Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 3

message: The quote in question: "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings. How else can one describe his depiction of U.S. foreign policy as controlled by a ruthless Zionist cabal implanted at the highest echelons of the Bush administration and employing "sneaky methods of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of intelligence" to promote its goals? ... Cole provides no proof whatsoever for this conspiratorial thinking - there is none.
CSloat calls it "an extended lecture from Karsh about antisemitism". Let's be precise: 1) it is not long 2) it's not a lecture, 3) Karsh does not call Cole an antisemite - he kind of implies it, but if one implies Jewish Zionist Likudnik conspiracy, why pretend to be surprised when confronted about it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments against the Karsh quote have been detailed above -- see the section "Edit war - Karsh quote."  Not every comment from a reputable source is worth including in wikipedia; the youngest family member might ask, why is this quote different from all other quotes?  Seriously, what does it have to offer to the discussion?  The claim that Karsh's illogic is equivalent to Cole's conspiracy theorizing may be accurate, but that is not a good reason to include Karsh.  He refers to claims Cole never made ("ruthless Zionist cabal"?  "international influence of 'world Zionism'"?  These are not quotes from Cole) and makes the unevidenced (and, I believe, absurd) charge that the writing of a well-known academic whose opinions are sought after is "anti-Israel (indeed anti-Jewish)."  As someone else wrote above, if Karsh called Cole a child molester, we would not include it here if the charge was specious.  Karsh offers no evidence for the charge of antisemitism, and there is no indication of why this particular opinion is worth inclusion here.  I will add that I appreciate that the quote has been shortened, and as such, is better in the sandbox than the one on the article, but really the only noteworthy thing about the quote is the last line ("Cole provides no proof...").  Humus' strikeouts indicate that he equates "Jewish" with "Zionist" and "Likudnik" -- that sort of linguistic confusion is part of the source of these specious charges of antisemitism.  Cole is not anti-Jewish.  His claims that Doug Feith has dual loyalties may be controversial, but they are hardly antisemitic -- there was an Israeli spy working out of Feith's office, for heaven sake.  Cole's opposition to the Likud party does not make him any more antisemitic than Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.  As I have said before, when you find quotes from Cole dismissing Feith because he is Jewish, or if you find photos of Cole painting swastikas on a shul, or even if you find quotes indicating that Cole thinks other American Jews are also disloyal (like, say, Noam Chomsky, Michael Lerner, or Adam Sandler for that matter), then perhaps such claims might make some sense.  But for now they really just poison the well -- the comparison to the Protocols is insulting and offensive, as it trivializes real antisemitism in order to bash a university professor.--csloat 19:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP is not a soapbox. If you feel the need to rant about "NeoKons" -start your own web log. If you've got constructive comments about the article - edit in the Sandbox. Isarig 14:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody sure made the locked Juan Cole article a soapbox for their agenda. Just restoring a little context and exposing agenda.--Will314159 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS Please sign in the conventional manner, in such a way that your signature appears as a wlink.  This has several advantages.  Thanks.--CSTAR 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The editors who locked the page all had a distinctly pro-Cole stance. read the Talk pages. Regardless, the Talk page is not the place for you to bring "context", and before you climb the high horse of "exposing agenda", I suggest you read WP:AGF. Isarig 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarification. The editor (admin) that locked the page has not done any editing on this page or on any page that is remotely related to Cole or the middle east, as best I could tell from that user's last 500 edits. Any admin can lock or unlock the page. --CSTAR 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct. What I should have written is that the editors who asked for this page to be locked have a distinctly pro-Cole stance (and that's the reason they were recruited to edit this page  by a like-minded editor, before locking it). Isarig 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re Recruit? AS you konw, anybody can edit a WP page. Recruitment is not necessary.  Maybe you are suggesting that the page was the prerogative of "anti-Cole" editors before the "pro-Cole" editors showed up. It's hard to tell from your vague language.--CSTAR 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, I know anybody can edit and recruitment is not necessary, but we have the testimony of an admin that this is precisely what he did. To refresh your memory, Armon alleged that               "the sudden influx of like-minded editors who now demand wholesale deletions, and sanitizing, the article, suggests to me that there's been some canvasing going on" to which the responsible adming replied "Canvassing? Well, I saw an article that was about as far away from what a Wikipedia biography should be, and I mentioned it to FM, KC, Jim and JZ [who then showed up and performed the aforementioned whoelsale deletions]. If you want to call that "canvasing", then I suppose I have to plead guilty." You can review all this in the archive. I had been editing WP for nearly a year and half before this, and never encountered something like this, so when I first saw Armon's comment, I thought it was over the top, and that he was somewhat paranoid. Imagine my surprise. Isarig 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Are you suggesting that editors can't mention articles they think have serious problems to other editors? I don't think that has any basis in WP policy. Articles that for some reason have passed unnoticed to science editors (typically cranky articles) are "canvassed" in this sense. Your suggestion of a recruitment campaign "to sanitize the article", does strike me as being "over the top".--CSTAR 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  why would they need to? As you said, any editor can make edits...and it's not as if this particular page required any hard-to-get domain-specific expertise. And, as the responsible admin wrote, there are proper ways to bring a problematic article to the attention of the general community (as opposed to a group of like-minded editors who can apparently be counted on to make a certain kind of edits. It is not my suggestion of a recruitment campign, it is the self-confessed admission of the responsible admin  that this is what he did. Don't take it out on me, take it up with him. Isarig 04:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of WP:AGF, Isarig might want to check it out too (if we're to be fair, of course).  •Jim62sch• 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I take it ,Isarig, are the inserter and proponent on the long "Karsh" quote and you are quite satisfied displaying to the public in a locked state.--Will314159 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you take it wrong. I neither inserted that quote, nor am I happy to see the article locked. But when you go around accusing editors of being a "Likudnik Hit Team" you are not making any progress toward getting the article unlocked. Isarig 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will314159, if you want your comments to be read and not ignored, please summarize them in a few lines and restrict them to be relevant to the page and section title. Also, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:AGF and sign your posts with ~~~~. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: csloat above makes the case against the quote.  I have made the case as well, including quotes of Wiki quidelines on living persons which advise against criticisms relying on "guilt by association" which I argue is all that Karsh quote is.  Someone in favour of the Karsh quote needs to establish why it is a valid scholarly critique of Cole's work (just because it comes from a scholar does not make it such) and how it isn't libel in that there is no actual evidence of Cole being antisemetic provided by anyone for Karsh to back that assertion.  Yes, Karsh avoids saying "Cole is a Jew Hater" but the implication is very obvious and I'm not comfortable with this type of laweryly defence tactic that might keep Cole from taking Karsh to court, but still leaves the unwary reader lumping Cole in with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  Being phrased in NPOV is well and good, but is definitely not addressing the substance of my (and presumably csloat's) objection to its inclusion.
--FNV 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with the Karsh quote? 

message: Now you could also have a discussion page for the sandbox but I didn't see one the first time I looked, so I take it this is the place to also make sandbox discussions. Straighten me out, otherwise.  for an encyclopedia article, it is way too long. to start with, don't need to repeat "the little SHIT quote." Come on this is an encyclopedia article. I guess I need to go to the Douglas Feith article and put it Gen. Frank's comment in about him being the Dumbest Motherfwcker on Earth? The essential point here is to give in a pithy way in his own words the sense that the "Zionist occupation will vanish from page of time from the "Quds (Jerusalem)." PERIOD. Don't need all the rightwink NEOKON nitpick crossexamination stuff trying to do a hatchet job on Don Juan.--Will314159 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud Ahmed Nejad

message: We all know when the major changes occurred that caused the edit and revert wars that caused the lock down. Let's revert back prior to that time. Leaving the article in its hatchet job incarnation is not fair to Professor Cole or to WP. It preserves a horrendeous Status Quo. There's even the "shit" word in the article. Take Care!--Will314159 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Revert to Pre-Controversial Version Pending Rewrite 

message: Commander Sloat and CSTAR, a few times you have suggested that we include some summaries of the topics of Cole's books or similar.  Since this idea may have gotten lost in the shuffle, I thought I would ask if either of you, or anyone else, might be up for doing this.  We could include between the Career section and the Views section, and it would be a nice segway.  What do people think? Elizmr 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such summaries would be far more notable than quote after quote from Karsh.  I'm not sure how it would be formatted -- an annotated bibliography might be a little much.--csloat 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some summary of his major areas of interests--Shia islam, bahai, the period in Egyptian history he's been esp interested in?  Not sure.  Elizmr 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does everyone ignore this plea for some more Cole-relevant content in favor of arguing about what to take out????? Elizmr 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Armon 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody is ignoring it, Elizmr; the problem is that there are more pressing issues on this page to deal with.  Until those are settled, this functions as a distraction.  But I do think it's a good idea; we should go with a much shorter article as suggested below, and then start building this section.--csloat 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries of Cole's work 

message: One of Professor Cole's most recent and widely circulated international articles is not cited in the "Selected Bibliography" or "External Links":
* All together against the occupation - Le Monde Diplomatique May, 2004 Echomarq 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Will, you are clearly a new editor here and you are coming on a little strong which is totally understandable.  Could you please refer to WP:AGF?  This is a Wikipedia policy which is supposed to guide our behavior towards other editors.  According to Wikipedia guidelines, if you see content missing you think is relevant, the correct approach is to add it yourself and make a note of this addition on the talk page.  Attacking your fellow editors for the omission is not something that you are supposed to do here.  Elizmr 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curious Omission in Selected Bibliography

message: it would be easier if the sandbox discussion page was used. But then you would have to look for it.  Here are the changes I made to that section. There is no question that Feith had dual loyalties. It comes from too many sources. The General Frank remark about him being the dumbes xxx on Earth is IN the Tommy Franks section. After all Feith fired the Iraki army, police, teachers. 
"Feith was a member of the 1996 "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" commissioned by newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, a study group called  to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel's strategy paper titled: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. " This paper included recommendations contra to U.S. official policy of a comprehensive Mid-East peace and the Oslo Accords to which the U.S. was a signatory."
When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State's Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." See Douglas Feith article. That taken directly from the WP article on Mr. Feith. Take Care!--Will314159 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. You'd better clean up the Feith article then. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Armon 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Armon. Cole was not alone in his opinion of Mr. Feith. The Feith article is not locked up. If you don't agree with it. Don't be denied. Have at it. Take Care!--Will314159 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've missed the point. I don't think that "incendiary" criticism should be removed. Armon 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   cross-examination is the engine of truth. in a locked frozen page there is no balance so incendiary falsehoods stay up. you point is well taken. In the feith page, it's all been aired out and the truth remains.  he has dual loyalties and can't be trusted. It's the unrebutted frozen state of the page that is my complaint. my position, unfreeze it or stub it. Take Care!--Will314159 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Douglas Feith Sandbox Edit

message: Nero ludum flutum tempus fugit quam Roamnum incendiaurm. pardon my Latin. 
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/wikipedia-article-hijacked-i-fear-i.html#comments
Take Care!--Will314159 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta love google translate.  This line is hysterical: "the people in charge of Wikipedia have closed the entrance and opened a discussion on her who does not seem that she is going to arrive nowhere."--csloat 09:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frozen Article Makes BlogoSphere 

message: this is just hilarious.  And no, I don't endorse this blog in any way, but it is pretty damn funny :)--csloat 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! I'll bet it's only a matter of time before Hitchens' Slate article gets the same 
treatment ;) Armon 00:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Vietnam combat vet that served when I was 19, and having brothers and sisters serving in a trumped up war in Iraq, and having people trying to engineer another trumped up war against Iran, I for one appreciate the work that Juan does trying to spread peace and understanding among people and don't laugh with those that make jokes at his efforts. Sorry don't mean to offend, but that is the way I feel Take Care!--Will314159 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a little levity 

message: Perhaps it is time to consider some options that have been suggested above:
*Go with Greg's Sandbox #2 for now with its separate "controversies" page
*Go with the Sandbox #2 page without a separate controversies page (and a slightly longer summary of the controversies)
*Go with a stub and start over
*Go with the current sandbox
I think we should vote on these options and if there is anything nearing a consensus on one of these options, we can move it to the main page.  I think we should re-protect the page after that point and continue to make changes in the sandbox until things start to gel; at that point we can unprotect and edit on the actual article.  Any of the above options are preferable to me than the current protected state of the page.--csloat 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a fair description of the alternatives, then please CSLOAT or Kuperberg start a new section with a poll. Note that polls in WP are nonbinding meaning that WP policy may invalidate any conclusion. I don't mean this as a threat just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a democracy.--CSTAR 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would go with "unblock and replace with Juan Cole/sandbox". - I vote now for #1, it makes for a cleaner article.  --Ben Houston 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards unprotection

message: I have been told that Wikipedia functions by consensus rather than democracy.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  But what exactly is "consensus"?  What happens in practice if some of the interested editors seem to be incapable of compromise? Greg Kuperberg 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point we don't have much choice but to count and act accordingly.  That WP is not a democracy means that if someone objects there are WP bureacratic processes that can be used.--CSTAR 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales is aware of this page, ask for his input.  Also, post messages on the talk pages of the previous editors of this page and have them join in the dsicussion.  --Ben Houston 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, okay. Greg Kuperberg 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While awaiting direction, in the interests of fairness, justice, and the Wiki way, let's put up a stub. A stub is the ultimate neutral POV. The present page just rewards those editors of the POV that tarred the Prof an anti-semite and then got the article frozen before that POV could be balanced. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. Take Care!--Will314159 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unblocking might just lead to a wheel war. It's widely recognized this article is bad and any damage to wikipedia's reputation (if any damage is done or any reputation existed) has already occurrred.--CSTAR 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Stub it and then block the stub. The damage is a continuing damage as new readers come to the site. In fact each day the damage progresses. It's just a matter of time until a national or international media picks up the news. Like they did the Cuba article. I can see the bylline. "NeoKon Likudniks hijack Juan Cole WP article and get it locked against balancing edits. Tar him as anti-semite b/c of his forceful and effective criticism of repressive Israeli occupation of Palestinians and American heavy handed Iraq occupation.  They are also concerned about his moderating stance toward the Iran war stampede." Take Care!--Will314159 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some other admin may unstub it in turn and block it. No thanks.--CSTAR 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, they're going to do that after Mr. Jimbo Wales has made an appearnce on the page! Take Care!--Will314159 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Consensus to understand what consensus means on Wikipedia. jaco♫plane 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The man in charge, El jefe, o chefe, lăobăn however you say it, it ain't me 'mano.--CSTAR 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Will314159:  It reminds me of a Shakespeare play, I forget which one now, in which one character complains about a fool.  In response to that, someone hiding the bushes complains, "As soon as he said 'fool', I knew he was referring to me!"  The truth is that I didn't particularly have you in mind with my comment about inability to compromise.  I didn't even particularly have your side in mind.  But in all fairness, it applies to both sides. Greg Kuperberg 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank for the literature or philosophy lesson whatever field it was Greg. It's not about sides now. It's beyond that. It's about WP. The course of action is as plain as the nose on your face. The default course in lack of consensus is a protectied stub. Repeating it won't help. You didn't get it the first time. While you dther, the situation will blow up. While displaying your erudition, for which I am grateful, I always love to learn, I am still at a loss to who is running this pleasant gathering, and don't know how to proceed further. Thank you for your erudition, I guess.--Will314159 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would you think the situation would blow up? Some of Wikipedia's articles are bad for a while. It happens, but Wikipedia still moves forward. If everybody remains calm and friendly, we will find a consensus by and by.  --William Pietri 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have about 50 jury trials under my belt. i have no problem breaking things down in bite size pieces and repeating myself. What we have here is a proxy Arab-Israeli war. It can be perceived that a group with a NeoCon Likudnik POV have hijacked an article by a forceful critic of Israeli repression of Palestinians under Israel occupation, the heavyhanded American occupation of Iraq, and a moderating influence of the mad stampede to war against Iran. They have tagged him as an anti-Semite which Walt and Mearsheimer say is a common tactic used by the Israeli Lobby to stifle dissent. Moreover, this group has succeeded in locking this article against balancing edits. The editors have refused to put up a netural stub while a neutral POV article can be worked out. This is newsworthy because WP is a free access encyclopedia. The longer this foolishness goes on, the more likely it is that it will get in the news like the Cuba article, or the self serving U.S. Congress staffers writing their bosses biographis. This is why action is urgent. The credibility of WP is at stake. That's what I'd do. I would put up a protected Stub. And say ok folds take your time. build up the article piece by piece. And let's not have anymore drive-by editying. Take Care!--Will314159 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you have here may be a proxy Arab-Israeli war. What I have here is an encyclopedia article that needs some work. I would like to work on it, but I feel your tone and behavior is hindering that process. I am glad you are concerned about Wikipedia's credibility, but I think it is very unlikely that this will be a major news item; Juan Cole is less well known than Cuba or the US Congress. But given your concern, I think the fastest way out is for you to set aside your many strong opinions and work with the people here to get one of the sandbox versions up. Would you be willing to do that? --William Pietri 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William, you are shifting the focus.  I can put aside my advocacy training and speak and write NPOV speak. I do it in legal briefs all the time. The immediate hurdle is the elephant in the room. That is the unfairly predudicial blocked article sitting out there in cyberspace. Once we get past that, then we can write "your," "our," encyclopedia article at leisure w/o compulsion in a liesurely style by consensus.  I can repeat myself with no problem. The default position lacking consensus is a protected stub. comprendre. That makes it fair to ALL parties. Now let me try something new with my signature. Let's see if Opera picks it up. Edit I have made substantial edits to the sandbox edition. I introduced "Turkoman" to it and other stuff. A major glaring omission of the sandobx article that I'm amazed that nobody's picked up on is "Shia Islam." Cole is one of the few U.S. Experts." Take Care! --Will314159--Will314159 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am trying to shift the focus: away from contention and toward consensus. I understand that you don't like that the article has been blocked. I don't like it either. I believe the fastest way out of that is by building a consensus. I believe that some of the comments here hinder that process because they are unnecessarily contentious in tone or topic. I think that includes your insistance that we address your concern first, and am asking you to show a willingness to work with people rather than simply repeating yourself. Perhaps you feel that willingness, but I am unable to find evidence of that in your writings. Are you willing to work with your fellow editors on this? --William Pietri 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: William I don't want to brag but I have already done a substantial rewrite of the sandbox article. Maybe it's a good thing that I have been skillfull enough not to attract attention although I documented all my changes. But what part of triage don't you understand? The biggest problem the Juan cole article presents - the elephant in the lliving room- is the unfairly prejudicial locked monster sitting out there in cypberspace. It presents three problems 1)continuing embarassment to WP and source of disinformation, 2) increasing chance of unfavorable media articles to WP and 3) no incentive for non NPOV editors to achieve a consensus as long as their version/baby sits out there in cyberspace. Again, what part of triage, don't you understand? The first thing, when I got here to this page was to scream a few epithets, understandably, the second was to shout for a NPOV warning, which I got, and the third was for a protected revert to a prior non Karsh-quote version or a stub. I am still working on the third one in vain. And for the life of me, I can't understand why? I have notified every admin I know including the head guy. i have done my duty. Take Care!--Will314159 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's "consensus?" 

message: Allright now we are getting somewhere. The head WP operational gentleman and chairperson of the Wikimedia foundation is Jimbo Wales. He's already made an appearance in this discussion forum. I've left a message for him. Edit Take Care! --Will314159--Will314159 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I disagree, and believe that Jimbo, et al also feel that this is just one of a zillion minor crises they will face. (That's certainly what Meta:The_Wrong_Version suggests.) Moreover, I believe that your urgency-driven comments are slowing down the process of getting this unblocked. Even (or rather, especially) when evacuating a burning building, we are asked to remain calm. Please aid me in keeping things similarly calm here. Thanks, --William Pietri 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SuperRespectfully, William is working on building a new building, while Will is working on putting out the fire that is raging outside that Wiliam is blithely ignoring. A flaming Cole article out there in cyberspace with long unbalanced quotes by an "Occupation Denier," to wit; a certain Mr. Karsh. That article has been out there 12 days and just recently got an NPOV warning only after I arrived here and screamed for one. It's simple game theory. As long as that blocked baby is out there in cyberspace there is no incentive for Cole detractors to co-operate. I hope you prove my analysis wrong. Take Care!--Will314159 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Regardless, within the context of this page, I don't see it as mattering much. If Jimbo wants to come down from on high, he certainly can. In the meantime, it is our role to resolve this with the powers at our disposal. Namely, finding a consensus that will end the edit war that brought the lock. Again, I ask you to aid me in that. There is no harm in you pursuing both Jimbo's intervention and consensus simultaneously, and you might benefit. --William Pietri 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Meta:The_Wrong_Version is a hilarious read. It don't sound ilke he gives a shxt. Take Care!--Will314159 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notified Jimbo Wales 

message: I am not practiced in rearranging parts of Wikipedia, so I would like to request that someone move most of this talk page to Archive/2 or wherever.  In my view, everything before "Towards unprotection" can go to an Archive page; everything in "Towards unprotection" and after should stay. Greg Kuperberg 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for archiving 

message: Hi. I mentioned this in-line above, which was probably a mistake. I'm pulling it out here to make it clearer.
It seems like almost all of the contention is around the "Views" and "Controversy" sections. I propose that we reduce that to the barest minimum, one everybody can agree is minimal but not offensively wrong. Trimming the text from Sandbox/1, I propose this as the entirety of a "Views and Controversy" section.
:Cole's strong political views, including staunch criticism of US and Israeli policy in the Middle East, have attracted lively and sometimes bitter controversy. He has been challenged on many points by critics such as Efraim Karsh, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer, and he has responded with a variety of rebuttals.
My theory is that would be a step forward from the current page. Then those who wanted to expand that section could work on a sandbox version until a new consensus is reached. In the meantime, the details of the controversy are easily found via Google. To what extent is this a workable plan? Thanks, --William Pietri 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this proposal.--csloat 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. Are we talking about a stub, or a near stub?  It is obvious the closer you get to a stub the greater the area of commonality and agreement. With that as a base, then you can expand outward. My view is well known. At this stage, the less the better. I wish I could see exactly what you  are talking about. But I have enough confidence in csloat's judgment. Since he supports it, I support the proposal too.--Will314159 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This option is unacceptable. See my previous concerns re: gate-keeping, and note it's endorsement by two editors who have consistently opposed any and all mentions of Cole's critics, or any of the controversies. I've no problem with compromise, but this isn't one. Armon 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for myself, I have certainly never (much less "consistently") opposed "any and all mention of Cole's critics or any of the controversies."  Armon, you would do well to actually read my contributions to the discussion here rather than stating your opposition to things I actually never said.--csloat 01:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I feel that people aren't understanding me, I generally start with the assumption that I have not clearly explained myself, rather than that they are failing to read. Perhaps you could assume good faith and provide him a more digestible version of the information you feel he's missing? One way to demonstrate that would be to list (in a new section) points where you and Armon agree.  --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I understand Armon to say he was against it b/c I was for it? Well let me be withdraw my support. Now the ball is in your court Armon. your move. Take Care!--Will314159 02:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I was kidding. I still support it. In fact I want Karsh in the Cole article since i have discovered he is an "occupation denier" and to the right of Attila the Hun.--Will314159 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will, once again I find the tone of your comments unhelpful. I think you're trying to add some levity to the discussion, which I appreciate, but I'm concerned that Armon will take your comments as goading him. I probably would. --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah no problem, that's nothing. He hasn't even accused me of working for the Mossad yet. Armon 14:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Armon. My goal was to write something that everybody could live with, so I'm not yet seeing how some people agreeing is evidence of a problem. I also don't understand how we could possibly achieve consensus if you are only comfortable backing something others are opposed to. I think I understand your concern about gate-keeping. (In brief: you don't want things to be swept under the rug through intransigence. Is that right?) That's why I explicitly mention that he is controversial, mention the key topics, and link to critics. What key facts do you feel are missing from this summary? Thanks, --William Pietri 02:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically yes, the issue is the intransigence of Cole's fan club to allow anything which deviates from Cole as "a towering preeminent academic" (as Hummus put it). I don't like the current protected ver either, but I also know how that flawed version came to be. In short, like an arms race. Cole's fans have been gate-keeping here from the beginning and it was impossible to summarize any controversy, or any opinion, of either Cole or his critics, without engaging in silly "he didn't say that" or "that's a misrepresentation" until finally, overlong direct quotes were added which couldn't be disputed. It even went further than that. Take a look back over the archives for the argument over one word pundit, and even blogger -we had objections to calling Cole a blogger FFS! Then, unsurprisingly, the objections start being about the unbalanced length of the controversy and views. OK, fair comment, so let's add in more biographical and academic background information. No takers. Editors who claimed to have access to Cole's published academic work, (I don't, it's not a POV issue, I simply don't) were repeatedly asked to add that kind of content in to balance it out. The response has been consistently that they must "fight the fire" of the content they dispute instead. IMO we were in the process of trimming it down, and I repeatedly argued that the "Views" section only be composed of Cole's -without his critics, and the "Controversies" section, critics and his responses, when a bunch of new editors arrived, IMO misjudged the situation, and protected the page. Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate your efforts to mediate here, but even though the current ver is bad, Cole himself has obviously seen it, and there really isn't any immediate need to change it other than it being the "wrong version". It's been protected because of edit wars and we should be cooling off and working this out in the sandbox(es) and this discussion is not working on the article, but an edit war by other means. As for your summary, what's missing is what the controversial points were, and why Cole has attracted criticism -as well as his views. It also unintentionally implies that only the "Campus Watch" crew take issue with Cole, which isn't actually true, but it plays well to the fanclub. The biggest problem I have with it though, is that it forces the wholesale relitigation of the disputed content from a sanitized minimum the gatekeepers are happy with.Sorry this is overlong, but my core position is that when you click up this article, you should get a rundown of his biographical and academic background, his views, and the controversies/criticisms. The point isn't to tell, it's to show, so the reader can make up their own mind. A good example of what I have in mind, as other editors have pointed to, is the Hitchens article. Armon 14:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a lot of exaggeration in the above post.  The "Cole fan club" has never been "intransigent," and I think such claims are insulting.  I have defended Cole's reputation here because I see it unfairly under attack, not because I am his "fan."  I have never argued for deleting all criticism of Cole as charged here; I have just argued for bringing it into balance.  The controversial statements by Cole are generously about 1% of his total intellectual output and about 5% of the output on his blog.  Yet they take up half the article.  The point is not to balance each criticism with a pro-Cole statement, but to make the criticism section actually representative of Cole's work rather than the cartoonish exaggeration of certain Cole statements that is represented by Campus Watch members for example.  I realize Cole has made controversial statements and that should be noted, but it should not dominate this page.  I'm not sure what Armon means when he says that he doesn't have "access" to Cole's published work -- surely there are libraries where he lives?  There are plenty of samples of his published work available online; check the linked articles from his vitae.  I am not familiar with most of his academic work either, even though I have such "access" as described; but I first came to learn about Cole because of some of his academic work, namely his article on the infamous "Doomsday Document," which can also be accessed from his web page.  Some of his media commentary in published sources -- not just the "blogosphere" -- is also easily accessible from his web page.  It hasn't been updated since aught-four, but there is still a good bit of reading material there.  It is true that those who have been responding to the Cole-attackers here have not made much headway in actually reporting Cole's less controversial views, but arguing about these other points - which are at best an entertaining sideshow - has been a fulltime job.--csloat 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify. The material I don't have access to is Cole's published academic work. I no longer go to university, and the public libraries in New Zealand don't have them. This link accessible is to opinion pieces -not his scholarly works, which are listed here . Armon 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon, you may wish to take a closer look at the list of scholarly works you linked to.  As I noted above, several of those essays are readily available online (I count at least six available articles you can click to from that page).  As for his books, a quick peek suggests that your National Library actually does have Cole's 1986 edited collection; and I am sure you can order his books from an online retailer if you were that interested.  I don't know what the situation is with universities in New Zealand, but I would imagine you would be welcome in a university library to browse the collection and read something.  I am not asking you to do any of this, of course; just taking issue with your claim that you have no access to Cole's work.  I would also suggest that it is not necessary for you to actually read any of this work; simply perusing accounts of Cole within the print media (e.g. the 1986 or 87 review of the book I mentioned above, or reviews of his work available from online academic sources, or his essays in mass media outlets such as the list of essays linked above, or his essays on the History News Network, or his contributions to media discourse after September 11th, easily found searching the NYT or wire transcripts, or his scholarly piece on the al Qaeda document that I linked to above) would suffice. --csloat 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fair point -where's there's a will, there's a way. The thing is, I had assumed from the way you were talking that you already had that background knowledge on Cole. --Armon 01:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok. if I hear your concern rightly, you want to make things work and are trying hard to assume good faith but are unable to. I'm going take a swing at that in another section; please bear with me. In the meantime, could you give me some balanced phrase or sentence that I could insert into the summary that would move toward my goal of "minimal but not offensively wrong"? E.g., something to put in parentheses after "challenged on many points" to describe the points, plus something to describe the rebuttals? Or a sentence like "Cole's critics believe Cole is A, B, and C; his defenders instead see this as X and Y." Thanks, --William Pietri 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously my "satus-quo" position isn't anywhere near consensus, so I've withdrawn my objection to changing the protected page, however, I prefer option 1. I've changed my vote -see above. Armon 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! It's kind of you to say so. --William Pietri 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I support William Pietri's proposal.  (I also support Greg Kuperberg's idea having a separate page of Cole-related views and controversies as long as it is balanced and not a smear.)  --Ben Houston 03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that no Wikipedia page should be more than epsilon partisan, and certainly that none should be an outright smear.   But there are a number of "Controversies..." pages here and there, and I think that most readers have enough common sense to take them with a grain of salt.  You can't expect Wikipedia to be as stately as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.  It's going to have a few bouncy rooms. Greg Kuperberg 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the proposal as well. --CSTAR 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  •Jim62sch• 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence notable BUT we are engaged in the process of building a consensus by trying to establish a minimum core of commonallity that we can all agree on and then radiate outward and build from that. But then there's my game theory analysis presented previously. Take Care!--Will314159 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: temporarily remove "views" and minimize "controversy"  

message: I'm commenting here as an admin, not as an editor. I don't know anything about the substance of this dispute, and don't want to get involved directly, but I've seen Will314159's posts in various places, and they seem a little inappropriate. It might help if everyone were to review our content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. As this is a living biography, and as the sources are also, I assume, still with us, the guideline WP:BLP applies too, both to the subject and to any living sources, and not only to the article, but to the talk page as well.
It is not the job of Wikipedians to evaluate sources beyond the basics, which simply means determining whether the source is regarded as reliable per WP:V (policy) and WP:RS (guideline). In the case of Karsh, as head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, London, there's no question that he's what we call a reliable source. Whether any editor personally loves or hates his views is irrelevant and shouldn't even be mentioned, and it especially shouldn't be mentioned if he's going to be insulted.
If everyone sticks rigidly to the three policies, this dispute will almost certainly resolve itself. That is, we simply report what reliable, third-party published sources have said about Cole, and what Cole has said about himself (with some limitations: see WP:V). We don't add our own opinions or arguments (to the article or the talk page), and we don't question what the reliable sources say. We report majority and significant-minority published views, but not tiny minority ones, and we write in a disinterested, respectful tone, with every arguably contentious point carefully sourced and the source cited after the edit.
I'm willing to unprotect the page, by the way, if you're all ready to start editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I take it Slimvirgin that it is your opinion that that fact that Karch has written an article purporting that there is (now was for Gaza) No Israeli Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is not relevant in evaluating his opinion that Professor Juan Cole is an Anti-Semite.  This would be tantamout in my humble opinion in saying the fact that Professor X has written the Moon is made out of Green Cheese has no relevance to evaluating his credibility to another statement of his that Mars is made out of Blue Fondue, but everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. i can put aside you slap at me as I can guess one of your friends interceded. But i can't put aside your rudeness in showing up here and meddlling in a mediation process by a professional web mediatior in its end stages that is nearing a successful conclusion and inviting an unprotected free-for-all.  This article is not ready for unprotection. What it needs is a consensual minimal article, then addition by stages. But everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. Take Care and Best Wishes.--Will314159 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to apologize to SlimV for the poor choice of words "meddle" and "intrude." She may have been sent by Jimbo in respone to my request. However, what I am asking now for is an protected stub or a revert to a protected prior uncontroversial version until a consensus is achieved for reasons stated elsewhere. Take Care!--Will314159 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you SlimVirgin you have brought some clarity how to proceed further. Take Care!--Will314159 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, I do not think this page is anywhere near ready to be unprotected.  The petty squabbling is not likely to stop any time soon.  In addition, I don't see the WP:BLP guidelines as being likely to be followed.  •Jim62sch• 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Slim is correct about verifiable sources, however, not every little thing that every reliable source says deserves to be in an encyclopedia.  Certainly not everything ever said about Cole needs to be quoted in full.  I don't see any reason to have large quotes from Karsh on alleged antisemitism.  If people think it is important that Karsh said that, a brief note indicating that is fine, but nobody has yet made an argument as to why entire quotes about this need to be here.  The page should be about Cole, not his critics, and its central focus should not be dictated by his critics.  That's all I am saying here, not that this material should be "censored" as some editors claim.--csloat 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi csloat, it depends how much that debate is relevant to the person's notability. If it plays a large role in it, it's worth going into in detail; if not, then not. It also depends where Karsh published the criticism. Jim, BLP is still only a guideline, but it's one that people are following, and it's based on the three content policies, which are mandatory. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think therein lies the stasis.  There are some editors here who believe this allegation of antisemitism plays a large role in Cole's notability (particularly those who take their cues from the blogosphere).  Others here (such as myself) are taking cues from older media -- TV, print, and radio -- which frequently call on Cole as an expert.  Of course his own blog plays a large role in all of this, but his credentials make him a frequently sought after voice in places like NPR, CNN, the NYT, etc.  So we have an article from a notable source (Karsh) in a reliable media outlet (not a blog), commenting on Cole's blog, and making incendiary claims using logic that is easily picked apart (you can read the debate on this page and the archive to see that happening).  However, Karsh's claim, and the Cole comments that prompted it, play no significant role in his notoriety in the mainstream "old" media.  The Cole comments that prompted it are not a significant part of his work -- over 90% of his work is not about Israel at all, either his scholarly research or his comments to the mass media.  But these claims do play a large role in his notoriety among bloggers.  To me, this means Karsh's critique should not be played up here.  But others disagree.  In general I think all we need is a brief note that he is a controversial figure who has been criticized by several people, listing their names and perhaps pointing to their articles.  But I don't see the need to detail these critiques point by point.--csloat 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Who knows? Professor Cole may reply to Professor Karch's criticsm. Then faced with the prospect of counterbalancing long quotes some reason may be achieved. Take Care!--Will314159 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When the critic is as credible an academic as Efraim Karsh, the criticism can't be summarized by just listing names and calling Cole controversial. Karsh should be quoted, although of course not at absurd lengths. However, any criticism must have been published by a reliable source, not on a blog, and the harsher the criticism, the more reliable the source must be. Where was most of it published? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you need to be more specific than "at absurd lengths". Each quote should support a point. The quote should be fair (i.e., not out of context) and relevant to the point. The Karsh quote as is currently in the blocked version satisfies neither (for example, why do we need to know Karsh;s opinion of Pat Buchanan?)--CSTAR 15:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at any of the contentious quotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just read it. If I were writing it, I wouldn't include the full quote, but I'd include a paraphrase of it, with some of his words quoted, because he's a powerful critic. Part of the problem lies with the way the article's written. It seems to consist of a series of staccato claims and counter-claims, rather than a nuanced narrative. I think the same material could be presented in a way that would seem less controversial. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough as long as Professor Cole is given the opportunity to impeach Karch's credibility if he chooses to reply in a suitable media. But then the article becomes a Karch vs. Cole debate which would probably be beneficial in promoting the field of the mechanics, reasons, motivations, factors, and ins and outs of denominating someone an "anti-semite." Take Care! --Will314159 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that SlimVirgin is a neutral commentator on the matter of Karsh accusing Cole of making arguments similar to those made by anti-Semitics -- she is a major contributor (and so is HOTR it seems -- it looks like SlimVirgin and HOTR are opposing camps in some protracted mediation) to the New Anti-Semitism article which is a theory about how anti-Semitism now arises predominantly from the left of the political spectrum.  It is a very controversial theory with many people viewing it as an attempt to silence criticism of anything related to Israel by using an overly inclusive definition of what is anti-Semitism.  I am not saying that SlimVirgin can't participate in the discussion (which would be ridiculous) but that she should not be treated as a completely impartial third-party.  --Ben Houston 19:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, please be extremely careful. I'm watching this page in case I need to take admin action in relation to it. I've made no edits to it, and don't even know what the main issues are. I've left suggestions here on talk about the need to edit in accordance with the content policies. That's all. I find your suggestion highly offensive that, because I've expressed certain views elsewhere as an editor, these must necessarily mean I can't be an impartial administrator. Some of us are  able to exercise independence of mind when required. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, please understand that I am not questioning your ability to be impartial in your application of administrator rights -- I didn't mention the word "administrator" and I didn't mean to imply anything about your use of administrator abilities, but rather I was disputing your ability to come in as a "completely impartial third party" (my words).  I notice you started off your comment in this section by claiming that you "don't know anything about the substance of this dispute" (your words) and later in that same comment you made only one specific recommendation on a topic of dispute: Karsh's accusation of anti-Semitism leveled at (the left-leaning) Cole, which some on this page feel is an ad hominem meant to stigmatize legitimate criticism.  You supported the inclusion of this this claim of anti-Semitism.  I contest your claim that you "don't know anything about the substance of this dispute" (your words), I believe strongly that the debate you commented on it is in essense the same debate (although in specifics rather than generality) that you are a participant in on the "New Anti-Semitism" article.  --Ben Houston 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here only as an admin, not as an editor, so thank you for accepting I'm able to be impartial in that regard. As for whether I know what the substance of the dispute is, please don't say you "contest" my "claim" not to know. I've said I don't know what the substance of it is, and I don't. If it's only the Karsh quote, then I'm saddened that such a minor thing could hold up editing, so I'm assuming it's more than that. I don't particularly want to know what it is, because my concerns are purely administrative. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Ben for providing context and background. Jimbo Wales has himself stated in his humorous memoranda refrenced above that he is favorably disposed toward Israel, and SlimV disclose on her UserPage that she is of the Jewish faith. Yet, Jimbo had no problem in his brief appearance her arguing for presenting both sides of a controversy. I myself am favorably disposed toward the Israel of Uri Avenery that will make a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians roughly based on the Taba or Geneva accords and take up the Arab States offer of a full warm peace w/ trade. It is sad that everyone that criticizes Israeli policies these days is quickly branded an anti-semite.Edit Praying for Peace and no more wars Take Care!--Will314159 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to show me where on my user page I said that, Will. In any event, editors' and admins' ethnicities are irrelevant; the purpose of this page is to discuss the article, not to have a political debate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Will314159, I think we can skip a discussion of editor ethnicities here today and whether someone should be classified "favorably disposed toward Israel" or not -- I think we can raise the discussion above this simplistic level.  --Ben Houston 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben. let's face it. The whole dispute in the Cole article is this. Is Cole anti-semitic? "favorably disposed toward Israel"  is just just a variant way of saying  "non-anti-semitic." Take Care!--Will314159 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected re the ethnicity. I must have made a deduction based upon the commonality of the things you said you had been called and under the hypnotic effect of the fractal all-seeing eye graphic on your page (nice pix). I see the New Anti-Semitism article is also a protected article. Since the juan Cole article is basically the same issue being replayed, the same obstacles are also here. But we seem to have two energetic mediators at work here, so who knows? Take Care!--Will314159 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are the mediators, as a matter of interest? I see William's doing a great job. Is there someone else, and is the Mediation Committee involved or is it informal? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't think there's a formal committee. Greg Kuperberg and csloat seem to have taken the bull by the horn. Apologies in advance for leaving anybody out. Take Care!--Will314159 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies

message: It looks to me like the straw poll has stabilized and that there are some clear conclusions.  Several admins and more neutral parties like the sandbox/1 page a lot better than the current locked page.  The main questions were (1) whether a separate controversies page should even exist at all, or (2) whether, following William Pietri's suggestion, the short "Views and Controversies" section should be shortened even further.  Both of these would have only a small effect on the basic structure of sandbox/1.
On the other side, there were some vehement objections that, in my view, are beyond the boundaries of "Reasonable Consensus" on the Wikipedia:Consensus Page.  The page says, "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith."  Here are the arguments that I put in this category:
* The page has to be replaced by a stub, because the credibility of Wikipedia is at stake.  In my view, this is a wild exaggeration and it also renounces and undermines consensus.
* A litany of accusations and rebuttals has to stay on the biography page, because everything else would be gate-keeping.  A separate "controversies" page would come under an immediate request for deletion.  In my view, this assumes that control of the page is dominated by bad faith.  Forking the page was my suggestion, I have no intention of proposing an RFD, and my own politics is in some respects more on the Karsh side than on the Cole side.  It seems to me that several of the admins here take roughly the same position.  
* Let's boycott the vote because the discussion is a farce, and because Jimbo Wales is biased.  That one pretty much speaks for itself.
Even though I don't take much stock in these arguments, one constructive preference that was attached to them was that a separate controversies page was the "least bad" choice.  AIn my view there was at least some preference for that in the rest of the straw poll as well.  So I think that an admin should go ahead and replace the frozen embarrassment by sandbox/1, and leave the link to the controversies page.  It would be a clear improvement.
Whether the page should stay locked even after the replacement is a question.  Some have suggested that it should, so that there would be a "cooling off period".
On the other hand, people seemed to like William Pietri's proposed edit, so maybe you folks should go ahead and do it.  I can see both sides of that suggestion.  On the one hand, I think that Pietri is right that it would further reduce the temptation to degrade the bio page with a quarrel.  On the other hand, it is reasonable for a bio page to say at least something specific about its subject's opinions.
Anyway, I request that the admins take action per this summary of the discussion. Greg Kuperberg 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be done by an admin that is clearly recognized to have no dog in this race.--CSTAR 15:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've withdrawn my objection to changing the page and have voted for Greg's option 1. I don't want to edit William P's ver, I want to move this along. Armon 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: either Greg's or Williams's path is good. I'd like to recognize and thank both of them for their hard work. It would be probably at this point be better to let Willilam proceed since he's a proffesional web mediator and faciliator and an administraor with the keys to the magic kingdom. Again thanks Greg and William. Take Care.--Will314159 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I appreciate the focus on keeping a good discussion and a healthy atmosphere. Whether the page stays locked or not, I would encourage editors to agree to leave the consensus version of the controversial part alone until a new consensus is reached in talk or on a sandbox page. --William Pietri 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree that it is reasonable for a bio page to say something about the subject's opinions, and it would be great to explore them in depth. But I want even more to have no edit wars, so I encourage people to error on the side of absolutely minimal consensus. --William Pietri 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am  not exactly against a second page on views and criticism, but this is not the recognized format for biog. pages; most have some controversy on them.  Why is this page different?  Also, I never said Wales was biased, I suggested he was afraid of retribution from Cole which is quite different.  Elizmr 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is ready for a change 

message: Ah, sorry was just trying to do some minor copy editing - didn't notice the protection. Homey 16:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection