Talk:Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole/Archive 1

message: I think the Joffe quote can go entirely, but I have just shortened it.  I think we need Cole's response to antisemitism charges included here if we keep that inflammatory comment in.  The Karsh quote I moved to the bottom of the section; it should be eliminated entirely as non-notable, but I really don't care to fight about it.  I think everyone can live with this.  Here's the thing, though; I realize Isarig thinks Karsh is some kind of prominent scholar and therefore his opinion is essential here; why can't we quote a passage from him where he writes in complete sentences?  The sentence fragment is poor grammar, quite apart from being incorrect (and, I think, mendacious).--csloat 04:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you think so. I am sure you'd like to see any quote crtical of Cole "go entirely". But this page was created as a place to present Cole's views as well as  the criticisms of them, and sourced quotes from WP:RS sources that are relevant to the views being discussed should be presented. My opinion of Karsh is irrelevant here. If you'd like to familiarize yourself with his credentials, check out Efraim Karsh. If you think the Karsh quotes are incomplete, I'm more than happy to provide the full passages from the article. Of course then you'll complain that the critic's quotes are too long, as you've done in the past. Isarig 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you are incorrect about my wishes.  I never said I wanted all critical quotes to go.  The Karsh quote is not incomplete; it is just terrible grammar, uncharacteristic of a reputable intellectual.  In turn, it makes Wikipedia look bad.--csloat 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joffe + Karsh 

message: This is ludicrous and an embarrassment to wikipedia.  I have made very clear my position above on the "Israel" section, and the arguments have not been addressed.  Armon and Isarig argue as if I was advocating the removal of the Karsh quote, but look at my edit and you will see that is not what I did.  I argued coherently above for the changes I made and these arguments were not responded to.  Instead both Isarig and Armon reverted with very rude edit summaries.  All we have done is move the incivility and edit warrior mentality to a different page.  Isarig started an edit war over this whereas I have justified every change and asked that other editors make changes one by one and explain them clearly rather than drive by mass reverts.  I now ask that they revert back to show good faith and discuss the reasons they would advocate a particular change one by one so that we can flesh out the arguments here.  Otherwise this article should go to RfC.--csloat 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither ludicrous nor an embarrassment to wikipedia - it is simply other editors having a different, and less favorable view of Cole than you do. Your arguments were addressed, one by one, by Armon. If you don't like the edit summaries, I suggest you take a close look at your own. The contorversy has indeed moved from the Cole biography page to this one. One this page, which is not a biography, we are not ediitng under WP:BLP, and criticim of Cole's controverial views should be given the weight it deserves. Isarig 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has absolutely nothing to do with how favorable anyone's view of Cole is.  It has to do with revert-warring instead of engaging in dialogue about changes.  My arguments were disputed only after you guys reverted, and they were addressed in a condescending and dismissive manner, without ever engaging the substance of them.  I gave you both an opportunity to show a modicum of good faith here but you chose not to.-csloat 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. As to the factual arguments: The whole point of creating this page, and moving its contents out of the Juan Cole biographical page is so that his views and criticism therof can be described in full, without being encumbered by the WP:BLP guidelines which limit the amount of criticism. Compare the Noam Chomsky page with the Criticism of Noam Chomsky page. Isarig 16:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your interpretation and ask for a referee. ask that you leave it up pending a ruling. And I thank you for participating in a discussion. Take Care!--Will314159 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC for this article

message: Cole has explictly said that (my emphasis) "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time." both from Cole's Blog. So Hitchens' criticism is that Cole's is saying the reference is only to the occupation of Jerusalem - and is based on Cole's own words, not an interpreation of them or on their implication. Isarig 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchens' reading is incorrect.  Cole's translation is literal, as Will points oiut above.  Hitchens' assumption that Cole is making an important distinction between "the occupier of the Qods" and "Israel" is an incorrect assumption.  Cole's own words suggest that what was important to him was the distinction between "wiped off the map" -- which seems a military threat -- and "erased from the pages of history" -- which seems a more existential threat, on the order of (to paraphrase Cole) Ford's insistence that the Soviet Union would fade into the ash heap of history.  Armon claims Hitchens' interp is from Cole's own words but that is specious, since all the translators have likely translated "regime occupying Jerusalem" the same way (please correct me if you have other evidence).  Hitchens makes the assumption that the reference to Jerusalem is a significant point for Cole, whereas Cole never makes that point at all.  Hitchens' confusion probably stems from not knowing Persian in the first place, which is fine, but it also means that picking a fight with a prominent Persian-speaking intellectual is a bad idea.  Don't get me wrong, I like Hitchens, but he is not a scholar and he has never done serious research.  His punditry really doesn't deserve to be treated as absolute truth here.--csloat 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ugh. I hate Hitchens.  But csloat what's the problem here? Note first there is a translation dispute; Note something of the backstory of this dispute (e.g. claims of improper publication of a private conversation), note how Cole translated it, note how Hitchens translated it (even it's as bad as "My granmother wears army boots"), end of story. --CSTAR 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me; that is what I did in sandbox 3, which I am advocating replace this one.  The problem with this one is that Hitchens makes the claim that Cole is saying something he really isn't.  Cole never says the problem with the Hitchens translation is the word "Jerusalem."  This is a straw man argument.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be quoted, but it does mean that we should not elevate Hitchens' misinterpretation to being the only interp.  Again, this would be solved if we replaced this section with the example in sandbox 3, which otherwise preserves all that is significant in that "debate."--csloat 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: PS I like Hitchens because I have a strange fondness for boorish drunks ;) ... it doesn't mean that I agree with him on anything.--csloat 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is Hitchens syaing that COle is saying, which he really isn't? I've quoted Cole above, twice explictly saying the Khomeini quote referes to ending the occupation of Jerusalem. Isarig 00:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchens is saying that Cole is invested in the difference between "occupier of Jerusalem" and "Israel."  Cole is not.  He, like everyone else, translates "Qods" as "Jerusalem."  Hitchens pretends Cole is doing this to make some kind of distinction between Israel the nation and the current government of Israel.  Cole makes no such distinction.  What is diff about Cole's translation is the "wipe off the map" part, which implies deliberate military action, as opposed to the "vanish from the pages of history," which is more consistent with what Cole says in passages I quoted on the other talk page.  I can look them up again if you need.--csloat 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do you get that Cole is not invested in this difference? He certainly explictly says, twice, that the quote refers to the "occupation of Jeruslaem", whereas the other transaltors say the quote refers to Israel. Cole, like everyone else, translates Qods as Jerusalem - that part is not in contention. But Cole  says that what must end is the "Occupation of Jerusalem" - and he is unique in that interpretation. All the other translations say that what must end is Israel, the regime that is occupying Qods. And BTW, I do not actually see alleged difference in intent (military action vs. no miliatry action) between "wiped of the map" and "removed from the pages  of time". Such a difference is wishful thinking on the part of Cole. Isarig 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He translates the passage literally, so yes it does say occupation of Jerusalem, but he does not dispute that that refers to Israel.  He is not unique in translating Qods as Jerusalem, as you are well aware.  The difference is not wishful thinking; it is pretty obvious from the passage, and even Hitchens agrees, as we see in the passage from Hitchens that Cole quotes!  In any case it doesn't matter; the point is that the difference is important for Cole, whereas the Jerusalem/Israel "difference" is not a difference at all.  All the translations translate Qods as Jerusalem because that is what it means.--csloat 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , no it does not say "occupation of Jerusalem", it says "The regime occupying Jerusalem". Cole is not translating literally, he is interpreting. He may not dispute that it refers to Israel, but it certainly seems that way, since I've given you two quotes of his where both the actual words he uses and the context he uses them in refer explicitly and exclusively to the "Occupation of Jerusalem", not Israel. So he either thinks it really refers just to the occupation of Jerusalem, in which case he is a unique minority view and rightly criticized for that view by Hitchens, or, he knows it refers to Israel but uses language that is misleading - in which case he is also rightly criticized.  As to the alleged difference between "wiped off the map" and "erased from the page of time" - simply asserting yet again that the alleged difference is "obvious from the passage" is not a convinicng argument. I've already told you that, at least to me, it is not obvious, so if it is obvious to you  -please show how and why. Your claim that Hitchens agrees with the alleged differnce is simply false.  Hitchens says that the "wipe off the map" translation may have been "too free a translation", but he goes on to say that regardless of what English idiom is the proper translation, what the Farsi phrase means is "an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."" Isarig 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misunderstanding me, intentionally or not.  My point is not whether cole says "occupation of jerusalem" or "regime occupying jerusalem"; my point is that he does not dispute that either phrase refers to Israel!  He does not refer to something other than Israel and you have not shown any quotes where he does.  I have shown you numerous quotes where he explains his comment, and this Israel v. Jerusalem thing never comes up!  Why do you insist on making an argument about something there is no evidence for?  As I said, this is a straw man argument created by Hitchens.  As for the difference between wiping off the map and being erased from history, the point is not that it should be obvious to you but that it is obvious that Cole believes there is a difference.  We are not supposed to mediate this debate, just report it accurately.  Again, Cole says this is the case over and over, and I have provided you the quotes over and over.  My claim that Hitchens agrees has nothing to do with the translation; Cole quotes Hitchens elsewhere saying that the president of Iran would never attack Israel militarily.  So Hitchens does not really believe that Ahmadinejad was making a threat and was just using the straw man to pick on Cole.  Again, I have established this over and over and over again.  Why are we still arguing about it?--csloat 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand you, but I disagree with what you say. Specifically, I disagree that "[Cole] does not refer to something other than Israel and you have not shown any quotes where he does. " Here are the 2 quotes again, where he explicitly refers to "the occupation of Jerusalem", and not to Israel: "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."  In the second of these refernces, he is drawing a deliberate distinction between the occupation over Jerusalem and Israel. Please stop claiming there is no evidence for my claim. As to the difference between "wipe off the map"  and "erase from time" - of course Cole thinks there is a differnce - but he is alone in thinking there is a difference, and Hitchens does not agree that the Farsi idiom does not imply a threat - he thinks that regardless of which English equivalent idiom is used, the meaning is "annihilate". Whether or not Ahmadinejad has the actual power to carry out his threat is immaterial to the question of his making a threat. Hitchens thinks he has no power, but also thinks he was threatening. Isarig 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in those quotes does he distinguish between "the occupation of Jerusalem" and "the government of Israel"?  He doesn't.  That's my point.  There is no evidence for your claim.  As to the difference between the map and the time, the only issue is that Cole explains the difference; we do not need to debate whether he is right or wrong.--csloat 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right here: "Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map"...He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem... . I have no problem including Cole's explantion of the difference he sees between the map and the time, so long as we include Hitchens' criticism of this distinction and his view that bith mean "annihilate". Isarig 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, right.  See, now you're just repeating your argument.  As I said, he does not say that there is a difference between "Israel" and "the occupation regime over Jerusalem."  He over and over emphasizes the difference between wiping off the map and erased from time.  And I never argued against including Hitchens' bankrupt argument here either.--csloat 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cole's translation: Occupation of Jerusalem or Israel

message: i saw a comment that this page didn't have to be edited in line w/ biographhies of a living person. Accordingly it's time to put some guidelines on this page. Also thanks for the NPOV warning on the article itself. Take Care!--Will314159 20:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Guidelines for Editing 

message: used more neutral language to address blog alteration/correction issue. After all this is not a grand jury indictment article, or is it? Still have to come back and address Karsh's knowledge of Cole's purported non-research & its relevance of his holding opinions as to current middle east policy. Can't we read what others have written and form opinions? Take Care!--Will314159 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contoversies: Expertise 

message: Cleaned up grammar, made it less wordy w/ better layout. Take Care!--Will314159 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with that except that I've removed "their organization," because Kramer disputes that it is his organization, though he did endorse it. --Armon 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contoversies: Campus Watch 

message: Armon has reverted this page twice to a version that has been determined to be inferior via the above conversation.  Armon has not once participated in that conversation and is simply reverting.  Armon has offered no evidence that he is even reading what he is reverting.  Armon please justify each of your edits on this page as I did above for each of the edits I made.  Then we can examine them one by one rather than having another revert war.  Thanks.--csloat 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Determined to be inferior" by who? You and Will? WP is not a soapbox, and this has been discussed ad nauseum. You can't present a controversy in a NPOV way by muzzling one side, and allowing the other to soapbox. On the one hand, you complain that this is too long, while on the other, you inject copious self-justifications from Cole. The Iraq war section is a perfect case in point. Critics point to his apparent support of the war at the time of invasion, Cole responded that his support was nuanced and only if via legal UN sanction. OK no problem. If you want to inject more Cole, then you'll also have to present his critics' skepticism of that claim. And then we're back to a overlong blow-by blow. --Armon 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon please list all of the changes you would like to see and an explanation for each change.  You deleted accurate sourced information from the Iraq war section and your only explanation is "soapboxing."  This page is about Cole's views, not just the things that Armon thinks are controversial.  There were several wording changes that are painstakingly explained above that you reverted without cause.  You never explained your reversions and the cryptic comments above do not do the trick.  There was a discussion about the Cole-Hitchens debate and you have not participated in it; you're just reverting without even indicating what you think is wrong with the arguments above.  You are also gaming the 3RR; you have made 3 reverts on this page within an hour, yet your edit summaries are misleading.  Frankly, Armon, you have gone way beyond testing the boundaries of good faith into outright mendacity.  I urge you to stop it now, and I request that you revert your last revert to show at least a modicum of good faith on this page so that we can proceed further.--csloat 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: where did I revert a punctuation fix? I refer your you yet again to WP:AGF Isarig 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armon stop reverting 

message: I made an inquiry about that above. Nobody responded. I've been reading up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule
engage in edit wars to your detriment. watch out for 3RR.  Take Care! --Will 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out the diffs that show 3RR was violated.--CSTAR 22:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's talking about , it has already been reported, and he has been blocked for 8 hours.--csloat 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hadn't gotten actually gotten out the legal pad and calculator and started counting b/ it just seemed there was a lot of reverting just for the pure h/ of it. Just b/c people had the power to do it. I try never to make a change w/o opening a discussion about it and justifying it. It's just simple respect. yea I know I came in here with guns blazing b/c the article was blocked in a "wrong version" w/o even a NPOV warning  b/ I havn't called anybody a name lately. Take Care! --Will 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Revert Rule 

message: Armon and Isarig have removed relevant sourced material for reasons that were cryptically explained at best.  The two main issues are:
(1) The Iraq war.  I think these three points are each different claims that should be evidenced with Cole's reasoning in order to demonstrate his views.  This page is not just for criticism; it is also for his own views (and his own views should constitute the majority of information here).  I am not complaining about the criticism but I do not think his views should be summarily deleted just because some of our editors disagree with them.  The three arguments here against the Iraq war are all very different from your typical anti-war arguments and should not be collapsed or short changed, especially when we have an entire paragraph on the alleged contradiction.
(2) The experts who support Cole's interpretation of the OBL "election speech."  The expert opinions establish that Cole's interpretation is not just some poor translation.  The issue is not the translation of the word -- in fact, my version of this section included a line where Cole expresses agreement with the MEMRI translation literally -- but the interpretation of its significance.  It is relevant that counterterrorism experts, when specifically asked about the MEMRI vs. Cole interpretations, chose the Cole one for similar reasons to those expressed by Cole.
Please, folks, let's not have another revert war on these points; let's discuss them before any more unwarranted deletions occur.--csloat 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq + Translators 

message: If I understand Isarig correctly, he thinks the criticism of Cole isn't that Cole believes that Feith in particular has dual loyalties, but that Cole believes that all US officials who are also supporters of the Likud government have dual loyalties.  IMHO, that's fair enough.  As a second compromise proposal, I have rewritten the section to quote Cole's opinions on Likud supporters generally, but removed what Isarig feels is a side issue -- Cole's opinion of Feith personally.
I have tried to accurately convey what I understand Cole to have written, which is that in Cole's opinion, the Likud government is so reprehensible that anyone who supports it is not fit to serve in the US government.  Whether Cole is right, wrong, or anti-semitic is an issue for the reader, but I've done my best to represent his opinion accurately.  Again, everyone please let me know what you think, and please feel free to suggest or make changes, just remember that we want to represent all sides of the debate fairly.  TheronJ 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was defining NAS not classic AS but that's what NAS does to you. That's its mischief, it confuses the two. Mea Culpa. My apology. I forgot to put the NEW in front of AS. The most highbrow definition I've seen is "AS is the identification of a perceived "Mercurial" component working at a crosscurrent to an "Appolarian" culture and the associated repression mechanism."  "Mercurial" covered such traits as diaspora, entrepernarial, mercantile, transnational, and covered groups such as the overland Chinese, Jews, Lebanese, Scots. Take Care! --Will 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, Will, that's unfair on so many levels.  You  are trolling again.  If I am to assume good faith on your part, I would have to say that I honestly can't believe you actually believe the bigoted and uninformed views of the extraordinarily complex situation you spout here.  Elizmr 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will.  I don't need to reinvent the wheel for you.  Just read the antisemitism and new antisemitism articles in wikipedia.  Elizmr 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I had read the protected disputed article about the new-anti-sem. and many agree with the following:
"Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate. [14] [15] Tariq Ali has written in Counterpunch that recent usage of the term is a "cynical ploy" by the Israeli government to shield itself from criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians." Take Care! --Will 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is also Cole's take on the issue.  You asked for a def, and I pointed to one.  Elizmr 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new compromise proposal

message: Isn't describing a source as "partisan" inserting POV?  Elizmr 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when the source is openly partisan.  The National Review wears that like a badge; pretending it is anything other would be a lie.--csloat 06:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem putting that in for those sources when relevant, or for any other.  I also don't have a problem with not using the modifier here, but I do have a problem with pretending it is a nonpartisan source in order to satisfy some abstract NPOV standard that is divorced from reality.  It is no more POV to say that the National Review is partisan than it is to say that George W. Bush is Republican.--csloat 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And sometimes it is a good thing to call attention to bias.  I'm not saying it is here; as I said above I am not defending that edit.  But I also don't think it is at all out of line to call attention to bias in Wikipedia articles.--csloat 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Partisan"

message: This section seems to be lengthening again.  Should we pare down:
Experts differed as to which interpretation, MEMRI's or Cole's, is the correct one.Brookings Institute Scholar Omer Taspinar noted, "Why would he make a difference between California, Ohio, Pennsylvania? These are all American states. Al Qaeda would attack where it's going to attack. If he had wanted to target states, he would have easily said, 'Any state that votes for Bush is on our list of targets.'...He would have given a direct warning."[29] And Rand Corporation terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman told the Philadelphia Daily News that bin Laden's statement "'was not about...affecting the results of an election,' particularly since both Bush and Kerry have vowed to track him down. In view of that common stance, Hoffman said, it's 'a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"[30] A different viewpoint was expressed by James S. Robbins, senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and contributing editor to the National Review Online who accepted MEMRI's translation and concluded that "Osama bin Laden does not want you to vote for George W. Bush...When placed in full context, it is clear that MEMRI's analysis is correct; bin Laden is trying to strike a deal with the American people to use the power of the ballot to create more blue states than red."[31]
To this:
"Expert commentators differed concerning the correct interpretation of Bin Laden's meaning(refs)".  I won't change it, but note that the translation disputes section could easily overwhelm the article.  Elizmr 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that to distinguish between the two sources may be overly picky.  I'm not sure what the import of the whole Bin Laden thing is anyway.  Thematically, it reads similarly to the dispute that follows.  Some international "bad boy" says something very provacative.  Many interpret it as threatening.  Cole sees it as less threatening, almost philosophical or poetic.  I don't see what the big deal is here.  Academics make their reptuations by taking something and looking at it in a new way, giving it a new spin based on the insight that they've gained from their particular field of study.  It is not suprising that Cole would translate things a little differently.  That's his bread and butter.  (note: It is a bit suprising that he attacks people who don't agree with him.  I don't expect that (in print on record) from an academic.)  I personally think we should leave out the translation disputes entirely in the article.Elizmr 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question and never has been of Cole seeing OBL as "less threatening" and certainly not of Cole interpreting his threats as "poetic." The issue in this speech is whether OBL includes a specific threat to states who vote for Bush. In other words, what is at stake is politicking for an election long past. So let's keep the issue straight; it has nothing to do with what Cole's being accused of by Hitchens on the Iranian translation. In addition, and let us be very clear about this, this thing really isn't a "dispute" at all. There is nobody, repeat, nobody, criticizing Cole's interpretation of the speech. MEMRI gave a controversial interpretation and Cole criticized MEMRI's interpretation. MEMRI has never responded to Cole (and there is no reason they would or should bother to). I think everyone involved has likely since realized that the question of who OBL would vote for in a US election was silly, and that the only reason they were preoccupied with it was that the election had not yet occurred. I would be happy to remove this entire section, but I am vehemently opposed to portraying it as a debate between Cole and his detractors. That's simply not what is going on here. I certainly agree with you Elizmr about shortening this section, and I would also agree that these translation disputes are better off left out entirely. They are petty. But if they're going to be mentioned at all, we should keep them in context.--csloat 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are way overestimating the power of Cole's translation to influence current events, but that is a side issue.  G-d forbid any escalation of the current state of violence in the world, which is over the top as it is, but if you are editing Wikipedia as some kind of brief to the world to prevent war, you are using Wiki for a soapbox.  However, if you thought that particular issue was very central, you could write something on it in "views" without all of the accompanying "he said she said" baggage of what is now in translation disputes.  Elizmr 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh come on Will, I agree the process of editing Wikipedia can be a peace-creating one (however your trolling is not contributing to this), however when you argue that something non-encyclopedic has to be in the encyclopedia for a politically motivated reason to influence world events that is completely a different thing.  I'm not saying anyone should go in and take Iran out, I am opposed to this, however before WWII softpedaling Hitler's power for destruction and intent could have been interpreted as working for peace while it would actually have saved 6million+ lives.  We are here to tell the truth, we're not arguing a brief here.  Elizmr 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just an aside) 6 million? That was just the Holocaust "proper". It's closer to 21 million -see democide --Armon 01:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Csloat claims that my points here have been addressed and refuted. Would anyone mind doing it? --Armon 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, as I said below: "It's not that there was no "serious" criticism of Cole; there was no criticism of Cole.  MEMRI never responded to Cole (probably in part because, after the election, MEMRI realized Cole was correct)."  Now, let's forget the debate over my paranthetical comment, since it is extraneous.  The fact is there is no actual "controversy" here.  Some writers discussed a possible interpretation of OBL's use of a particular word.  Cole suggested a different opinion.  When a reporter actually asked other experts about Cole's interpretation, they agreed with Cole.  Nobody criticized Cole's interpretation in print, to my knowledge.  And the election was over a year and a half ago, and the topic has not been discussed since.  I would be happy to see this information on the page about OBL's videotape (I forget what it's called but it exists), as it is relevant there.  But it is simply not a "controversy concerning Cole."--csloat 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Note the title of this article is "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" and my point that a "controversy involving Cole can also originate from Cole". This is why I wanted clarification on the article's content. Armon 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed my error above.  My point is not that this doesn't "concern Cole" but rather that it is not a "controversy."  Since it has been voted on and nobody has supported your position I will delete it.--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, that's a big assumption, but in any case, I think we need to clarify exactly what this page is about. I think that will likely solve most of our disputes. Please see below --Armon 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  You may have noticed, George Bush was in fact reelected, and there was no further threats nor any carrying out of any threats against "Bush" states.  The whole thing was electioneering nonsense, and Yigal Carmon is probably smart enough to have recognized that by now.  But the motivations do not matter -- the fact is, MEMRI has not replied to Cole's argument, nor has anyone else.  I checked below and don't see any reason to keep this section, so it goes.--csloat 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree that Cole was "correct" and MEMRI wrong so much as there wasn't really any way to judge.  Both Cole and MEMRI agree that "wiliyah" is an archaic term meaning administrative province, but Cole thinks that Bin Laden meant "Nation" and MEMRI doesn't.  They agree on the translation, but disagree on the Bin Laden mindreading.  Niether a notable "contoversy" nor a notable "view," IMHO.TheronJ 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no way to read OBL's mind, but there is a way to make a reasoned judgment about this.  We know that Bush won the election.  We know that there were no terrorist attacks on "red" states.  We know that OBL has made no subsequent threats to individual states.  We also know, for the reasons cited by Cole, that it is extremely improbable that OBL would have meant such a thing.  The preponderance of evidence and analysis leans heavily in Cole's direction.  But it's neither here nor there; as we agree, this isn't much of a "controversy."--csloat 20:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that argument, Bin Laden didn't mean [i]anything[/i] by "wilayah," because there haven't been any attacks on America as a whole either.  ;-P TheronJ 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize you're just being "snarky" but it's not the mere lack of attacks I am pointing to, but the complete lack of any reference to the state thing at all since the election.  He has certainly threatened attacks since the election, and none of his threats single out Bush supporters.  Let's follow MEMRI's logic for a second.  Why has OBL not singled out Georgia or North Dakota for attack when he issued threats in 2005 and 2006?  His April 2006 audiotape does not even mention Tennessee, Al Gore's home state, which went to Bush.  And his January 2006 speech never once mentions Ohio or Florida!  Surely the close vote in those states and rumors of election regularities must have gotten his goat, since MEMRI claims he is so meticulous about American electoral politics.  And it's quite amazing that he hasn't mentioned upcoming attacks on "Bush voters."  Why is he wasting time threatening attacks in Sudan, when he should be threatening Texas?  Why did al Qaeda attack London instead of Indiana?  And why did al-Zawahiri's comments on the London bombing single out the Queen as an "enemy of Islam" instead of Bill Frist?  Surely Zawahiri is well aware that Frist headed the platform committee for the Republican National Convention in 2004? --csloat 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK you're not going to like this, but one possibility is because the "war" had been brought to him in Afghanistan, and then the Iraq war has focused Jihadi efforts there, instead of at the US. London and the Sudan are softer targets. It's the standard neocon line. Also, if you're expecting some kind of consistency in OBL's threats, you won't find any. See his statements re: 9/11 --Armon 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I "like" it just fine, as a joke.  But it's not what we're talking about (and it's patently untrue; you might want to review newspaper accounts of early July 2005 in London in case you missed what was happening there a few months after the speech in question).  My point above is that OBL is not involved in the minutiae of the American electoral college.  It is illogical nonsense that he would threaten states whose electors chose Bush and spare the others, which is why Cole considered MEMRI's interpretation of the speech "impossible."  It's also obvious, since OBL makes the point in that very speech that neither Bush nor Kerry would make a difference in terms of his planned attack.  It is funny to me that the US media are so wrapped up in elections that the important things said in this speech about Iraq were totally missed in favor of speculation about whom OBL wanted for president.  (Especially, in fact, when we already have an official al-Qaeda statement from a few months earlier specifically saying they prefer Bush as president!  Why try to read tea leaves with the word "state" when al Qaeda has much more direct statements?)  Finally, if you think OBL is not logical in his threats, you are terribly misjudging your enemy (and, incidentally, such poor judgement is the reason the Bush Administration's strategy to deal with this particular enemy has been such an abject failure).--csloat 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just giving you an alternate explanation and was referring to OBL's apparent denials and then acceptance of responsibility for 9/11. This discussion is degrading into yet another "Quest for the TRUTH" when it's beyond our scope. --Armon 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: translation disputes

message: I propose the section on the OBL speech be eliminated entirely as per the above discussion; anyone opposed please state your reasons.  Thanks!--csloat 06:36, 31 May 2006 
(UTC)
*AGREEElizmr 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Csloat claims that my points here have been addressed and refuted. Would anyone mind doing it? --Armon 05:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, as I said below: "It's not that there was no "serious" criticism of Cole; there was no criticism of Cole.  MEMRI never responded to Cole (probably in part because, after the election, MEMRI realized Cole was correct)."  Now, let's forget the debate over my paranthetical comment, since it is extraneous.  The fact is there is no actual "controversy" here.  Some writers discussed a possible interpretation of OBL's use of a particular word.  Cole suggested a different opinion.  When a reporter actually asked other experts about Cole's interpretation, they agreed with Cole.  Nobody criticized Cole's interpretation in print, to my knowledge.  And the election was over a year and a half ago, and the topic has not been discussed since.  I would be happy to see this information on the page about OBL's videotape (I forget what it's called but it exists), as it is relevant there.  But it is simply not a "controversy concerning Cole."--csloat 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Note the title of this article is "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" and my point that a "controversy involving Cole can also originate from Cole". This is why I wanted clarification on the article's content. Armon 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed my error above.  My point is not that this doesn't "concern Cole" but rather that it is not a "controversy."  Since it has been voted on and nobody has supported your position I will delete it.--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, that's a big assumption, but in any case, I think we need to clarify exactly what this page is about. I think that will likely solve most of our disputes. Please see below --Armon 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  You may have noticed, George Bush was in fact reelected, and there was no further threats nor any carrying out of any threats against "Bush" states.  The whole thing was electioneering nonsense, and Yigal Carmon is probably smart enough to have recognized that by now.  But the motivations do not matter -- the fact is, MEMRI has not replied to Cole's argument, nor has anyone else.  I checked below and don't see any reason to keep this section, so it goes.--csloat 20:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree that Cole was "correct" and MEMRI wrong so much as there wasn't really any way to judge.  Both Cole and MEMRI agree that "wiliyah" is an archaic term meaning administrative province, but Cole thinks that Bin Laden meant "Nation" and MEMRI doesn't.  They agree on the translation, but disagree on the Bin Laden mindreading.  Niether a notable "contoversy" nor a notable "view," IMHO.TheronJ 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no way to read OBL's mind, but there is a way to make a reasoned judgment about this.  We know that Bush won the election.  We know that there were no terrorist attacks on "red" states.  We know that OBL has made no subsequent threats to individual states.  We also know, for the reasons cited by Cole, that it is extremely improbable that OBL would have meant such a thing.  The preponderance of evidence and analysis leans heavily in Cole's direction.  But it's neither here nor there; as we agree, this isn't much of a "controversy."--csloat 20:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that argument, Bin Laden didn't mean [i]anything[/i] by "wilayah," because there haven't been any attacks on America as a whole either.  ;-P TheronJ 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize you're just being "snarky" but it's not the mere lack of attacks I am pointing to, but the complete lack of any reference to the state thing at all since the election.  He has certainly threatened attacks since the election, and none of his threats single out Bush supporters.  Let's follow MEMRI's logic for a second.  Why has OBL not singled out Georgia or North Dakota for attack when he issued threats in 2005 and 2006?  His April 2006 audiotape does not even mention Tennessee, Al Gore's home state, which went to Bush.  And his January 2006 speech never once mentions Ohio or Florida!  Surely the close vote in those states and rumors of election regularities must have gotten his goat, since MEMRI claims he is so meticulous about American electoral politics.  And it's quite amazing that he hasn't mentioned upcoming attacks on "Bush voters."  Why is he wasting time threatening attacks in Sudan, when he should be threatening Texas?  Why did al Qaeda attack London instead of Indiana?  And why did al-Zawahiri's comments on the London bombing single out the Queen as an "enemy of Islam" instead of Bill Frist?  Surely Zawahiri is well aware that Frist headed the platform committee for the Republican National Convention in 2004? --csloat 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK you're not going to like this, but one possibility is because the "war" had been brought to him in Afghanistan, and then the Iraq war has focused Jihadi efforts there, instead of at the US. London and the Sudan are softer targets. It's the standard neocon line. Also, if you're expecting some kind of consistency in OBL's threats, you won't find any. See his statements re: 9/11 --Armon 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I "like" it just fine, as a joke.  But it's not what we're talking about (and it's patently untrue; you might want to review newspaper accounts of early July 2005 in London in case you missed what was happening there a few months after the speech in question).  My point above is that OBL is not involved in the minutiae of the American electoral college.  It is illogical nonsense that he would threaten states whose electors chose Bush and spare the others, which is why Cole considered MEMRI's interpretation of the speech "impossible."  It's also obvious, since OBL makes the point in that very speech that neither Bush nor Kerry would make a difference in terms of his planned attack.  It is funny to me that the US media are so wrapped up in elections that the important things said in this speech about Iraq were totally missed in favor of speculation about whom OBL wanted for president.  (Especially, in fact, when we already have an official al-Qaeda statement from a few months earlier specifically saying they prefer Bush as president!  Why try to read tea leaves with the word "state" when al Qaeda has much more direct statements?)  Finally, if you think OBL is not logical in his threats, you are terribly misjudging your enemy (and, incidentally, such poor judgement is the reason the Bush Administration's strategy to deal with this particular enemy has been such an abject failure).--csloat 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just giving you an alternate explanation and was referring to OBL's apparent denials and then acceptance of responsibility for 9/11. This discussion is degrading into yet another "Quest for the TRUTH" when it's beyond our scope. --Armon 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove OBL speech translation "dispute"

message: So much of this discussion is on Karsh's attack on Cole as an new-antisemite. And we spend endless hours keyboarding whether Cole is an ant-semite or a neo-anti-semite or new-anti-semite. But Cole has himself written on the suject of New-Anti-Semitism (herinafter "NAS") the very brush with which it appears he himself is here being vigoursly daubed. Since the subject article is aobut JC's views and controversis. there should be a section about his views re NAS.
Here is a start from the WP NAS article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#To_Add_to_Criticism_Section:_Juan_Cole
"To Add to Criticism Section: Juan Cole
Juan Cole, a Michigan historian and pundit, has also written on about this subject. In the context of 2002 when many were concerned about the deterioriate situation in the Occupied Territories, Cole argued that some where using the label of "anti-Semitism" to silence criticisms of the policies of Arial Sharon's government:
"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 false and monstrous equation of practical criticism of Ariel Sharon's policies with anti-Semitism is designed to silence voices critical of those policies, and to make the divestment movement look as though it were motivated merely by bigotry."
"Summers's statements are most urgently dangerous because they cheapen the phrase "anti-Semitism," and thereby weaken its force and its power in the struggle for civil liberties and human rights for everyone."
From: Juan Cole, The Misuses of Anti-Semitism, George Mason University's History News Network, September 20, 2002. http://hnn.us/articles/1002.html  Take Care! --Will 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to Add a Views Section: Cole on the New-Anti-Semitism

message: Armon, I see being blocked for violating WP rules has not caused you to reflect at all upon the purpose of the discussion page as you were asked to by the administrator who blocked you.  Please use the talk page to justify your controversial changes, especially when they are currently in dispute by other editors!  Being bold is one thing; being obnoxious is quite another.  When you remove sourced and reliable information wholesale for obvious POV reasons and the only explanation in the edit summary is "snip bloat," your edits have crossed the line into obnoxia.  Once again I invite you to show good faith and revert your edits and engage in a discussion about your proposed changes rather than foregoing the discussion and making massive POV changes.  If you ever want the NPOV tag removed, you have to engage in conversation about your changes.  Armon a lot of us on both sides of the issue have worked very hard in the talk page to discuss the reasons for particular changes; your wholesale editing without responding to talk is insulting to those of us who have invested a lot of time and energy into this process.--csloat 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat if you don't want an edit-war, don't do it, it's that simple. Otherwise, continue as you have, but at least spare me the disingenuous righteous indignation. Oh, and AGF please! --Armon 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Armon, I'd second the request that you engage on the talk page.  Either talk first, then edit, or edit and talk at the same time (but risk reversion), but either way, start a discussion on your edits.  It's the only way to get past an edit war, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how willing people are to discuss your issues.TheronJ 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Can you tell I've just quit smoking? I've got no problem discussing, what I have a problem with are endless circular "arguments" that go nowhere. The edits/issues csloat is bitching about have discussed over and over again. One of the main points of the consensus before Cole was unblocked was that it needed to be more concise -and not a soapbox for either side. It's been already discussed, and it's been made clear that the article suffered from an "arms race" approach which lead to a lot of bloated soapboxing. Unsurprisingly, the only person who took issue with that was csloat. Unless there's a valid reason to include repetitive points from Cole (apparently based on the assumption used on these talk pages that repetition somehow makes your argument stronger) I will delete them. I will not (and didn't) add in more "criticism" to "balance things out" (other than what was deleted). In fact, I summarized a point from Cole on the Iraq war which hadn't been there before. Ultimately, the edits should speak for themselves, so if I can't be bothered writing a novel about why "soapboxing" is "soapboxing" and a violation of WP:Point every time I clean some up, please just compare the versions. --Armon 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon these points are not repetitive.  You are deleting relevant sourced commentary only because you disagree with it, not because it is "repetitive."  This is not soapboxing; this is simply being correct about the context and arguments being made.  And frankly if you refuse to engage in talk explaining your edits, you shouldn't be surprised to see them reverted every time.--csloat 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have an objection/concern re: Cole's "3 points" on Iraq war, but let's set that aside for now. I'd like your input to clarify what this article's purpose is because that may solve most of the problem anyway. --Armon 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So let's just remove the [sic] -we're not the grammar police and it's unclear what it's referring to. --Armon 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and cheers for the moral support re: smoking. Difficult yeah, but I don't know if I'd call it "brave". I'm quitting because I'm scared of the health effects ;) --Armon 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... it's brave to give up an emotional crutch as strong as cigarettes.  As for the [sic] -- it's obvious what it refers to.  It refers to the crappy grammar.  I think if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility in that sense, we should either include the [sic] or remove the sentence fragment.  My preference is definitely the latter.--csloat 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've presented a false choice -all we need to do is remove the [sic]. Karsh's "crappy grammar" is his problem, and leaving it in suggests a POV discrediting of his point because of it. --Armon 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But leaving Karsh's crappy grammar in makes it Wikipedia's problem.  I don't understand what point is conveyed by this incomplete sentence.  It is incoherent.  Why can't we just leave it out as I suggested?  I thought the one thing we could find common ground on is that an encyclopedia should use the English language properly.  The [sic] was Isarig's suggestion, not mine; my preference is to remove the sentence fragment entirely.  Surely if this so-called "point" were so important, Karsh would have repeated it elsewhere in the article using complete sentences?  Can someone else jump into this discussion?  Am I the only one who thinks grammar is important in an encyclopedia?  This article is embarrassing enough as it is without such obvious flaws.  And, by the way, the [sic] is not a POV discrediting of Karsh; Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own.  The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem.  But again I would prefer to do without the [sic] entirely--csloat 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own. The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem." Your needing to "confirm" his crappy grammar has just proven my point about it being an attempt to discredit Karsh. If his grammar is really so self-discrediting, we don't need to point it out -just be happy he's doing it for you. Armon 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're misreading this entirely.  My point is that the [sic] confirms to the reader that there was no mistake in quotation (that's why it is used).  If you don't like the sic, let's remove the crappy grammar!  But if we're going to keep it, we need the sic, for the credibility of wikipedia.  This has nothing to do with discrediting Karsh; this has to do with Wikipedia's credibility.  I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would insist on keeping an incomplete (and incoherent) sentence in an encyclopedia!--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Precis -- now we see that it was a Wikipedia editor, and not Karsh, who was responsible for the crappy grammar.  I think we should either include the whole sentence or exclude it (I prefer the latter, since the sentence offers no new information).  Keeping a partial sentence in is not a good idea, IMHO.--csloat 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Cole rejects this interpretation, however; regarding "the attribution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the statement that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'," he states: "No such idiom exists in Persian, and Ahmadinejad actually just quoted an old speech of Khomeini in which he said 'The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' Of course Ahamdinejad does wish Israel would disappear, but he is not commander of the armed forces and could not attack it even if he wanted to, which he denies."
This quote is sourced and relevant.  It responds on point to the charge made by Sullivan.  I think the Sullivan quote should go as well if we are removing this; or are you only interested in removing soapboxing from one side?  I don't think it's reasonable at all to give Sullivan the soapbox in this piece when it is really a debate between Hitchens and Cole, but if we're going to include him, it is only fair to include Cole responding to the specific concern Sullivan raises.--csloat 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sloat here.  I don't see anything wrong with leaving Cole's and Sullivan's cites here.Elizmr 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchen's doesnt blog, his buddy Sullivan does, so the rejoinder is effectively coming from him. The rejoinder to the rejoinder quote from Cole is not a response to the points of either Hitchens or Sullivan but a simple repetition of what wrote in his first blog post on the Slate article. The only reason to keep it is to give Cole the last word -therefore it's soapboxing. --Armon 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Armon. What new point does Cole make in the last quote, that he has not already made in pervious quotes? Isarig 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a repeat, then I totally agree with Armon and Isrig. How about you Sloat--do you think there's anything new there? If so, what is it since A and I aren't clear.  Elizmr 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive edits by Armon 

message: Armon, the reason for the [sic] is that we have a sentence fragment preceding it.  To the reader it appears as if the sentence was mutilated in transit; however, it is a direct quote.  I don't like it there either; it was Isarig's suggestion.  My other suggestion was to delete this sentence entirely, but that suggestion was not met with a positive reaction.  Surely Wikipedia would be better off if we only quoted Karsh when he used the language properly? I know we don't agree on much else, but I am certain we can find common ground on this point.  And, by the way, congratulations on quitting smoking.  It is a brave and difficult move but it is very much worth it.  It gets much easier after the first couple weeks.--csloat 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's just remove the [sic] -we're not the grammar police and it's unclear what it's referring to. --Armon 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and cheers for the moral support re: smoking. Difficult yeah, but I don't know if I'd call it "brave". I'm quitting because I'm scared of the health effects ;) --Armon 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... it's brave to give up an emotional crutch as strong as cigarettes.  As for the [sic] -- it's obvious what it refers to.  It refers to the crappy grammar.  I think if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility in that sense, we should either include the [sic] or remove the sentence fragment.  My preference is definitely the latter.--csloat 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've presented a false choice -all we need to do is remove the [sic]. Karsh's "crappy grammar" is his problem, and leaving it in suggests a POV discrediting of his point because of it. --Armon 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But leaving Karsh's crappy grammar in makes it Wikipedia's problem.  I don't understand what point is conveyed by this incomplete sentence.  It is incoherent.  Why can't we just leave it out as I suggested?  I thought the one thing we could find common ground on is that an encyclopedia should use the English language properly.  The [sic] was Isarig's suggestion, not mine; my preference is to remove the sentence fragment entirely.  Surely if this so-called "point" were so important, Karsh would have repeated it elsewhere in the article using complete sentences?  Can someone else jump into this discussion?  Am I the only one who thinks grammar is important in an encyclopedia?  This article is embarrassing enough as it is without such obvious flaws.  And, by the way, the [sic] is not a POV discrediting of Karsh; Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own.  The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem.  But again I would prefer to do without the [sic] entirely--csloat 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Karsh's crappy grammar discredits him on its own. The [sic] simply confirms to the reader that the poor grammar is, as you say, Karsh's problem." Your needing to "confirm" his crappy grammar has just proven my point about it being an attempt to discredit Karsh. If his grammar is really so self-discrediting, we don't need to point it out -just be happy he's doing it for you. Armon 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're misreading this entirely.  My point is that the [sic] confirms to the reader that there was no mistake in quotation (that's why it is used).  If you don't like the sic, let's remove the crappy grammar!  But if we're going to keep it, we need the sic, for the credibility of wikipedia.  This has nothing to do with discrediting Karsh; this has to do with Wikipedia's credibility.  I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would insist on keeping an incomplete (and incoherent) sentence in an encyclopedia!--csloat 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Precis -- now we see that it was a Wikipedia editor, and not Karsh, who was responsible for the crappy grammar.  I think we should either include the whole sentence or exclude it (I prefer the latter, since the sentence offers no new information).  Keeping a partial sentence in is not a good idea, IMHO.--csloat 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removing [sic]

message: Armon I have asked you several times to explain your deletions with something more substantive than "rm repetitive soapboxing."  Now you have again deleted the following for the third or fourth time:
:Cole rejects this interpretation, however; regarding "the attribution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the statement that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'," he states: "No such idiom exists in Persian, and Ahmadinejad actually just quoted an old speech of Khomeini in which he said 'The occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' Of course Ahamdinejad does wish Israel would disappear, but he is not commander of the armed forces and could not attack it even if he wanted to, which he denies."
This quote is sourced and relevant.  It responds on point to the charge made by Sullivan.  I think the Sullivan quote should go as well if we are removing this; or are you only interested in removing soapboxing from one side?  I don't think it's reasonable at all to give Sullivan the soapbox in this piece when it is really a debate between Hitchens and Cole, but if we're going to include him, it is only fair to include Cole responding to the specific concern Sullivan raises.--csloat 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sloat here.  I don't see anything wrong with leaving Cole's and Sullivan's cites here.Elizmr 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitchen's doesnt blog, his buddy Sullivan does, so the rejoinder is effectively coming from him. The rejoinder to the rejoinder quote from Cole is not a response to the points of either Hitchens or Sullivan but a simple repetition of what wrote in his first blog post on the Slate article. The only reason to keep it is to give Cole the last word -therefore it's soapboxing. --Armon 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Armon. What new point does Cole make in the last quote, that he has not already made in pervious quotes? Isarig 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a repeat, then I totally agree with Armon and Isrig. How about you Sloat--do you think there's anything new there? If so, what is it since A and I aren't clear.  Elizmr 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removing "repetitive soapboxing"

message: The reader will see the Farsi quote and wonder "Why is the article now picking a single word from the quote and translating it?"
After this initial puzzling distraction, the reader will learn about the controversy. A few sentences later, in the proper place, Qods is translated.
The reader will soon understand what is going on.  The writer intended to plant "Jerusalem" very early into the mind of the reader.
Why?  Perhaps to suggest that in any translation dispute, the translation emphasizing Jerusalem is the correct one?   If the article is going to translate
right from the beginning, it should translate every word, instead of cherry-picking a single word which could have the effect of poisoning the well.
Precis 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and, as I've repeately pointed out, the word Qods/Jerusalem is irrelevant to the crux of the debate in any case. Armon 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY WILL WHY...do you keep inserting this little sentence about Quods into the article?????????????????????????????  As you have inserted it, it is WP:OR, it breaks the flow of the article, and it is also irrelevant.  I'm sure you are inserting the thing there to support Cole's point that PresAh. is referring to only pre1967 Israel borders.  However, the sentence reads "the regime that is occupying Quods" not "occupied Quods", ie--the SUBJECT is THE REGIME and not QUODS.  Do you get this?  Could you stop putting in this sentence of yours?  Cole's point is made below.  If you feel it is not made well enough where it is made, please go ahead and clarify or expland there, but please stop putting back this little Quods sentence, OK?  Elizmr 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early insertion of Qods