart") with support for their repressive governments. I have also not seen him criticize these attributes of Israel. Cole's anti-Occupation stance is considered to be a liberal position -- because they view it at a Palestinian human rights issue. Cole runs the Global Americana Project which aims to translate American democratic liberature into Arabic in order to spread those values  -- that seems fairly progressive in spirit since it is attempting to cause positive social change. Cole is also a progressive in his examination of root causes, because this is a way to affect positive social change -- whether they are right about the root causes or not. Cole's regular comments as to negative effects of US involvement in the Middle East is also a liberal stance -- a true conversative would acknowledge that negative effects are to be expected since the US (from a conservative stand point) would only be involved in the Middle East out of its own self-interest. Also most of the individuals that Cole criticizes (i.e. Neoconservatives, Likudniks, Republicans) are conservatives. Even though people in general are complex entities, I think that Cole can be characterized somewhat accurately as a progressive or liberal. --Ben Houston 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben is correct.  I searched Cole's blog and makes statements consistent with a liberal position in these particular areas--women's rights, gay rights, etc.  I would argue against any position on Israel/Palestine being classified as liberal or conservative, right wing or left, but that is way beyond the scope of this page.  Elizmr 13:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The chit-chat in some talk page is never going to stop.  But hopefully it can move to the talk page of a separate page on controversies, where it would be somewhat more germane.  We have a good basic consensus that the new page should be sandbox/1, with only a request from Elizmr to have something slightly different.  Other than that I'm really not sure what you or another editor is waiting for.  Greg Kuperberg 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some pages on controversial subjects, like Talk:Evolution, explicitly send people elsewhere to discuss the topic rather than the article, perhaps that's a good idea here. Personally, I'm staying out of editing the article itself; I've just dropped by to put out enough of the flames that this article gets unlocked and editing proceeds as normal. I do agree that it seems like there is a consensus on Sandbox/1, so perhaps a couple of the regular participants should ask an admin to unlock the pages. --William Pietri 23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe we should discuss the topic elsewhere.  As for the apparent consensus on sandbox/1, I really don't know how to ask an admin to change the damn page finally.  It's like we're all sitting at the dinner table looking at each other, waiting for someone to start eating.  Greg Kuperberg 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems the discussion went off topic in this section. I unprotected Juan Cole/sandbox/1. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, thanks.  But what I meant by "the damn page" was not sandbox/1, but the actual Juan Cole page, the one that was locked weeks ago.  Almost everyone here agrees that sandbox/1 should or could replace it, but we plebes cannot do it. Greg Kuperberg 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Juan Cole: A Liberal?

message: I thought William was an administrator but if he's not and if Humus is not willing to take the action why not put a request on SlimV's talk page to pull down what's there for the Juan Article and put up Sandbox1 take CAre!--Will314159 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Humus is not willing to take the action"? - I was busy. BTW, this page needs archiving again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done (Archive 3), feel free to refer to old topics. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contacting Admins 

message: Thanks very much to Ben Houston for finally unlocking the Juan Cole page and replacing it with a consensus page.  I would now like to make an RFD for sandbox/1, since it has served its purpose.  I also wonder whether either sandbox or sandbox/3 (note that there is no sandbox/2) serve any remaining purpose.  At the most, they are draft material for Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Greg Kuperberg 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm sure that no formal RfD is needed so I just deleted them. If someone objects, they can be undeleted.--CSTAR 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops I also deleted sandbox; should I not have? I just restored it.--CSTAR 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broom crew 

message: Congrats one and all on coming together to get the article unlocked. I also like the improvement in tone and encourage you to maintain that collegial atmosphere as you move forward. And thanks to everybody for being patient with my buttinsky ways. --William Pietri 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats on progress in article and talk 

message: I"m not sure who wrote this sentence, "Some of his views expressed in the traditional media and on the Internet have led to continuing controversies, while other work has been accepted as uncontroversial and authoritative, " but I wanted to say I think it is outstanding.  Elizmr 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  outstanding sentence