Talk:Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole/Archive 2

message: The sentence "Cole's view of Feith has been corroborated by Condi Rice and John Wilkerson"  was supplied without a reference, but that isn't the only problem. The loaded term "corroborated" suggests that Condi and John have provided supporting evidence for Feith's untrustworthiness.  Even if Condi and John share *exactly* Cole's view, that is not the same as corroborating it. But the sentence does not even make clear what view they share.  Does Condi feel that Feith cannot be trusted to give priority to American interests, or does she merely think that Feith is a zealous Likud supporter? Precis 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not worth discussing this, since Cole is using Feith as an example, but his view is that pro-Israeli Jews  can't be trusted. Shifting the discussion into feith's personal worthiness is a Red Herring. Regardless, since when do we include list of people who agree with someone's opinions ? Are we going to add a listt (a long one to be sure) of people who share Cole's view o the iraq war in that section? Isarig 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree that including Feith causes more problems than it solves, but if the Feith section is included, I suggest citing to Douglas Feith#Professional criticism to reference the Rice/Wilkerson statement.TheronJ 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that "expressed agreement with some of Cole's views" is more precise than "corroborated." TheronJ 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on guys. Do we have to re-invent the wheel over and over again. We all know what is going on here. Any critic of Israel's repression of the Palestinians or anybody that urges Israel works for Peace or obeyeing U.N. resolutions is branded an Anti-Semite an "AS." Correction as a "NAS." New Anti-Semite. The Israeli Lobby works all over the place especially at WP where I understand I am way, way, outnumbered. As far as Cole and Feith the thread has been opened many times before. Here it is by the numbers, yet again.
1. Feith participated in the writing of the "Defense of the Realm" document for Netanyahu. A blueprint for the NeoCon demolition of the Oslo process and invasion of Iraq.  So did Maryam Wurmser, cofounder of the translation service that is the subject of another controversy section in this article.
2.  Feith as No. 3 at the Pentagon made many decisions more in Likuds Israels' interest than in America's.
3. Cole called Feith on this.
4. Because of this Cole, is labeled a "NAS" as a reactive mechanism by the Israeli lobby, some of which are esteemed academics.
5. In defense it is offered the CORROBORATIVE statements, properly footnoted, at Douglas Feith, sorry I haven't learned how to do footnotes or I would transfer them here.
6. Relevance is when a the existence of a fact at issue is made less likely or not. If everybody around corrobrates Cole's view of Feith as unreliable than either the whole world is "NAS" by definition or Cole is not a "NAS." It appears "NAS" is a definition of conveniance applied politically.
7. Here is the Condi statement again from the Doug article
"Former National Security Advisor Condeleezza Rice
According to the long-running Washington newsletter, The Nelson Report, edited by Christopher Nelson, Feith was standing in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a 2003 interagency 'Principals' Meeting' debating the Middle East, and ended his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador." [21] [22]
8. Here is the John Wilkerson statement which has been watered down
"Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State, Larry Wilkerson
In 2005, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to then Secretary of State Colin Powell, publicly stated he could "testify to" Franks' comment, and added "Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." [29]
Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own."[30]
The whole kernel issue that needs to be addressed in this whole discussion is JC's reaction to the doctrine of "NAS." We have his letter to then Harvard Professor Summer's labeling of a an academic boycott as NAS. When I get a little time and have a chance to read about footnoing i plan to write that section, even though it may get continually deleted, b/c awh shucks forget, assume good faith.   Take Care! --Will 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence on "Feith corroboration" 

message: (moved from main Cole talk page by Elizmr)
Actually, since you don't have a "side" in the whole Baha'i thing, you're probably the best person to write it! :-) It all looks o.k. to me. I tried to add a link to H-Bahai, but couldn't get it to come up right. The URL is http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/ Now, that I think about it, there should probably also be a link to Juan's statement that he's a Baha'i outside the administration, just so that is sourced. Also, just FYI, a recent article quotes an insider as saying that one reason Juan didn't get the Yale job was that "most of Cole’s scholarship pertains to the Baha’i faith and is limited to the 18th and 19th centuries". So, it appears that his commitment to Baha'i scholarship cost him, career-wise. Of course, his combativeness on his weblog was also given as a reason.69.232.171.3 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baha'i

message: I archived most of the talk page.  I felt the topics on here which still seemed to be active or have been recently added.  I wasn't sure about the Feith stuff since I've not been involved in editing that section, so I left it.  Elizmr 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: There are several problems with the current version.
*  A paragraph has been lifted verbatim from The Jewish Week.  That is plagiarism.  Either make it a quotation and cite the source directly, or paraphrase.
*  All previously existing countervailing viewpoints have been excised in order to promote one singular point of view.
*  Paragraphs from The Jewish Week which counter the innuendo have been omitted, e.g.,
"And while most faculty members contacted for this piece agree that it is highly improbable that outside pressure played a part in the tenure committee’s decision, the letters and the subsequent calls suggest a campaign to discredit Cole." Precis 01:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Will, please refer to WP:NPOV and consider editing according to Wikipedia guidelines.  Elizmr 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig has removed the Bill Mon ref a few times.  I agree with him.  It is not only a blog source, but it is a completely unbalanced article.  Here are a few quotes, "Joel Mowbray is a deranged, vindictive rodent who ought to be fed to a boa constrictor......what’s really bizarre about this business is the massive propaganda firepower being trained on one mild-mannered Middle East specialist...it’s just the educational bureaucrats at Yale, who would probably do whatever it takes to please any well-heeled group of donors – ::even if it involved putting on bright red lipstick and getting down on their knees...."  This is not something we should be citing in Wikipedia.  Elizmr 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Bill Mon piece my have originated in a blog, but it was adopted and published by Al-Jazeera as an op-ed on its editorial page. It is certainly a published and valild point of view albeit admittely earthy and conroversial. When Rubin & Mowbray meddle in the academic process and take cheap shots, it seems they deserve what they get. Take Care! Will314159 09:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of note, regarding the above, the paragraph I removed was about JC's love for science fiction, and I thought is was kind of fluff and not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, but when Will objected I suggested he put it back. What Will took out is quite different--a couple of cites from notable, verifiable, authorative sources which constituted the only opposing POV in a paragraph on a controversial point he didn't happen to agree with. Also, I think Will is getting al jazeera mixed up with al jazeera.com .  I'm not sure the latter is a notable source.  Elizmr 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the same as the Qatari TV network but it is a reasonable source; see --csloat 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Relevance is tending to make the existence of a fact of issue more likely than not. Now if the provost was to give some statistics, than his statement would be probative and not mere fluff. For example, in the last ten years out of 500 appointments, 5 have been disapproved at this level." Then the reader could judge the "unusualness." Take CAre! 08:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Will, as I said above, I appreciate your hard work on the article, but the wiki way is to include all the quotes for and against your POV.  Let me know if you want the policy links.  Including one quote from an article and not others is NPOV.  Thanks, TheronJ 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "highly unusual" were not mine to begin with. My edit was to 1) put it in the Rubin and Mowbray publicity campagign and take out the self serving fluff 2) provost statement. The Provost saying it is not unusual does not make is so " " "If two departments agreed to hire him … it's hard to swallow that some outside committee would decide against it," Allouche said." OK you can have it. The reader is smart enough to figure out two departments being overturned is "unusual." When I have the time to figure out footnotes, I"ll try my hand at putting in Allouche's statement in directly. One attributed quote to balance another attributed quote. Take Care! --Will 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faculty position at Yale University 

message: I'd like to suggest a compromise on the Yale section.  I've rewritten the section to include bullet points for the various opinions, and would suggest that people add more bullet points if I've missed any.  (In particular, (1) I haven't included any citations stating that the decision to overrule was based on Cole's academic work and/or his blogging; and (2) I haven't included Cole's statement on the subject, which I recall he posted on his website.)  Let me know your thoughts, particularly if you're concerned that I put in too much or not enough.  TheronJ 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal on Yale 

message: "It is very hard to find any highly placed Jewish American official that did not favor Israel against the interests of the U.S. From Elliot Abrams to Dennis Ross. If you define American interests as Peace, stability, the fullfillment of human rights enshrined by the bedrock American principles."  This statement singles out Jews for disloyalty, and as such strikes me as a perfect example of antisemitism.  Can sincere belief in the truth of this statement be used as a defense?  Consider the following opinion of X:  "It's hard to find any black baseball player who is faithful to his wife."  Whether X truly believes this or not,
his statement is racist because it singles out black athletes for vilification.  Precis 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement that singles out Jews for disloyalty stands on its face as antisemitic, regardless of politics.  Many non-Jews in the Bush administration have views similar to those of Ross or Abrams.  If lots of ballplayers cheat on their wives, it is racist to single out black ballplayers for cheating.  The person singling them out may point to some faithful black Sunday School teachers and say "See, I have nothing against blacks."  But that doesn't make his statement singling out black ballplayers any less racist.  There is nothing wrong with opposing the Iraq War, occupation, or Likud.  But there is something wrong with singling out American Jews for disloyalty. Perhaps an apology is in order. Precis 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "It is very hard to find any highly placed Jewish American official that did not favor Israel against the interests of the U.S."   Referring to this statement, I leveled the charge of antisemitism, based on the singling out (for disloyalty) of American Jews (among dozens of other pro-Israel officials in the Bush Administration).  After initial evasion of the issue with talk of Yossi Sarid and the Iraq War, the next line of defense was denial: "But that's not what I said."  Too bad the third time won't be the charm.  Yes, this is an improper forum to continue such a discussion, and this is my last word on it here, but I feel it is proper to at least briefly condemn antisemitic remarks in the same forum in which they are made. Precis 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on what constitutes antisemitism 

message: I removed the following sentence:  In response to Mowbray's letter, the Jewish Week reported, based on reports from "several faculty members" of Yale, that "at least four major Jewish donors [...] contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied." I find this to be a dishonest rendition of what The Jewish Week  actually said, which is: Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied.    
The dishonesty is twofold:
* the word heard  is omitted, thus giving the impression that The Jewish Week is reporting on professors' knowledge rather than on unverifiable rumor that they heard
*ellipses [...]  are used to replace " whose identity the faculty members did not know", thus further obscuring the fact that the faculty members were reporting on unverifiable rumor
Despite my admonition, the ellipses version was placed back into the article.   I offered to replace the ellipses version with the following full quote:
Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied. (I was reluctant to offer this, because I think quoting reports based on rumors coming from sources unknown even to The Jewish Week makes WP look ridiculous.  Did the rumor come from a department secretary?  Imagine the Britannica writing something like "Several professors said they'd heard through the grapevine that four individuals whose names they did not know ..." However, I offered to put in the full quote in the spirit of compromise. The editor who at first accepted this compromise then promptly reverted, replacing the full quote by the ellipses version.  What is the justification? Precis 12:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people see the nefarious "American Israeli lobby" behind everything. Don't look now, Will, the agents of the Cabal are underneath your bed, better adjust that tin foil hat. Isarig 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig. It's not joking matter to me. As a Vietnam grunt. 2501 Iraq dead, 20,000 wounded. I don't blame it all on the Israeli American lobby. But as Uri Avnery analyzed it's a little of the tail wagging the dog, and the dog wagging the tail back. The dog being Cheney's Oil interests. The two together producing the ill-begotten Iraq war to "secure the realm" and the oil interests. And Iran next. You can joke about the tinfoil all you want, but for the people that have to drink through straws the rest of their lives, it's no joking matter. Take Care! --Will 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Melodrama to you. Death and agony to others. Uri Avnery Who's the dog? Who's the tail? 22-4-06 http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1145734278/
Uri is also a combat veteran that prefers the way of peace. Are you going to also call his an anti-semite? Take Care! --Will 17:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the melodrama continues. Avneri is welcome to his POV, as you are to yours. being a combat veteran does not make one's arguments more (or less) persuasive. Isarig 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: spare me the melodrama. You are making antisemitic statements on this talk page, accusing loyal American citizens of dual loyalty based on innuendos, accusing other citizens of being part of a nefarious Cabal for no reason other than they disagree with you. Maybe when you start editing Cheney's page with the same zeal you are showing here I will take you seriously. Isarig 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't edit Cheney, Feith, Wolfwitz. I'm only here to edit and defend JC. A true American Patriot, a profile in courage. A mild mannered Prof that speaks truth to Power against great adversity. To defend him from Character degradation. And I watered down my language.Take Care! --Will 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Will, I saw your response and jumped to the conclusion that you were the editor Precis was arguing with, which I shouldn't have done.  TheronJ 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I didn't mean to.  Sorry.  I figured Precis was continuing to play the revert game with me.  That was a decent compromise solution.  --Ben Houston 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm charging you with selective disclosure.  What about my other cute court references:  asked and answered , concealment, and two counts, hmm? Precis 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yale controversy: rumor or knowledge? 

message: From antiwar.com I can't figure out the author, it shows him smoking a cigarette. Randolph Bourne? It echoes a lot of the
: Justin Raimondo Will314159 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The (Character) Assasins 

message: It's hilarious that I understand the Harvard logo came off the Mearsheimer-Walt paper but I see Dershowitz's reply has the Harvard logo on it. Take Care! --Will...   You see that D's reply has the logo?  This is what is known in the trade as false testimony.  Neither article has the logo.  Oh, but there is a logo on the html page containing Dershowitz's abstract.  It's got to be the work of that hilariously hypocritical Jewish Lobby, right?  Well, not quite, the Mearsheimer-Walt abstract is accompanied by the same logo.  No worries, I'm sure you'll find another way to be victimized by the Lobby real soon.  Precis 07:27, 20 June 2006 
(UTC)
Precis. Testimony from "Latin testes" oh forget the legal lesson. Thank you for your trivia research. I"m glad Dersh was man enough to follow up on removing the logo as Walt removed his.  As far as laughing matters and fun and games: In the vein of Karsh's article "What occupation?," Go tell that to the Gazans in their steel cage with a demolished airport and seaport, or the Palestinians on the West Bank in perpetual lockdown in their cantons of Bantustans or the Iraqis, or American dead and wounded, go tell them it's all make believe and make your charges, accusations, and quasi-legal crap here in America and peace and comfort.  Take Care! --Will(talk) 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, The awful things you mention above are truly awful.  I don't disagree.  I'm sure no editor here disagrees.  Your view is very one-sided, however.  You need to read some of the other chapters in the history book.  A number of groups are absent from your list above.  You haven't added the murdered Israelis at their Passover Seder in a hotel, sleeping in their olympic dorms, eating their pizza and riding their busses.  You haven't mentioned the US soldiers on the USS Cole who were killed, or the foreign service workers in the embassies.  I also notice you didn't add either the synagogues or the greenhouses to the list of destroyed things in Gaza.  The Palestinians vandalized and then destroyed the Jews holy places when the Jews left (defending this by saying they were not holy places, just buildings), and also looted and destroyed the greenhouses bought for them by the international community (mainly American Jews).  I also notice you only see that one side of all this has any responsibility--ie the US-ISraeli military complex.  Israel, whether or not you think it has a right to exist, and whatever its borders, 1967, 1949, 1948, etc---is surrounded by hostile nations who have demonstrated their hostility.   Egypt finally did recognize Israel, but its culture is permiated with antisemitism.  They show the protocols of zion on primetime TV!  And they are the "friendly" nation. The palestinians have elected a government for the PA, which denies the very accord which established the authority they were elected to head.   Israel is not blameless and the uS is not blameless, but Israel very assuredly has a need and right to protect itself and if it doesn't protect itself it will be destroyed. You also talk about the peace and comfort of America.  
Try telling that to the jewish, black, homosexual, etc victims of hate here.  This is Wikipedia--we are all supposed to be taking a three dimensional view.  I'm sorry to go on at length here on the talk page, but I'm just trying to get you to see some other sides of these issues you care so deeply about.  Elizmr 10:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, well well before radical Islam was born the Arabs wanted the Jews out of Eretz Israel.  If you know anything about Judaism and history you know that the Jews have been praying to go back to Jerusalem three times a day for over two thousand years, way before Islam was even born.  Jews have a historic connection to the land.  The Arab governments did everything in their power to prevent Jews from legally settling in their historic homeland during the British mandate, and the British went along with them because they needed their Oil.  When the UN partitioned Palestine and Israel declared independence, the surrounding Arab states did not create a Palestinian state, they attacked Israel and expected to destroy it.  This was not radical Islam.  These were garden variety Arab states.  This had nothing to do with 1967.  Where is the Palestinian anger at Jordan and Egypt, who "occupied" their land from 49-67???  There is a lot of talk about Israel disobeying UN resolutions, but quite honestly the Arab states have ignored a hell of a lot of them too.  Jews were not even allowed to visit the Western Wall, the tombs of their ancestors in Hebron, and other holy places from 49 and 67.  There as typically been desecration of Holy places, holy books, etc of Jews when Arab governments have taken over before and after 1967.  This is all against UN resolutions.  Are those resolutions less important than the others?  Jews have always guaranteed Islamic worshipers access to their holy places in the territories and have not desecrated them.  As far as the starving gazans go, you really should acknowledge the responsibility of the PA leadership for the suffering their people rather than just blaming Israel and the US  (I'm not saying Israel is blameless).  The PA has received huge amounts of foreign aid.  Much of this aid has been robbed by the leadership; much of it has been directed towards instruments of agression which have not contributed to peace or the good of the palestinian people in any way shape or form.  Arafat died a very very very rich man.  No infastructure has been built up, the education is mostly anti Israel propaganda of the worst kind (Palestine from the river to the sea, Jews are evil descendants of animals, etc).  Untold resources have been wasted.  Hamas has spent huge amounts on weaponry while their people have starved.  How many rockets have been fired into Israel from gaza since Israel got out of gaza?  could the money spent on rockets have fed people?  You bet.  If Israel got out of the West Bank now, in keeping with UN resolutions, almost the country would be in rocket range of the west bank and gaza with a government in power that is sworn to Israel's destruction.  If you were in charge of Israel, would you just get out and stand back to be murdered?  And in terms of the US, they have not  always been on the side of Israel, quite the contrary quite often and mostly when it suited them to be on that side due to cold war politics.  Again, I'm sorry for putting this on the talk page of an article but the knee jerk stuff I'm reading here needs to be responded to.  Elizmr 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, I did not have any desire to bring israel/palestine into this but felt a need to respond to your statements on this subject.  Elizmr 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your trivia research....This is how you thank us for research that reveals your error--by minimizing it as trivia?...I"m glad Dersh was man enough to follow up on removing the logo as Walt removed his. It appears that now we've left the domain of rationality.  Are we on Punk'd? Precis 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Us" refers to the Lobby--recall that you're the only non-Jewish editor here. :)  Precis 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One of few. You are very perspicous though. This is hardly an article about Juan Cole. It is an article about the Lobby going after JC on WP b/c he is so effective as a balancing force in society. Accusing, Charging him of being AS, NAS, & academically incompetent- throwing everything including the kitchen sink at him- but he knows it comes w/ the territory of standing up to Leviathan.  Take Care! --Will(talk) 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dershowitz and the Lobby 

message: New major article on the Juan Cole - Yale - Neoconservative controversy.  Lots of good quotes and analysis here: .  --Ben Houston 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nation: "Burning Cole" 

message: Professor Juan Cole: the latest victim of "the lobby from the South End, The Student Voice of Wayne State University by Faheem Khan  | Contributing Writer  Jun/21/2006. This is not a blog b/ a newspaper so there should not any problem using it. Ironic, an unkown student in a college paper has greater access to some than James Joyner!  Take Care! --Will(talk) 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second-hand or unsupported opinions of Faheem Khan, even though published in a newspaper, have no place in Wikipedia. Precis 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper Editorial 

message: Been Having a wheel war with Isarig on two items.
*1)the proper epithet for Joyner. He's rightly corrected me a couple of times and I've come up with a correct and impeccable epithet. It's to the point of his background and area of expertise to the opinion stated as to Cole's academic qualifications and publishing ability. the epithet is, to wit: "Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,"
Since I am the introducer of the quote, it is dissapointing that he keeps on interfering with it since the epithet is accurate, fair, verified, relevant to the suject matter of the quote, and researched. Of course it is prejudicial to his POV which is to slime JC whenever possible and thus he keeps deleting it.
:It is true that Joyner is "Former Managing Editor of Strategic Insights, the professional journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,". However, that was years ago, the quote you introduced is not related in any way to his work as editor of SI, and most importantly, as you yourself have written when you first introduced Joyner to this article, "James Joyner ...is best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of the weblog Outside The Beltway". If that's what he's best known for, and since that's the forum in which your cited quote appears, it is hwo he shoudl be described. Isarig 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is indeed "Views & controversies of Juan Cole", but the specific subsection is not in the "Views" section, but in the "controversies" section. In that section, the contorversy comes first. That's teh way this, and every other "controversy" articel is written. It was this way for weeks before you started reverting. Isarig 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Academic Expertise 

message: The Joyner quote had mysteriously disappeared and didn't show up in the history= w/o trace. A lot of the section shows in the edit part b/ disappears out of edit??? Maybe I'm crosseyed. ??? This is why the Landis quote was double sourced. First it was in the Weiss article. Second Landis referred to in in his blog. Braggin on being in the Weiss article. This is where I saw it. That's why I sourced it!  Take Care! --Will(talk) 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Landis quote was double sourced 

message: B removes all blogs, and W disagrees.  What should W do?
*(a) Discuss the removal on the talk page and once more seek consensus on the use of blogs
*(b) Revert the removal, putting all blogs back in
*(c) Put back only blogs W agrees with, leaving out the rest
In my opinion, (a) is best, (b) is second best, and (c) is a very distant third. Now here is a question for those who favor the use of blogs.  May I have permission to use quotes about Cole from all of these bloggers? ,
,
,
,
?  (Some may not be notable, but I can get around that issue by using Slate  as a tertiary source.) Precis 12:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time for this but blogs are not appropriate.  All of you are just making up your own rules, I think you should all go start blogs somewhere, Wikipedia is not your blog.  --Ben Houston 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Comment is Free" is a difficult case.  Since it has a paid staff of four helping with editing and is hosted by a reputable newspaper and written by company selected individuals, I would argue that it is called a "blog" mostly for marketing purposes and to note that it allows for comments.  But it is a difficult case.  I would suggest creating a Wikipedia article describing Comment is Free and centralizing the discussion on whether it is a decent source on its talk page.  --Ben Houston 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that there are two things.  Can one quote from blogs quoted in a reputable source like a New York Times article or something in the Wall Street Journal where a blog comment is central to a story?  I would argue it is a clear yes.  The Slate column you point to is a bit different in that it is just a summary of prominent blog comments around a particular topic -- it can be muddier -- my feeling (but it isn't policy) is that reputable and relevant individuals such as Daniel Drezner (who is an academic in the relevant field in this case) can have his blog quoted in a Wikipedia article if that quote was in Slate but that the blogger known as "Eternal Vigilance" in the Slate article still don't belong in Wikipedia (although if EV posted something on his blog that is truly the center of story and the story is larger than the just the blogosphere then he should probably be in WP since it is notable.)  --Ben Houston 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that blogs quoting in published articles in the NYT or WSJ or similar high quality media are fair game whether they are central or not.  It is in less formal media such as the online-only daily Slate   column summarizing blogs -- it is at the other end of spectrum of reputable media, and is itself not that different from a blog posting.  But one still has to exercise judgement as to appropriateness -- thus I feel that Daniel Drezner, who is notable and relevant, is acceptable, but that "Eternal Vigilance" is non-notable and of dubious reliability and thus not appropriate -- and then there is even worse gray area in between.  --Ben Houston 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not know of a weekly blogger review in the NYTs or the WSJ.  I was thinking of a proper news article in NYT and WSJ that dealt with a topic of general interest.  Blogger review columns anywhere are pretty low in standards, at least in my opinion -- they are like gossip columns -- there for entertainment and juicy rumors and spreading buzz.  I guess in my opinion, not all articles in a reliable media source are equivalent.  News articles are best, in the middle are magazine essays and opinion editorials and in the lower end are gossip columns and "blogosphere" reviews.  Slate and Salon.com are primarily opinion-driven publications -- as is the New Republic, the National Review and many others -- where as the NYTs, LATimes, WashPost and the WSJ pour millions a year into their separate news reporting divisions (i.e. separated from the people who do the Op-Ed and editorials) and have news bureaus all over the world.  Thus to me there is a fairly large difference between the quality of the news reporting from one of the major newspapers and these politically positioned magazines.  --Ben Houston 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put another blog on the fire 

message: Cole has taken a firm stand against the kind of anti-semitic conspiracy theory that some of his critics accuse him of.  This opening sentence needs to be reworded. If Cole's critics had specifically said "Cole believes that Jews conspire to start wars", then the wording would be fine.  But critics' comments on the dual-loyalty issue are of a somewhat different nature.  Thus the current phrasing smacks a bit of editorialising. Precis 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we are.  Gibson's comment was that "the Jews" are behind the war in Iraq (and all other wars).  Juan Cole specifically addresses the conspiracy theory aspect of the issue.  I agree with you that my original sentence needed editing, but I do think the conspiracy angle is important here, since that is precisely what Cole's critics charge him with, and it is precisely the grounds on which he takes issue with Mr. Gibson.--csloat 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Mel Gibson's remarks have not even been officially published, so using what Cole may have said about them to defend his record on use of conspiracy theories is really a stretch.  If Cole wants to speak to this directly I'm sure he will, but let's not put words in his mouth.  Elizmr 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been published in numerous newspaper reports.  Yesterday I heard a 20 minute discussion of them on NPR.  Pretty much everything a famous actor says is published, so it's no surprise.  Cole did speak to it directly, so I'm not sure of Elizmr's point.  As for Precis' point, I suggest he look up the term "conspiracy," which does not necessarily mean "secret."  A statement that "Jews are behind all the wars in the world" is a conspiracy theory (crude and idiotic though it may be, but we are talking about Mel Gibson here). --csloat 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid "Jews are behind all wars" is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.  For example, let's say that Gibson thought that every single war had been started by a Jewish leader. Then by saying "Jews are behind all wars", he would not be suggesting that the Jewish leaders had conspired together.  You would do well to stick with quotes and refrain from providing an interpretation that serves your purposes. Precis 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking?  The quote is "'F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.'"  Not "Jews" but "The Jews."  To claim this is not a conspiracy theory is bending over backwards to make a pretty small point, as you acknowledge yourself.  Again, it's a pretty crude and poorly stated conspiracy theory but it reflects a well-known conspiracy theory nonetheless.  It's odd that you would split hairs on this quote, yet you seem to not be bothered by the claim that Cole advocates a "Protocols of Zion" style conspiracy theory when he complains about Likudniks with dual loyalties.  Anyway, it is a small point, I think we're both agreed on that.--csloat 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not joking.  The word "the" doesn't suddenly turn this into a conspiracy.    "The Jews are responsible for all the crime in this country" needn't mean that Jews are conspiring together to commit crimes.  As for the use of "conspiracy theory" elsewhere on this page, that is taken from a source, so I cannot do anything about it.  However, YOUR use of the term violates WP:OR, and I'm calling you on it, small point or no. Precis 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "the" doesn't "suddenly" turn it into a conspiracy theory; it already was one.  Your assertion that it "needn't mean that Jews are conspiring together to commit crimes" is a statement without evidence that bears no relation to reality.  That's exactly what the statement means (if we can agree that starting wars = committing crimes).  This is not my personal analysis and it's not original research -- this is from Cole's own web page.  And let's not forget, we're talking about a guy who made a movie suggesting that Jews conspired to kill Christ.  Your assertion that Gibson really meant that individual Jews who were not working together and had no knowledge of each other were individually responsible for every war in the world is what I find bizarre.  Gibson is an obvious example of someone who engages in antisemitic activity.  Cole is obviously an example of someone who does not.  And the specific charges that are leveled against Cole are very similar to the charges Cole levels against Gibson.  That much is obvious and I really don't care to continue splitting hairs on the word "conspiracy."  Your interpretation is bizarre but let's just leave it at that.--csloat 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then I'm afraid I will never see your point.  It is possible for a group to be responsible for an action without conspiring, even with your definition above.  Nobody knows for sure how Gibson thinks the Jews are responsible (except, apparently, you and he). This argument is definitely tired, but it is not irrelevant, as it relates directly to disputed material that you inserted. Precis 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A group acting together as a group to commit a wrongful act is by definition conspiring, so you are incorrect about it being possible for the group to be responsible for it otherwise.  I don't know anything about what Gibson thinks, and I'm certainly not pretending to know based on some crap he told a cop when he was wasted; we are just talking about what these words mean.  Email Cole yourself if you want to ask him whether he thinks this is a conspiracy argument.  This argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned -- if you don't like what I inserted, propose something better, but quit nitpicking the definition of the word "conspiracy" when you are clearly incorrect about it.  I feel like you're playing a game of "gotcha."  If it makes you feel better to believe I am wrong about this, it is fine with me.--csloat 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you suggest I propose something better, I propose the Isarig version that you reverted.  I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, rather I'm saying that the wording leaves room for several interpretations, and I don't think you should be choosing the interpretation that suits you best. Being responsible for is not always the same as working together as a group, despite what you say.  I'm sorry you are taking this so personally.  I'll join you in ending the Cole discussion here. But see my opinion on the use of loaded terms below. Precis 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Gibson 

message: *The Israel Lobby is largely responsible for the Iraq War.
Some critics of this statement have called this a conspiracy theory.  Mearsheimer and Walt, on the other hand, are offended by such language.  As a matter of course, WP should avoid using loaded terms when the interpretation is disputed. Precis 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your solution is a great compromise.  Thanks. Precis 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of conspiracy theory 

message: If we are going to keep the lengthy Democracy Now quote (and I don't think we should), should we print Cole's actual quote, viz.,
"The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon, not because he fights terrorists, but because he is stealing the land of another people and is brutalizing them in the process--and those are people with whom the rest of the Middle East and the Muslim world sympathizes."  Precis 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one little problem: as you note correctly (meaning your computer's copy and paste functions work properly), Cole said "most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East". I suspect that this qualifying phrase, which does alter the meaning of the statement, gets omitted in accusations against him. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel that Cole's actual quote is irrelevant, or should someone add it in? Precis 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a point here on the Cole quote - Fund did not in any way - "half-hearted" or not - "retract" what he said.  All he did was print a "clarification" that looks like another criticism of Cole - the article itself still has the false quote in, along with vehement denunciation of Cole, and then at the bottom adds a "clarification" making fun of Cole for calling the false statement libelous and then prints without comment Cole's actual statement.  Fund writes as if there were no difference between the two statements.  And, even his correction leaves out the rest of the sentence, so it is still extremely out of context.  I am not speaking to how much of this is relevant to the Yale section here - I think that whole section can go - but I wanted to add my own "clarification" to this discussion.-csloat 10:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Fund called it a "clarification" indicates that he is not standing by his original quote.  That's a retraction of sorts (but a very indirect, unapologetic, mocking retraction, indicating that Fund doesn't see much difference between the two statements.) Fund indirectly acknowledges that his quote was imprecise; what else would he be "clarifying"? Precis 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  most dangerous regime in the middle east 

message: I'm going on vacation shortly, but I'd like to leave the following suggestions for compromise:
(1) Remove the final quote and the tag, until a consensus is reached on Talk.
(2) The consensus may be to leave the DN quote out altogether.  That would be fine with me.
(3) The quote is too long relative to its importance, so I sympathize with attempts to shorten it, but I'm also sympathetic with preserving verbatim quotes whenever possible.
(4) One possible compromise:
*Addressing the Yale rejection in an interview on Democracy Now!, Cole said "Some neo-con journalists have tried to make this a big scandal. Who knows what their hiring process is like, what things they were looking for? I think it's a tempest in a teapot."  
Yes, this leaves off the fact that Cole didn't apply for the job, but I fail to see why that's important.  What difference does it make whether the process was initiated by Cole himself or by recruiters?  The bottom line is that Cole was interested in the position, or else he wouldn't have given the recruiters the green light.  Precis 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained above why it is important that Cole did not apply for the job, as well as why the statement about how this happens all the time was important. We also cannot presume to know Cole's state of mind, as Precis does here.  The claim that he would not have given recruiters a green light without wanting the job is incorrect.  Getting an offer from another university is a great bargaining chip for a higher salary or other perqs from the job you are at.  I've done this myself, and I know the practice is widespread among faculty who are competitive for other positions.  Again, I have presented six arguments above for keeping the quotation; let's deal with them one by one.  The alternative is to remove the whole section, but removing just the quote is not acceptable, since it is pretty much the one notable quote in the whole dispute.  (In addition, it is the only part representing Cole's view, which is allegedly what this article is about).--csloat 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say Cole was not interested, otoh, you say having an offer is a great bargaining chip - so it is desirable to have. We don't know what Cole would have done had he gotten an offer - but there is no denying he wanted that offer. Isarig 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say Cole was not interested; I said we cannot presume to know what his interests were.  We cannot say whether or not he wanted the offer.  What we do know is that he never sought the job.  Sorry for the confusion.--csloat 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All we know is that he (according to him) did not intiate the process. We do know he was interested, or else he would have told the Yale folks so. Isarig 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I must have missed when you provided a copy of his letter to Yale regarding this matter.  All we know about what he "wanted" or "was interested in" is what he has said about it in a public source.  I don't see the point of trying to make claims beyond that.--csloat 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we know is that he told the Yale people who approached him that they can and should look all they want - that's not the response nor the attitude of someone who is not interested in an offer. Someone who is not interested says just that - "not interested". I do this on a weekly basis. Isarig 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I never said he was not interested.  I said we don't know anything other than what he has said.  You are the one claiming he "wanted" the job.  It doesn't matter - you may believe whatever you wish, just don't put it in the article.--csloat 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions for compromise on the Democracy Now quote 

message: Thanks, Italiavivi 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what the heck is wrong with you?  You've never, to my knowledge, participated on this page.  Out of the blue, you moved this page without offering any justification other than some nonsense about Ann Coulter.  Then, when someone moves it back, you get all imperious about it.  Ann Coulter has nothing to do with this page, which, if you take a minute to actually read it, you would see has to do with Cole's "Views" (Section 1) and "Controversies" surrounding him (section 2), the latter of which may or may not include "criticism" among other controversies.  Are you just trolling or what?--csloat 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your knowledge, that's fine, not that it matters.  I am a Wikipedian with extreme POV and format concerns toward this article.  Regardless, there is no precendent or reason to force an unconventional article style such as this one, directly linking his views to those who criticize him.  His main article's "Views" section was too short regardless, and all views have been moved there.  This article can now focus on criticisms of Cole, as was obviously its intent from the beginning. Italiavivi 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your baseless accusations of trolling, by the way, border on personal attack.  Please cease them, and address the corrections/issues being expressed.  Thanks, Italiavivi 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I called you on your trolling because there were no issues being expressed!  You simply changed the title of the article without explanation other than some crap about Ann Coulter.  Now, your comment that there is no precedent to form such an article about this is nonsense on its face.  This article is such a precedent.  The decision to name it thus followed weeks of discussion and consensus building among editors who disagreed about a lot of things.  It was quite an accomplishment, I will say, considering the high emotions here.  This article had two sections, "Views" and "Controversies."  I am not sure how deleting the "views" and turning it into a pure "Criticism" section -- when these controversies are not all "criticism" per se -- helps this article in any way.  In fact, I think it turns it into a hit piece.  If you wish to make this radical change, please present your reasons and get some people participating in a discussion towards consensus.  Thanks.--csloat 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease your personal attacks, again, Sloat.  You claim that this is not pure criticism, despite the fact that is very clearly is.  The main "Views" section at Juan Cole is too short (two one-line paragraphs), and his views can be incorporated there.  What remains of this article is criticism and academic disagreement, and that's the only NPOV it can be called.  Your nonsensical format is unacceptale, and that your only counters are baseless accusations of trolling is telling.  Paint it as a "radical" change with all the rhetoric you like, I am editing according to the manual of style and NPOV policies.  Your vision for this article no longer has consensus, and it will not remain this way, I'm sorry. Italiavivi 17:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What personal attacks?  I am just trying to protect the integrity of this page.  The "Views" section is not "too short"; it linked to this page as it should have.  You have imposed your view of this on everyone who spent weeks discussing how to properly arrange this page and that.  You imposed this view without consultation, comment, or any attempt to reach consensus.  It is insulting to all of us.  I'm going to ask others to please step into this debate; if there is a consensus for your version, fine, but you have done nothing to even try to discuss the issue.--csloat 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unless you have a reason for reverting the move to "Criticisms of," please abstain from reverts. 

message: Will314159, these pages are part of an encyclopedia we are trying to write, not a playground for you to experiment with to indulge your egocentric fantasies. Please do not make any more edits like your recent ones, deleting, then restroing content in order to gauge other editors' reaaction to them. That is a violation of so many WP guidelines that I won't even enumerate them. You have been warned. Isarig 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NPA. It seems you can't make a single edit to this project without vioaltign at least one of its guidelines. Isarig 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by Will314159