Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 1

message: Just because text appears identically elsewhere on the net, does that mean it is automatically copyright-protected?
:It should certainly be investigated, and probably is plagarism. Gyre 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: I hope this stub is going to replace the original page on or about November 30 (as the copyvio deletion policy states). Cole has just become newsworthy as a result of a lawsuit threat.--Dhartung 12:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifed. 

message: Who is Michael J. Totten? Is he just some guy with a blog? Is the link here solely because it's something critical of Cole, or is he salient for some other reason? Sullivan and Goldberg, by contrast, are well known. —Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
:seems like it.  There's now about four links there based around Totten's article purporting to be a "fisking" (new word to me, is there a wikipedia entry on it yet?) of Juan.  I reckon possibly only the response by Ali to that one entry in Juan's blog is of any great significance.  PaulHammond 12:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, fisking has an (awkward) entry. I don't see that either the Jarvis or Totten articles are salient to the Wikipedia; somebody just wants to get their digs in, I suspect. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Michael J. Totten" 

message: Every link in this article is derived from critics of Juan Cole except for the link to his blog.
Other than the standard CV stuff all we have is a criticism of him. -- posted by 62.255.32.14
:I agree, except that Sullivan and Goldberg are notable figures. Almost anybody else's "response to Cole's blog" being listed is silly and promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to aggregate criticism. That's what sites like Technorati are for. 
:My impulse here is to delete the "Iraqthemodel" link and replace it with the Foreign Policy in Focus article which featured Cole among other bloggers.  --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the NPOV tag is needed. The critical articles are mostly balanced with his own (very effective) responses. --Lee Hunter 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia isn't here to "balance". It's here to provide encyclopedic information to the public. This has nothing to do with whether he gives as good as he gets or not; the Wikipedia might as well cross-reference all the people who praise his posts as well. Any given debate with another blogger is not intrinsically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Ok we've gone from describing Cole's writings as "Chomskian" (which is quite frankly, bizaare) to saying that he's an admirer of Chomsky, which is just peculiar. Especially since the link you posted as a citation (sorry, I fed it to you by mistake) was not actually written by Cole. It was on his blog but the post was by Mark Levine. 
--Lee Hunter 02:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that out after a second.  The fact is that Jaun shares Chomsky's analysis of US forieng policy as being driven by a jewish neo-con cabal bent on world domination in service of Israel with the Middle East as the lynchpin of some grand master plan to establish a one-world Likud Government.  Klonimus 04:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - one often finds in mathematics, that if people get the same answer, and it's right, it's because they've worked it out correctly - but if they get the same answer and it's wrong, that's usually because one of them copied the other.  Cole's analysis sounds similar to Chomsky's because both accounts are essentially correct.  btw - jewish?  This is you attempting to have a crack at Cole calling him anti-semitic without having the guts to say this directly, right? PaulHammond 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they could both be a set of shameless self promoters who have figured out that if you repeat back fashionable leftist platitutes and a grand conspiracy to readers of the BBC/NPR and the guardian, you have a built in audience. I am perfectly willing to say that Chomsky is a self hating jew, and that Juan Cole has latent anti-semitism that is often expressed in his writings. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to say this anti-semitic crap is a total load of bullshit.  PaulHammond 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it was also just a total load of bullshit.  But unfortunatey it's very real, otherwise why would Juan see a Jews/Israel behind everything that goes on in the world? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't. You're making it up.  And you don't "wish that it was a total load of bullshit" - you're just making a smear of the anti-semitism accusation because you haven't got a substantial argument to make. PaulHammond 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it floats  like a duck. Anyone who beleives in a vast jewish neocon conspiracy to manipulate US foreign policy and the media, is either a kook or an anti-semite. You can take your pick, and even choose both, Klonimus 06:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me even one example where Cole has even obliquely hinted at a "vast Jewish conspiracy".  Douglas Feith advanced Israel's interests at the horrific expense of the United States. That makes him a traitor in the eyes of many people. Calling Feith a traitor is not an act of anti-semitism. --Lee Hunter 14:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Fun - I just came across this.  Now your anti-Coleism starts to make sense! PaulHammond 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Juan Cole, remains a discredited leftist. Regardless of Anonyme's unsuitablity for adminship (with which 34 other people agree'd with me). Perhaps you care to explain the connection? Klonimus 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I read Cole as mostly saying that US foreign policy is driven by a neo-con cabal that is arrogant, incompetent and deeply ignorant of Middle Eastern history and society. And he certainly suggests that the neo-cons have been seriously "played" by Israeli intelligence and politicians. I haven't come across any mention of one-world Likud government yet but maybe I'm missing something. --Lee Hunter 13:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east. The difference is that he isn't as discredited as Chomsky is, yet. He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre. Klonimus 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You write "Cole got all his idea's from Chomsky's analysis of the middle east."  So what you're saying is that for the last thirty years Cole has only been pretending to study Middle East history, only pretending to travel and study there, while really he was just looking over Chomsky's shoulder. I'd be curious to know what evidence you have for that (other than the fact that they both think Bush and Company are a threat to global peace and security. At least 80% of the world's population shares that belief.) You also write "He's just another player of the great jewish conspiracy genre." Isn't this old canard about people who criticize the Israeli government being anti-semitic getting a little tired? Don't you think it's possible that people criticize the Israeli government simply because the Israeli government pursues policies that warrant criticism? --Lee Hunter 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Basicly, I don't think Cole is creditable about anything besides the pernicious effects of entrenched academic leftism. Maybe he did do alot of study in the middle east, but AFAIK his political writings are based on Chomskian analysis, so facts are not nearly so important to him as adhernce to fashionable self created theory.As for criticism of the Israeli goverment, quite a bit of it is legitamate, and quite a bit of it motivated by latent anti-semitism that either preconscious (unknown) and unconscious (repressed). However at the presant time its not politically correct to hate jews openly, and so anti-semetism gets channeled into "progressive" critiques of israel and talk of Jewish neo-con cabals infiltrating the US government and media in the service of Israel. Klonimus 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Klonimos you are talking out your *ss.  I read this whole discussion and have yet to see a single piece of evidence (such as a quote from Cole, for example) to suggest that he is anti-semitic or that he is just rehashing Chomsky.  You say "facts are not nearly so important to him" as ideology, yet instead of citing facts yourself you say "AFAIK his political writings are based" on Chomsky's.  Sorry but "AFAIK" doesn't cut it as "evidence," particularly not for such an obviously ignorant claim.--csloat 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky

message: Is there a source for the statement he received this "honor" in 2003?  I don't find it on Cole's c.v. page.  TIA  FRS 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling produces only this PR from Swarthmore .--Lee Hunter 17:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's good enough for me, I guess.  Interesting that a search for "Legion of Iran" alone returns only the blurb about Cole.  
FRS 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, on second thought, I'm uneasy about this factoid.  The Swarthmore PR is dated October 19, 2005 and uses the exact same words as the WP article: "He received the Legion of Iran, the highest official honor for a foreigner, during a visit to Iran in 2003."  The genesis of the factoid seems to come from this diff:  posted by an anon IP October 9, which, uh, you, LeeHunter, deleted later that same day.  Two days Later User:Equitor put back in the variant of the text that presently exists.  I raise the issue b/c an award from the 2003 government of Iran is not exactly like an honorary degree from Yale.  A lot of people will consider it a serious blemish, not an "honor."  Anyway, we need a better cite.  FRS 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up an RfC for this issue in hope of getting more eyes on it.  I find it hard to believe this award would have been given w/o receiving some Googleable notice.  Also, Cole's testimony before a Senate S/Comittee in Spring of 2004, and the fact that he's received fire from various neo-con opponents who fail to use the 'fact' of this award against him all make it seem like an urban myth or Nihilartikel to me.  FRS 19:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I agree with everything you've said above. I'd be inclined to just remove it for the time being or comment it out. --Lee Hunter 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out.  The possibility of harm to his reputation by leaving in an incorrect claim seems a lot more significant than the harm done by taking out a correct one (that can always be put back in later).  This is an example of a pet issue for me: articles about marginally notable living people  or small companies.  They can be a magnet for more or less subtle smears by political opponents, disgruntled employees, clients or students; few editors will have the time, interest or knowledge to fix them.  FRS 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I considder it quite difficult to harm the reputation of Jaun Cole. And I would be very impressed if somewhere were sucessful. 02:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Among people who agree with his viewpoint (the 80% of the world's population who think the US adventure in Iraq is a catastrophe on every level) his reputation is pretty good. Among those who disagree, his reputation is poor. That's not too surprising. --Lee Hunter 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legion of Iran" 

message: In a separate wikipedia discussion, someone dismissed Cole as 'just another blogger' who couldn't get published.  I checked and it's clear Cole has a somewhat distingushed publication record.  Including the list of places he's been published gives an idea of the popular respect accorded to his writing and also gives an indication of his political leanings.  I had to reference Cole's site, but his publications list has verifiable links.--Snorklefish 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Published works

message: There wasn't a qualification for Jonathan Calt Harris (like, who is this guy?), so I put in that he is a  lobbyist for the Zionist Organization of America. But there might be a more appropriate qualification. In any case we certainly shouldn't leave him unqualified, since I'd never heard of him at least. (I also reverted some of the more blatant POV smears from the article.)
I also qualified Plaut with his professorship. —Ashley Y 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all reasonable edits. Armon has reverted them and I've brought them back again. --Lee Hunter 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was Cole, you'd be referring to him as a "journalist and editor" or "commentator" -but the crappy cite as both "lobbyist" and "Zionist" -Wow!. Armon 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon, please read WP:AGF. If you have a more appropriate qualification for JCH, you should mention it, that is why I brought up the issue here. Your deletion of the qualification, and especially of Plaut's professorship (which seems entirely neutral to me) seems unhelpful. —Ashley Y 18:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Armon 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, those edits got caught in a rv of edits I disputed -sorry. Armon 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Calt Harris 

message: Harris, the one who makes the strongest claim, dropped out of university and does not have any type of degree, see his Wikipedia entry here: Jonathan Calt Harris.  Yet he is quoted here in an "encyclopedia" accusing a full professor of being a racist.  Should we take this as authorative?  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with him at all, but just read his Wikipedia page.  I see your point.  I would agree with you if he were going up against Cole on Bahai religious texts or other stuff Cole has published on in academic journals.  On the contemporary middle east stuff, however, we're on a more even playing field since strictly that's outside of Cole's academic expertise.  Although not equalling Cole's prominance, Calt Harris seems to have established himself as part of the dialog and I think it is reasonable to include his statements.  elizmr 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Harris Credible?

message: I have removed the following because it is an unfair summary of Cole's words.  Let's have Cole give his position rather than a detractor.  Although if Plaut has specific criticisms let include him.  Also, what authority does a "Professor of Business Administration" have to comment on this?  (Please note that another attack on Cole comes from someone accusing him of not having authority to comment on the Middle-East via his blog, since he only studied the history of the Middle East and not the present.  Strange dichotomy eh?)  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Plaut, professor of Business Administration at the University of Haifa, states that Cole "believes that a group of Jewish 'neo-conservatives' largely runs U.S. policy toward the Middle East. His recurrent theory is that a nebulous 'pro-Likud' cabal controls the U.S. government from a small number of key positions in the Executive Branch" Old Juan Cole: A Very Sad Soul by Steven Plaut (FrontPageMagazine) March 23, 2005
Nevermind.  I left it in since at least it gives a concise starting point.  Although it would be much better to use Cole's own words to summarize his position.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LLG--I see you put a neutrality tag up on plaut's quote.  I don't really know who plaut is, but I don't think it is a problem to quote him.  We'd get into neutrality if we prefaced the sentence with something like, "Plaut stated the obvious fact that..."  Plauts opinion certainly isn't neutral, and I'm not defending it, but the ARTICLE presents it in a neutral way.  Maybe we should put up something from Cole responding to this sort of charge to balance Plaut rather than tagging.  What do you think?  elizmr 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steven Plaut summary of Cole's position removed

message: Here are some quotes I've found today doing some research on Juan Cole.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is another whitewash of his. See our article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I do not understand what the above comment is trying to convey.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The added quotes have nothing to do with the charge made by the critic.  They are non-sequitors.  elizmr 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Juan Cole quotes

message: Grasshopper has done a lot of good hard work on the article.  I made a controversy section and added two subheadings.  I hope others will refine this and expand.  
Since pretty much all of Cole's extra-academic work falls under the heading of Punditry and started with his blog, I condensed all of that stuff into one paragraph with one heading.  I changed the order of the sentences to be chronological, starting with the blog and moving to the testimony.  I moved the praise on the blog to controversy to balance out the Karsh comments.  elizmr 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: In what is now this section, Grasshopper did a lot of useful work that needs to be grounded a bit because it now comes off as original research (see below).  If Cole quoted Shavit in defense of his own position, it wouldn't be OR, but bringing it in in response to what critics have said about Cole is OR. Similarly, if Cole said that the Walt paper supported his point it could be used but putting it in because it supports his point is OR.  Also his quote about American jews not being responsible for the war in Iraq would defend him against antisemitism, but it needs to be made explilcit that he said this to defend himself against antisemitism.  I haven't read Cole enough to know if he has mentioned this stuff in response to claims about him, but to include them in the section we should have cites from Cole referring to this stuff.  Please note I am not saying anything should go--it just needs a little work.  Here are the sections below that need work:  
:"The claim that a group of predominately Jewish neoconservatives in the Bush administration pushed for the Iraq war is not an original theory of Cole's but was reported widely as fact in numerous sources including by Ari Shavit in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in eary 2003. White man's burden, Ari Shavit, Haaretz Daily, 05/04/2003"
:"Cole also does not generalize with regards to American Jews but makes clear distinctions:"Again, I underline that the American Jewish community does not support most AIPAC positions (a majority are much closer to Americans for Peace Now), and that this issue has to do with a small fanatical leadership of a specific lobbying organization, nothing more."  "
:"American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general US population. So no one should blame 'the Jews' for the Iraq War. Mainly they should blame Bush and Cheney and Delay and Frist. But the case for an Iraq War was significantly bolstered by American supporters of Ariel Sharon (by no means all of them Jewish) high in the Bush administration."  
:Cole central claim as well as his contention of intimidation has also been supported by the prominent and controversial Mearsheimer and Walt 2006 working paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Cole, Juan. Breaking the silence, Salon.com, April 19. 2006. Cole has since started a petition to The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to defend the authors from what he calls "baseless charges of anti-Semitism".Cole, Juan. Petition to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Cole's blog "Informed Comment", April 27, 2006 </blockquote>
:::I commented these sections out because there was failure to respond to my feeling that they are original research.  elizmr 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views" section 

message: Although Kramer claimed at one point that he was not associated with Campus Watch, he was being extremely economical with the truth. Campus Watch is simply an offshoot of the Middle East Forum, for which Kramer was the editor. Kramer was quoted in the press release for the launch of Campus Watch and is widely reported to play a leadership role. Campus Watch and the ME Forum are really one and the same. If you don't believe me, go to the Campus Watch web site  and click "Who's Who at Campus Watch". The link takes you to the ME Forum staff listing.  --Lee Hunter 18:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Looked at your other cite, (the one form his own blog) -point taken. Kramer was definitely being "disingenious". Personally, I think the blog cite is better at showing that, but I don't care which we use. Armon 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kramer and Campus Watch

message: Cole singles out a specific group of senior US bureaucrats - Wurmser, Feith, Perle etc. - as playing a key role in engineering US ME policies, in particular with respect to the invasion of Iraq. Pointing out that this idea is not Cole's own theory and that it has been widely accepted in other venues including in the Israeli media is hardly original research. It provides important context to the story. Otherwise, the reader is left with the entirely erroneous impression that this is something that Cole dreamed up on his own and it also clarifies that this view, far from being anti-semitic, is actually shared by analysts, who are themselves Jewish. --Lee Hunter 19:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand what is going on here: truthiness.  ;-)  I think it is best to take this ridiculous POV stuff to RfC.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grasshopper--honestly, please assume good faith.  No one has given you any reason not to.  This would be a quite frivilous Rfc, since this is clearly OR, for reasons I discussed above.  I'll repeat.  Just because someone wrote something in Haaretz, it is still theoretical and doesn't make it a fact (even if you really really believe it is true).  One could easily find stuff saying thge theory is ridiculous, but that is not the point.  The point is that Cole didn't say, in his own defense, "look, I didn't make this stuff up; it is in Haaretz".  If he did, no problem putting it here.  But he didn't (to my knowledge).   If Grasshopper is putting forward the theory that Cole is not engaging in antisemetic conspiratory theorizing because his take on the matter is actually true, and putting forth the Haaretz cite as support of this, it is Grasshopper's OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  It would be fine for Grasshopper's oped piece or blog or whatever, but it needs to be out of the article.  If this doesn't make any sense let me know and I will try again.  elizmr 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't tell me what to do.  You're smearing a well respect professor via radical right-wing sources for saying what is commonly accepted as fact in the Israeli press.  He is not a holocaust denier, he is not advocating violence or hatred of Jews, he is not generalizing about Jews, he is not even making things up -- the whole thing is based on emotional accusations based on a logical fallacy.  This isn't the ADL accusing Juan Cole or even people known for targeting racists, but rather people using ad hominem attacks -- some of them are actually well known for doing so.  I think you have specifically targeted Cole to smear since you are ideologically opposed to him.  I'm unfortunately busy today but this has to be dealt with -- its a personal biographical entry and it falls under those rules.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grasshopper,  My point is only about original research.  It sounds like you are having a bad day, but please consider taking a deep breath and reading my comments above again when you have a moment.  elizmr 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, bad day. Please read WP:NOR and you'll see what we're talking about. As for the ADL, I wondered myself so I googled ADL "Juan Cole" and got this and this -Cole accusing the ADL of being behind the attacks on him and supporting Apartheid (what's the emoticon for rolling your eyes?) Armon 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-semitism and original research

message: Grasshopper, if you don't agree with something, please use the talk page to discuss and comment out rather than just chopping away at stuff people have put time and energy into. Give this courtesy where this courtesy has been given to you, especially on controversial pages. You just took out some cites because the articles had been cited before. Well, there was a reason for that. They were making different points both time. Why snip that??? It doesn't make sense. Also, your introductory statement that Cole has attracted controversy is because he is liberal, or something like that, is your own original research. This belongs on your blog, not on Wikipedia. The controversy is more straigtforward: Cole has attracted controversy because he is speaking as an "expert" out of his field of expertise, because he promulgates anti-semetic conspiratory theory, because he makes ad hominem attacks on people rather than address their points, because he changes his blog posting after he makes them, etc. To dismiss these kind of points as politically motivated by labeling them "conservative criticism" or the like is dishonest and POV. And attacking me is just rude. elizmr 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elizmr, please put article-relevant discussion on this page. You have engage in major duplication of claims and it is in general very unbalanced POV. If you would balance the claims then it would be much less objectionable. Please remember that you are editing an individuals biographical article. Even if you do not agree at all with Cole you should engage in balanced editing. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia asks us to complain on a user talk page when taking exception to their editing behavior and on the article talk page when content is more relevant.  I went to your talk page because you were engaging in personal attacks, inserting original research, and snipping out stuff that was justifiably there without first going to the talk page and talking about it.  It was appropriate discussion for your user talk page.  elizmr 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of your above comment deal with the discussion of the article's content.  Maybe you can separate out your future comments with more precision.  Anyways, I striked the personal attacks -- I apologize.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grasshopper, I was giving you examples so you would understand what I was saying.  Thank you for striking your attacks.  It is a start and a good one.  elizmr 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing things you don't agree with wholesale, engaging in original reasearch, attacking other editors

message: I've reworked this inaccurate construction with something that I hope is more neutral. The previous edit implied that it is a fact that there is some specific "conspiracy theory" that Cole is "using". In fact, he hasn't "used" anything. He has criticised specific US government officials and he has criticised US support for specific Israeli government policies. All this stuff about "conspiracies" is how his critics like to poison the well. Sure, it's fine to say that HIS CRITICS say that he is "using an anti-semitic conspiracy theory" but it is completely POV to write the article as if it were a fact (unless Cole himself explicitly says something like the "Jews are trying to control the world" which he clearly has not). --Lee Hunter 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about what we had before: "claims of use of antisemetic conspiratory theory"?  It is a central point that most of his critics make that he does this.  "antisemitism and Us foreign policy" is not really exact enough english to capture it.  The article should not state that he has used it, but it can certainly quote his critics saying that he has used it.  If the article doesn't say this, it is not capturing the dialog and is a dishonest piece.  elizmr 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but this is just awkward English and very misleading. "Claims of use of x theory" just sounds silly. Really this is simply an accusation of anti-semitism. --Lee Hunter 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antisemitism is very very broad.  It is a well and widely sourced claim of a certain kind of antisemetism, the use of conspiratory theories to discredit.  I see that that might not make sense to you, I believe that, but your judgement is not the gold standard here.  It is good writing and good editing to be as exact and as clear as possible.  Your subject heading and the way someone has divided the sections has reduced clarity and obscured the meaning of what the critics are saying.  I'm not saying this is intentional, and I'm not saying it is being done to prevent Cole from looking bad, but it is not good writing.  I am losing respect for the editorial standards that some of the editors on this page are exhibiting.  elizmr 15:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Use of anti-semitic conspiracy theory"

message: Please discuss here before such major revisions Isarig 04:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just pulled out the views from the criticism.  I also reordered the criticism/controversy section chronologically and removed various duplications.  There were no major removals or additions.  I am allowed to edit the article, thanks.  --64.230.126.34 04:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain the problems with the edits I made.  Be aware of the 3 reversion rule.  Remember that Wikipedia is all about being bold -see WP:Bold.  Thankx.  --64.230.126.34 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I hit "Save" before adding my comments. You've made drastic controversial changes to the article's structure. for example - you've lumped togther the recent charge of Cole mistranslating Iranian president's comments with a old controversy regarding Cole's disputing a MEMRI translation, you put cole's critics' views under a heading which implies they are his views - etc.. Please discuss such major changes on Talk before making changes Isarig 04:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a section on Cole's views. I am modeling the article structure after Hitchens' article. Yes, currently his views are being given by his detractors and we should fix that. But at least giving him a place to present his views is better than just incorporating them into the controversies -- check Christopher Hitchens article. It's handled a controversial character in a really good way. Yes, my edits are not the final draft but I think it pushes it in the right direction. Also separating out the legal section into the appropriate controseries makes sense -- and "Campus Watch dossier" really did need its own section. --64.230.126.34 04:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You also didn't read my changes very well.  I didn't lump together the MEMRI translation with the Iran -- I actually separated them out -- they were lumped before.  Please actually read my changes.  --64.230.126.34 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, Isarig's points are valid and I've reverted your changes. Presenting the controversies by theme is clearer, and saves us from the sysiphean task of discussing every "fight" Cole has had. Armon 15:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Themes are the way to go.  Since editors have changed the page to go chronologically by incident and sort of thematically at the same time, the article is twice as long and has lost a great deal of clarity.  Lets come up with NPOV thematic headings that aren't whitewashes and aren't attacks.  Let's clearly put forward what the critics say and let's clearly put forward how Cole counters the points.  Let's work together without attacking each other to provide a three dimensional portrait of Cole that we can all be satisfied with.  OK?  elizmr 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by anon 

message: : Aside from the issue of "pundit" terminology, the other point about balance (to bring up policy, for instance Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors) also needs some discussion "at a high level", that is as an article "design" issue. In this regard, consider one very early criticism of the Cole article, while it was still in its "hagiograpy phase",  which I think was well taken (although, the point about his removing howlers needs some documentation, I am not here disputing it)
::His period of expertise is the 19th century. He's widely-cited because he has been willing to make increasingly controversial claims and has a well-known policy of quietly "unwriting" howlers and wild claims from his own weblog. This article as it stands is almost useless and one suspects his many fans prefer it that way so as not to shatter the illusion of Cole.
: However, for this to make sense, it would be helpful to know something about Cole's academic writing on for example, the 19th century, and the transition from ivory-tower academic to political writer/blogger. We certainly have a reasonably clear picture in the WP article of how Hitchens the leftist became the Hitchens of today, and Hitchens is certainly not any less controversial or polemical than Cole.  The same can be said of WP articles of other writers/columnists that have made notable transitions in their lives; (Charles Krauthammer to name another one. --CSTAR 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a good addition.  Are you up to do it?  elizmr 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That passage was written by someone who knows nothing of Cole's work besides his blog.  He writes on the 19th century, yes; he also writes on contemporary events (as a quick glance at his CV will verify), and, more importantly, he has written on and understands the connection between current events and the history of the region.  That is why his opinions on current events are considered authoritative.  To use his knowledge of history as a means of undermining his credibility to comment on current events strikes me as an intellectually bankrupt position, entirely indefensible.  The comment about Cole doctoring his blog is ridiculous; there may be evidence that he did that once (I followed the link someone offered on this earlier but I didn't figure out what he was referring to), but the notion that his notoriety comes from that is patently absurd.  This article was never a "hagiography," to my knowledge; but it is now a hit piece.--csloat 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The purpose of my bringing up that particular quote was that it made one point, from which one could argue that one needed to know something about Cole the academic; for heaven's sake, my use of the designation "hagiography phase" was only to describe a particular period of the article when there were no criticisms. Whether it was or wasn't then a hagiography, I don't know, bur I agree, now the article is simply very bad and uninformative.--CSTAR 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This section is supposed to be about the suggetion to have a moratorium on edit wars in favor of a  few days of additions by everyone.  Let's not argue Cole's merits here, OK?  I am making a new section to disucc what CSTAR brings up about guidelines.  OK?  elizmr 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futher reply 

message: Lee believes that a views section should only state Cole's views without any analysis of and commentary on them.  If we wanted to include that analysis, it would have to go in a separate section and this would be hard to follow.  Why not have the main heading of "controversy", as we do, and then divide into two sections "views" and another section.  The other section would contain the stuff about whether or not Cole is working outside of his field, his integrity, etc.  I'm not sure what we could call it.  Everything I think of seems a little tinged towards the negative.  Lee, do you have any ideas?  Armon?  elizmr 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the section should only carry Cole's views. I said that you can't have a section called Views and only present the views of his critics. --Lee Hunter 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And now we have Isariq presenting the most bizaare distortion of Cole's views (claiming that Cole said that American Neocon Jews can't be trusted etc. Good grief. What rubbish.) with a bunch of cites that don't even remotely support the edit. And you ask ME to be collegial?--Lee Hunter 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've provided cites for every claim. Specifically on this issue, of whether the Jewish Neo-cons can be trusted, Cole said "I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party... I frankly don't trust him to put America first." Isarig 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes. Exactly. This quote does not in any way justify your sweeping statement that "Cole believes that American Jews who are neo-Conservatives, such as Douglas Feith, have dual loyalties, and can't be trusted to put the interests of the US first." He only says that Douglas Feith has dual loyalties and can't be trusted." Show me exactly where in that article he says that "American Jews who are neo-conservatives ... can't be trusted." He doesn't. Sure he says that Douglas Feith can't be trusted but so what? You've taken it way beyond one person. In the article Cole takes pains NOT to single out Jews. He specifically says that anyone with dual loyalties - a Syrian-American with ties to Syria -  shouldn't be trusted in a sensitive position involving the other country. You have completely twisted the article to come out with the opposite viewpoint. A complete and utter misrepresentation. Another one of your citations is nothing but the lengthy meandering talk page from a blog site.  This is a citation? --Lee Hunter 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was using Feith as an example, and as you point out, he believes this applies to anyone with dual loyalties can't be trusted. Feel free to add a new section "On Syrian-American relations" where this opinion can be cited, as well. The blog site (the well known Daily Kos blog) contains a message from Cole, alleging that Martin Kramer is wworkign for Israeli intelligence. They only reason I can't link directly to Cole's site is becuase, as is his habit with embarassing psots, Cole has deleted it from his blog. See  http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2005_07_14.htm Isarig 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm asking YOU to be collegial.  Try something other than assuming bad faith, pushing the revert button, and calling someone's work bad for a change.  Making an edit you don't like does not mean that I. behaved in an uncollegial manner.  elizmr 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, Armon and Isariq have an obvious agenda to try and fill the article with as much critical information as possible. That's fine. But if you stubbornly pursue this agenda by reinserting dubious material again and again (two examples: Armon has several times today reinserted the bit about questioning Cole's Hebrew language skills even though the source is from an unknown student blogger and Isarig has again reverted back to some wildly distorted misrepresentations of Cole's statements). As far as I'm concerned, the bad faith is being proven again and again. Meanwhile you keep whining that I'm not being collegial. Frankly, I'm fed up and in no mood to cater to your concept of collegiality. --Lee Hunter 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One might say you have an obvious agenda to remove from this article anything remotely critical of Cole. Shoudl we be assuming bad faith on your behalf? Isarig 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not removed anything which is properly sourced and from a notable person. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views section idea 

message: In his blog, Cole writes "One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties ..." IOW, Feith is an example, but Cole belives that Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." Lee, you need to pay  attention when reading. Isarig 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read it again, you see that the phrase "neoconservatives in the Pentagon" is that of his correspondent. Yes he goes on to say "That is true but not in the way Lake imagines" but the actual quote of the words "neoconservatives in the Pentagon" is not Cole's. If you're going to quote someone you have to have to quote them exactly.   --Lee Hunter 11:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specious argument Lee -Cole agreed. Armon 13:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Loyality 

message: I'm doing some work to tighten up the article tonight. 
*I took out the section on Yale, I agreed with CSTAR's comments above.   
*I moved some of the career remarks to the top and views below
*I'm going to try to tighten up the zionist influence section, which it repetetive, and the translation sections, which are a bit long.  
I hope that I didn't cut anyone's favorite sentence out.  If I did, please forgive me.  elizmr 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Please stop edit warring, if the edit warring continues, I may protect the page. JoshuaZ 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to.  In fact, I'm off to request it.  •Jim62sch• 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The link...[] •Jim62sch• 22:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop edit warring. 

message: ===Remarks ===
Isn't this a bit abrupt? It seems to me to refer at this point to a party 1 and a party 2 may be premature.  However, I am willing to give my own statement, but I certainly can't speak for any party.
I stumbled on this article on May 4, 2006.  I was stunned at how the article was hopelessly unbalanced.  I also noted how three editors user:elizmr, user:armon and user:isarig had transformed an earlier version of the article (admittedly not very informative) into a hatchet job, consisting mostly of viewpoints of Cole's critics. I also noted that attempts by other editors (primarily csloat and USer:LeeHunter) to modify the state of the article, were reverted in tag fashion by these three editors. I was also impressed by the lack of civility of two of the editors; see for instance . I also noted that any attempts at intervention on my part (by suggesting thin User:LeeHunter had made a valid point) were met with attacks.
My participation here began on the talk page were I proposed discussion of several issues,  including specific suggestions on how balance might be achieved. One suggestion concerned the translation controversy and how to make that section shorter, more informative and more balanced. (See above) another suggestion concerned the Yale appointment controversy.  I also noted that I was not suggesting that critic's opinions should be absent from the article.  However, these critical opinions must be presented in the context of a fair presentation of Cole's views.  In my opinion, that is not the case with the article currently.
Note that I only made three edits to the article (two reversions and one addition made in an attempt to balance a ridiculously biased presentation of Cole's views on the legitimacy of Israel.) At one point, it was pointed out that user:isarig had reverted 6 times in two hours. I blocked user:isarig for 16 hours, which is noted on this page, for the reasons noted.  user:armon accused me of triumphalism.
The article is still horribly imbalanced.  Moreover, the claim that there is censorship going on here is in my opinion, baseless. I have repeatedly said on the talk page (where most of my intervention here has occurred) that I am not suggesting having no criticism of Cole.--CSTAR 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSTAR:  You owe me an apology.  I have **never** reverted an article on Wikipedia.  elizmr 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I believe you that you haven't reverted. I was wrong in saying that you participated in the reversion process. I apologize.  Thanks for pointing that out.--CSTAR 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, nonetheless aside from the asertion that you participated in the reversion process, I stand my remarks. I will therefore endorse the summary below. --CSTAR 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone to your talk page to ask why you have endorsed something saying I have treated others unfairly.  I would benefit from examples of this.  elizmr 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This version of events is notable for what's left out. For example, did I not point out that this was a work in progress and if we could get back to actually editing instead of arguing the toss on everything, we might be able to get it to a state you were reasonably happy with? Did we not completely waste our time because of unsupported claims of bias concerning one word -pundit? Did I not repeatedly ask for more background information on Cole to be cited and added -and was accused of "bad faith" for suggesting that people stop complaining and dig in? It's a hell of a lot easier to delete, revert, or criticize than actually do the research, and write the content. By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess.  Armon 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess. I have never said any such thing. I said that the article was imbalanced. --CSTAR 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, -that's my perception. Armon 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Guettarda authored the first paragraph, and Bhouston appended the second immediately after. Since those who endorse it all agree with it (it is equally "theirs"), I'm not sure it really matters who wrote it first. bcasterline t 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the dispute about? 

message: Isn't this a bit abrupt? It seems to me to refer at this point to a party 1 and a party 2 may be premature.  However, I am willing to give my own statement, but I certainly can't speak for any party.
I stumbled on this article on May 4, 2006.  I was stunned at how the article was hopelessly unbalanced.  I also noted how three editors user:elizmr, user:armon and user:isarig had transformed an earlier version of the article (admittedly not very informative) into a hatchet job, consisting mostly of viewpoints of Cole's critics. I also noted that attempts by other editors (primarily csloat and USer:LeeHunter) to modify the state of the article, were reverted in tag fashion by these three editors. I was also impressed by the lack of civility of two of the editors; see for instance . I also noted that any attempts at intervention on my part (by suggesting thin User:LeeHunter had made a valid point) were met with attacks.
My participation here began on the talk page were I proposed discussion of several issues,  including specific suggestions on how balance might be achieved. One suggestion concerned the translation controversy and how to make that section shorter, more informative and more balanced. (See above) another suggestion concerned the Yale appointment controversy.  I also noted that I was not suggesting that critic's opinions should be absent from the article.  However, these critical opinions must be presented in the context of a fair presentation of Cole's views.  In my opinion, that is not the case with the article currently.
Note that I only made three edits to the article (two reversions and one addition made in an attempt to balance a ridiculously biased presentation of Cole's views on the legitimacy of Israel.) At one point, it was pointed out that user:isarig had reverted 6 times in two hours. I blocked user:isarig for 16 hours, which is noted on this page, for the reasons noted.  user:armon accused me of triumphalism.
The article is still horribly imbalanced.  Moreover, the claim that there is censorship going on here is in my opinion, baseless. I have repeatedly said on the talk page (where most of my intervention here has occurred) that I am not suggesting having no criticism of Cole.--CSTAR 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSTAR:  You owe me an apology.  I have **never** reverted an article on Wikipedia.  elizmr 13:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I believe you that you haven't reverted. I was wrong in saying that you participated in the reversion process. I apologize.  Thanks for pointing that out.--CSTAR 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, nonetheless aside from the asertion that you participated in the reversion process, I stand my remarks. I will therefore endorse the summary below. --CSTAR 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone to your talk page to ask why you have endorsed something saying I have treated others unfairly.  I would benefit from examples of this.  elizmr 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This version of events is notable for what's left out. For example, did I not point out that this was a work in progress and if we could get back to actually editing instead of arguing the toss on everything, we might be able to get it to a state you were reasonably happy with? Did we not completely waste our time because of unsupported claims of bias concerning one word -pundit? Did I not repeatedly ask for more background information on Cole to be cited and added -and was accused of "bad faith" for suggesting that people stop complaining and dig in? It's a hell of a lot easier to delete, revert, or criticize than actually do the research, and write the content. By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess.  Armon 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re By your own admission you came here to support Cole's fans in gatekeeping the article, no wonder this has become a mess. I have never said any such thing. I said that the article was imbalanced. --CSTAR 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, -that's my perception. Armon 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks 

message: ==== Statement ====
Juan Cole is an academic and "media commentator" who to his credit is not afraid to proclaim controversial and provocative views.  In order to create an article to reflect him in a three dimensional way, Wikipedia should capture these controversies and examine them from as many sides as possible in a clear and neutral way.  As an "unbiased" source, a Wikipedia article on Cole could make a unique contribution to biographies that are more slanted, in various directions, in other sources.
The article as it existed prior to recent edits  did not examine this controversy and characterized it in a POV way as, "scurtiny and criticism from pro-Israel neoconservative circles."  Some editors (most recently user:isarig, user:armon, and myself User:Elizmr have been attempting to raise these controversial view of Coles, as identified by his critics, on the page in the hope that other editors would step in in a collaborative way to build up the three dimentional portriat by adding Cole's responses to some of these criticisms.  A few of us who are now involved on this page: user:armon,User:LeeHunter, and myself User:Elizmr recently worked on another page MEMRI.  This page, shown here in a previous incarnation  consisted mostly of POV content.  As we edited on that page, criticisms without responses were added by User:LeeHunter (and others not currently editing on this page) in a similar way to what is happening now here.  Others of us, user:armon and myself User:Elizmr provided the responses.  I think the end result  was satisfactory to most and we were able to take a NPOV tag off the page.  If this is not a reasonable way to work, please forgive me.  As a newish editor here, I have learned by example from editors like Lee, who are longer-time editors here.   
On this page (ie Cole) this process has been hampered, frankly, by the tendency of some editors to revert, delete, dismiss criticisms, and dimiss sources rather than digging to find out how Cole would respond and adding these cites and language to the article in a collaborative way.  This has culminated in a hue and cry to criticize the article in very strong terms and finally protect the page. I feel this is a case of censorship and it does a disservice to the ideals of the Wikipedia community. elizmr 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party 1 

message: Juan Cole is an academic and "media commentator" who to his credit is not afraid to proclaim controversial and provocative views.  In order to create an article to reflect him in a three dimensional way, Wikipedia should capture these controversies and examine them from as many sides as possible in a clear and neutral way.  As an "unbiased" source, a Wikipedia article on Cole could make a unique contribution to biographies that are more slanted, in various directions, in other sources.
The article as it existed prior to recent edits  did not examine this controversy and characterized it in a POV way as, "scurtiny and criticism from pro-Israel neoconservative circles."  Some editors (most recently user:isarig, user:armon, and myself User:Elizmr have been attempting to raise these controversial view of Coles, as identified by his critics, on the page in the hope that other editors would step in in a collaborative way to build up the three dimentional portriat by adding Cole's responses to some of these criticisms.  A few of us who are now involved on this page: user:armon,User:LeeHunter, and myself User:Elizmr recently worked on another page MEMRI.  This page, shown here in a previous incarnation  consisted mostly of POV content.  As we edited on that page, criticisms without responses were added by User:LeeHunter (and others not currently editing on this page) in a similar way to what is happening now here.  Others of us, user:armon and myself User:Elizmr provided the responses.  I think the end result  was satisfactory to most and we were able to take a NPOV tag off the page.  If this is not a reasonable way to work, please forgive me.  As a newish editor here, I have learned by example from editors like Lee, who are longer-time editors here.   
On this page (ie Cole) this process has been hampered, frankly, by the tendency of some editors to revert, delete, dismiss criticisms, and dimiss sources rather than digging to find out how Cole would respond and adding these cites and language to the article in a collaborative way.  This has culminated in a hue and cry to criticize the article in very strong terms and finally protect the page. I feel this is a case of censorship and it does a disservice to the ideals of the Wikipedia community. elizmr 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement 

message: Please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~).
#Armon 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsers 

message: ==== Statement ====
The article lacks balance and fails to abide by WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP.  More than 2/3 of the article was "controversy", it failed to present Cole's views, or if it presented them it only did so in response to criticism.  It appears to have been little more than a POV attack page that badly needs to be brought into line with policy.  At least one of the editors involved on the page, Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the WP:3RR and WP:NPA in the last few days.  He seems unwilling to abide by policy.
Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly.  I am concerned that they will bully their way to biasing this article against Juan Cole because they do not like what Juan Cole says.
==== Endorsers ====
Please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~).
# Guettarda 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda authored the first paragraph, and Bhouston appended the second immediately after. Since those who endorse it all agree with it (it is equally "theirs"), I'm not sure it really matters who wrote it first. bcasterline t 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party 2 

message: Please sign your name with 4 tildes (~~~~).
# Guettarda 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsers 

message: *Opening:  "The article lacks balance"
Please note that User:Armon and User:Elizmr have both repeatedly asked others to insert balancing content.  This is a central issue and clearly described in Statement 1.  The writers of Statement 2 have not responded to this. 
*"Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the WP:3RR and WP:NPA in the last few days. He seems unwilling to abide by policy."  
I consider this statement an unbalanced personal attack on User:Isarig.  He may or may not have been guilty of these things, but even a cursory examination will reveal that others (myself included) have also been guilty.  
*"Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly"
A provacative statement like this should not be made without giving examples and demonstrations of the point.  I would urge reviewers to examine the talk page and edit history to investigate this claim before accepting and endorsing it.  I consider the statement that Armon and I have treated others unfairly as a personal attack.  
I would also ask the writer of Statement 2 to sign it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 May 2006.  signing now (inadvert. forgot before) elizmr 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda authored the first paragraph, and Bhouston appended the second immediately after. Since those who endorse it all agree with it (it is equally "theirs"), I'm not sure it really matters who wrote it first. bcasterline t 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes to reviewers on statement 2, from Elizmr author of statement 1

message: Can we move on toward resolving the disputes around the article, vs. wasting time with threats, accusations and counter accusations? With the exception of the above discussion on the "self serving" comment, not much has been done toward this goal in the last two days. Isarig 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I started and is proceeding. If you want to work on more than one bit, start a section on that, don't just complain we aren't doing it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving on 

message: A reputable source on Cole's Yale position that is not writen by a supporter or a critic is this piece in Yale Daily News.   I think that their presentation of the issue is balanced and notes his critics but does not give an excessive amount of coverage to them:
:"Cole writes about contemporary politics on his blog, "Informed Comment," and has drawn criticism from conservatives for his opposition to the war in Iraq. But Frances Rosenbluth, a member of the search committee for the professorship, said the committee considered only his scholarly writing -- not his blog or his political views -- when they named him a finalist for the slot, which is sponsored by the Yale Center for International and Area Studies."
:"Search committee chair Julia Adams and Rosenbluth both confirmed that Cole is a leading candidate in the search process, but Rosenbluth said he is not the only person being considered for the job. The committee was attracted to Cole because of the caliber of his scholarship, she said."
:"'He's a historian who's written very subtle and insightful history of the Middle East,' Rosenbluth said."
:[...]
:"Michael Rubin '94 GRD '99, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said he is concerned that Cole's scholarship is not up to par for the Yale faculty. Rubin said he questions how Cole could argue -- as he has done on his blog and in articles for the online magazine Salon -- that the war in Iraq is failing without visiting that country."
:"Rubin said he thinks commentators and scholars who have done research in Iraq tend to have more nuanced views of the war, whether or not they support it."
:"'I would argue that Yale should make a distinction between scholarship and blogging,' Rubin said."
:"Cole's academic publications include books on Iran, Shia Islam and the Baha'i faith. He is currently the associate chair of the history department at the University of Michigan, where he teaches courses on modern Middle East history and Islam in global politics."
--Ben Houston 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which leads to another issue - how much space should be devoted to this issue?  Guettarda 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view--none.  I think we should focus on more core topics.  Any supportive or critical thing an writer might have said in reference to his suitability for this position I think is better said elsewhere in the article.  I think there are others who feel strongly that it should be in, however. elizmr 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is warrented because it is a very concrete endorsement of his scholarly creditials and it has been mentioned in the WSJ and by many of Cole's critics.  --Ben Houston 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yale Position