Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 11 January 2007

Could the involved parties please avoid editing Juan Cole until we can sort out the issues? Martinp23 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it to where it was. <<-armon->> 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not where it was prior to mediation, Armon. Prior to mediation Cole's response to Karsh was included. You deleted this response after mediation had been called for, and I called you on it, and I asked you to show good faith by restoring the material. You refused to do so and you refused to respond to my arguments there. It wasn't until Isarig agreed to the material being included and then backtracked just a few days ago that you entered the discussion again. The pre-mediation status of the page included the material that you deleted. Do not use Martinp23's request that we stop editing the page as an excuse to edit the page again, restoring it to a version you prefer! Once again, by the way, your most recent edit went against a change Isarig and I agreed to in mediation, and you have never once made a single argument justifying that particular change. csloat 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation started in the middle of December, and from the 2nd, there were no edits until that date (or until about the 23rd). It seems that Armon has indeed reverted to the state of the page at the start of mediation. At least now we hopefully won't have any edit wars for the duration of the mediation. Thanks, Martinp23 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Armon made an extremely controversial change -- removing Cole's response to Karsh -- after mediation had been requested. You can verify that by reading the two links I provided in the paragraph above. While your statement may be technically true if the start of mediation is after everyone agreed to it, it is not true in that I had asked for mediation (and Armon was part of that discussion) before that date. csloat 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, fair enough, though I've been viewing the start of mediation from the day that this page was started, and from the cessation of editing on December 2 of Juan Cole. Martinp23 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation proper, inital instructions and offers of assistance from unlisted parties

To start with, I'd like the involved parties to post their side of the dispute in the sections prepared below. Try to ignore the comments left here by others in this preliminary stage and just write what your raw view of the debate is, what you're specifically supporting and why. For now, please don't reply to the comments made by eachother in your statements.

Please respect civility, no personal attacks and assume good faith in all comments on this page and, for that matter, ever. If you'd like to see another issue mediated upon, mention it in your statement and we'll take it from there. Also, for ease of reading, please sign yourposts. Thanks, Martinp23 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is public participation/input in this dispute encouraged, discouraged or ignored? -CSTAR 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For now, until I get the statements from the listed parties, I'm not encouraging non-parties to comment. However, once we've got this stage out of the way, I'll (depending oon how I feel then) invite outside opinions here or on the article talk page. Martinp23 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please keep in mind that some of the issues at stake here have wider ramifications in Misplaced Pages. Also, though I am not a direct participant im this dispute, I have been a participant in discussions that have preceded this dispute.--CSTAR 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to add CSTAR to the list of disputants or otherwise encourage his participation as he has offered valuable mediating input in the past and he is very familiar with the nature of the dispute.--csloat 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I'm not neutral, so I don't have a mediating role to play. However, I am very concerned about the use of quotes from third parties in articles in general. As regards this specific quote from Karsh, a kind of modus vivendi had been reached by some of the parties involved. As a result I don't consider myself directly involved in this dispute, although I have an interest in oits outcome and the principles that are used to resolve it. For now it's best if I wait for a few days as suggested by the mediator. Then I will make some comments as an "outside opinion", although as mentioned earlier I should not be considered neutral.--CSTAR 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR, if you wish, you can add yourself to the list of disputants here and make a statement below or you can make a seperate "outside opinions" section further down - my thinking in delaying this is that it may be helpful for all of us if the named disputants present their points of view before we get outside opinions, so if you'd like to mske an outside opinon, would you be happy to wait for a few days until I've got the statements from the parties done? To make it clear, I'm very eager for your opinion, but want ot make sure that it only surfaces at the right point :) Thanks, Martinp23 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I may also be interested in contributing as a non party, depending on what gets covered by all other commenters. As a newcomer to an already present dispute, it is very possible that my own (non-neutral) thoughts will already be represented, so it may not be necessary for me to contribute. In any case, I will likely be following this. Abbenm 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Cole dispute has ramifications for a whole number of articles, as well as the question of how contravetial subjects can be covered on WP. A group of editors have a bias against those who are critical of Israeli policy, and the tactics used in the agressive edit wars surrounding Juan Cole are typical of these cases, including quoting defamatory attacks on the subject from sources, and then reverting any attempts to add in the response of the subject. Fundamentally I believe that this is a question of conflict of interests. Good luck. Abu ali 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In my capacity as mediator, to promote a healthy environment for discussion, I have refactored the inflammatory comments of Abu ali above, removing claims of biases and strongly worded attacks on the integrity of some editors. If Abu ali is not happy with my actions, he is free to remove his comment :) Please assume good faith. Martinp23 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning to change everyone's words around? This could get confusing, but if you're going to do this to get rid of inflammatory comments, please do so with the statement by Armon below, which has very little comment on the substance of this dispute and revolves entirely around his perception of my motives and conduct. csloat 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be offended if you feel I'm overlooking certain comments - I'll be carefully reading through the comments below, and will refactor any inflammatory comment. If I do make changes, although they will be open to discussion, I ask that such discussion be directed towards me on my talk page, rather than inflame the situation here. I'll avoid changing comments wherever I can, and try to preserve the meaning of them. Martinp23 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Though this dispute may have ramifications in WP generally, for me at least the issues involved can be narrowly focused: suitably of certain types of quotes, suitability of certain types of responses. It doesn't help to bring in ancillary considerations which may flare tempers even further and may confuse the issue at stake here.--CSTAR 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments now appropriate?

The mediation has now been officially open since December 15; all but one of the parties directly involved in the dispute have come forth with a statement. Would it now be acceptable for comments by other parties to be entered at this point?--CSTAR 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I'll create a new section at the bottom where, if you can/will, you can give me an overview of your view of the debate, and your opinions. Martinp23 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial statements

Armon

Statement by Armon here

Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic, who, in 2002, made himself into a public intellectual and became notable as a blogger and then as a pundit. Cole is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators from the left, and is a strong critic of the Bush administration. In doing so, his work has attracted both praise and criticism and he has been a player in several widely reported controversies. However, it is the criticism, and the criticism inherent in the controversies he's been involved in which csloat demands be erased from the record because it doesn't accord with his POV. As the evidence still remains, and his arguments for removal are based almost entirely on his opinions of what is the "Tuth" and wikilawyering about WP:BLP this left him in a rather untenable position so he and User:Will314159 took a "by any means necessary" approach to editing this and the defunct "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" page. Will314159 eventually went so far that he was finally blocked for an extended period. However, sloat's behavior has been less obviously egregious, but has been just as disruptive, composed of filibustering, incivility, bad faith arguments along with continual accusations of bad faith, edit warring and tantrums. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, and I've repeatedly attempted to get him to understand that his POV is not shared by everyone, nor is it appropriate to slant or censor the article accordingly. I'd hoped that Will's block would have improved the situation, and cause him to self-reflect, but it seems to have had no noticeable effect.

This is the context for the latest "battle". It came about due to V&C page never having an agreed mission and becoming an overlong tit for tat where the criticisms they couldn't remove where countered by extended soapboxing. Sloat then pretended that the page was created "so that editors can avoid following WP:BLP rules" and suggested the "the whole page be AfD'd". The page was finally put out of it's misery by Centrx, however, he also stated that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." He explained himself further here. Sloat then attempts to block merging the material and we end up here.

As I agreed, I am willing to have this mediated, but I want to make clear that regarding the properly sourced material we are merging (which Isarig has clearly explained below is properly sourced) that I am only interested in discussions which insure that the material from WP:RSs we decide to merge is presented accurately and in a NPOV manner. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, arguments outside this are completely untenable and are simply abusive. As this has gone on for an absolutely absurdly long time I consider this to be the very last stop before arbcom, and I think that's appalling. <<-armon->> 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat

Statement by Commodore Sloat here

Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic. The named parties have been involved in frequent and often bitter edit wars over certain material in the biography. Some of the key points follow.

(1) There is a long section on the biography - four full paragraphs - about the "Yale appointment." Cole was never appointed at Yale. Yale considered him for an appointment (a job he had never sought or applied for), but he was not granted the appointment. I do not feel this is notable enough for four long paragraphs and a separate section -- I think one or two sentences indicating Yale considered him for a position but he did not receive it and that there was some controversy about it is more than enough. I am not saying we need to delete all reference to Yale here but I do not think that we need to take up this much space on a job that Cole never sought or received. I think a quote from Cole (or a quote that Armon cited in discussion from Zachary Lockman, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association) is sufficient to establish what little notability there is to this issue. As it is, it appears as if the job Cole doesn't have (and never sought) is more important and prominent than the job he has been doing for over a decade.

(2) The second set of issues surrounds an attack against Cole as a "new antisemite." The three other editors in this dispute have supported versions of the page that attack Cole as an antisemite and then deleted any attempt to show that Cole was actually not an antisemite. As a bit of background, Professor Cole has long publicly opposed antisemitism. He has even opposed the academic boycott of Israeli academics, a boycott supported by many of his colleagues in Middle Eastern Studies. He has also specifically and vocally opposed conspiracy theories that suggest that Jews are behind the Iraq war. I can cite sources here but I think all the disputants agree and have seen the sources of this information.

The charge of antisemitism is based on the fact that Cole has criticized a prominent group of neoconservatives in the Bush Administration; a couple of these neoconservatives have very close ties to Israel's Likud party. Because Cole has criticized "Likudniks," arguing that some of them demonstrate "dual loyalties," some have interpreted this claim as antisemitic. Armon and the others have inserted the following material into Cole's biography:

Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism. Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "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." Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.

I do not feel this material comports with WP:BLP. It consists of claims about what Cole must be really thinking rather than about what he says. It consists of libelous name-calling that is explicitly at odds with what Cole actually has said publicly about Jews, about Israel, and about conspiracy theories. We have had a long debate about this issue that I would not like to revisit. The bottom line for me is this -- I do not see a dispute like this as notable unless there is a third party WP:RS -- authored by someone neutral, not an op-ed by someone with a horse in the race -- describing this as a notable controversy. We do not have that here; what we have is extremely biased sources attacking Cole and Cole defending himself.

However, if this material is to be included, I would insist on three things: (1) that material from FrontpageMagazine and Middle East Forum -- two sources with extremely partisan biases -- be removed, (2) That material which shows Cole's actual statements about antisemitism be included here (including his explicit statements about antisemitic conspiracy theories), and (3) that Cole's explicit response to the claims by Karsh be included. I had agreed to live with a version of the page that included Cole's response to Karsh but Armon removed that response, citing BLP issues. I felt that was phony, considering he had no problem with violations of BLP as they affect Cole -- Armon seems to want quotes attacking Cole included even when Cole's opponents fight freestyle, but he seems to want any quotes from Cole defending himself removed. I also found his actions disruptive and in poor faith as he removed this material after I requested mediation on this page. I protested his removal on the talk page and I urged him to show good faith by restoring the material, but he refused to do so. I am not asking for a judgement on his faith - I am willing to stipulate good faith in spite of the evidence here - but I am asking that Cole's response be included if we are going to have libelous charges of racism published on Misplaced Pages like this.

(3) I think there should be a clear statement about what should and shouldn't be included in this BLP. I do not think that it is notable every time a right wing blogger publishes a note attacking Cole's latest blog post. I would prefer this article stuck only to stuff published in newspapers and academic sources, but I recognize that some of Cole's notability comes from the fact that his blog is very popular and well-regarded. However, his blog is well-regarded (and controversial in some quarters) because he is a prominent and established academic, not the other way around. I think it's reasonable to include some information about controversies stirred up by the blog, but I don't think such controversies need to dominate the page (and I don't think every one should be included). A lot of material existed on a page Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole that was deleted because it was a POV fork of this page that had been created to circumvent WP:BLP. I do not feel that we should be merging that stuff into Juan Cole; the material has the same problems that it had on the fork page. A key question here is, how much "criticism and controversy" is appropriate in a WP:BLP of an academic?

Again I'd prefer to see a rule of thumb that if a controversy is not considered notable by a neutral third party publishing in a reliable source, that it really isn't a useful controversy to mention on a WP:BLP. Even when it is slightly notable, I feel there should be some sense of propriety and proportionality at work -- Christopher Hitchens pontificating about a private email Cole wrote to colleagues is really not more notable than Cole's history of refereed publications, for example.

Isarig

Statement by Isarig here

Cole's profession as an academic entitles him to the same protections afforded by WP:BLP to any other living person - no more, no less. On WP, there isn't currently, nor should there be, one set of standards for academics, and a different set of standards for say, CEOs or plumbers. If anything, Cole's high profile blog and numerous TV appearances places him in the ranks of Public Figures, where libel law tolerates much more criticism. So this isn't really about "how much criticism" should we allow in the biography of an academic, but about what sort of criticisms are appropriate on a biography of a living Public Figure, and about the notability of certain events.

With regards to the Yale issue, its notability has been established beyond doubt, through numerous articles published in reliable sources about the controversy, much of which, incidentally, was stirred up by Cole's supporters. I believe even csloat does not claim this incident is not notable. I am not taking a position on how much space should be given to this notable controversy, nor do I think there can (or should) be a hard and fast rule on WP with regards to this, along the lines of "6 lines is enough, 7 is too much". There should be enough space allocated to cover the main aspects of the controversy. If it ends up taking up 4 paragraphs, so be it. If the main issues can be covered in 2 sentences - that's fine, too. The issue of "how much space" a specific item should be given on WP is not a suitable topic for mediation, in my opinion.

A final note on Yale: Commodore Sloat makes much of the fact that Cole did not apply for the job. This is of course irrelevant to the notability of the incident (which is measured by public coverage, not by Cole's opinions of it). Additionally, while it is true that Cole did not apply for the job, and did not initiate the Yale process, it is false that he did not seek it once he was being considered for it. If he was not interested, he could have told Yale he was not interested and saved them much time and effort. If he was not interested, he would not have wasted his time interviewing for the position.

The second issue, the accusations that Cole as a "new antisemite" is comprised of 4 different, though related, topics: The notability of the accusations, their suitability for inclusion in a biography, the sources used to support the accusation, and Cole's response to them. The notability I believe has been established quite well: the accusation was carried by multiple media sources, including mainstream publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and widely circulated magazines such as The New Republic. Furthermore, the people making the accusation are notable academics and journalists in their own right - the head of Middle Eastern studies at King's College, a well known historian and anthropologist, and a well-known journalist who writes for the National Review Online, The Washington Times, & The New York Post - are the ones named in the article. On to the question of suitability: Commodore Sloat alleges that the material is unsuitable, because it is libelous, and because it requires speculation as to what Cole thinks. That is false. The accusation does not at all require us to speculate as to Cole's thoughts. As quoted in the article, the accusation is an opinion of a scholar on the nature of the material Cole writes - and that opinion is that that material contains themes that are common to those found in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This material, as opinion, can't be considered libel, and as discussed above, for it to be libel against a public figure such as Cole, it must not only be false (which it is not), it must be made with malice, that is, known to be false to the person making that claim, which is again not the case. And finally, that statement was made in a well known publication, years ago, and has never been challenged as "libel" by Cole or any of his supporters, but rather accepted as a fair comment on a matter of public interest. As WP:BLP tells us, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:BLP further uses an example of how to apply this policy: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source". Here we have a nearly identical case: A well known public figure (Cole) is alleged be a new antisemite. He denies it, but The New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is public controversy. Using the above example, the allegation may belong in the biography, citing TNR as the source. Which brings us to the third issue, the sources used in the article. I agree with csloat that blogs should not be used as sources. However, none of the allegations in the current version of the article use blogs as sources. The specific quote which irks csloat, from Efraim Karsh, appears in The New Republic, which is a reliable source by WP standards. The 2 sources he objects to, Frontpage Magazine and Middle East Quarterly are not cut from the same cloth, and should be treated quite differently. Frontpage magazine is indeed a partisan source, explicitly so. While WP:RS does not preclude us from using such sources, albeit with caution, I personally am not a fan of using it, nor its equivalents from the other side of the political spectrum , such as Counterpunch, or Z magazine, or The Nation. (As a side note, Csloat exhibits an interesting double standard here. While demanding that Frontpage not be used as a source in the biography of Cole because it is partisan, he is quite happy to use an equally partisan (though of the opposite political ideology) source such as The Nation on other articles subject to WP:BLP which he has edited extensively, such as the Plame affair). MEQ, however, is quite a different beast. It is a scholarly magazine, with an editorial board comprised of academics who are known as experts in their respective fields, who come from a broad range of backgrounds and opinions. The contributors are similarly academics who are experts in their fields. The argument against it is that because it is published by the Middle East Forum, a think tank that seeks to promote "American interests", it is partisan. That is a very weak claim of partisanship, which is not even the editorial line of the magazine, but of a different (though affiliated) entity. And as noted above, WP:RS does not preclude the use of partisan sources. I see no grounds for questioning the reliability of MEQ or its suitability as a source. The final question is Cole's response. I have no problem with allowing Cole to respond, providing that the response is more than just name-calling. The article currently has Cole's response (it says Cole claims that those who accuse him of antisemitism do so in an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy), sourced to an article of his. If csloat insists on an actual verbatim quote from Cole, saying the same thing, I would not object to it.

Elizmr

I have read Armon and Isarig's well written and well-reasoned statements above and concur with all of the points they both made. I could not possibly do a better or more cogent job of summarizing the issues.

Cole is an academic who has thrust himself into the public dialog on some very controversial issues by virtue of his blog and political commentary. Criticism arising from his participation in these controversies is an important part of who Cole is and should be part of a three-dimensional, NPOV, and informative biography on Misplaced Pages. The discussion should be well written, neutrally stated, and should encompass relevant viewpoints. As editors on Misplaced Pages, we should apply Misplaced Pages guidelines in an even handed manner to all subjects. The "ends" (ie--achieving an article devoid of criticism of a subect) do NOT justify the "means" (ie--failing to apply guidelines regarding sources evenhandedly).

(SIDENOTE: In terms of setting behavioral groundrules for this discussion and the discussion around it, I would ask that it be established in advance that all followers of this mediation refrain from attacking and discrediting participants here as being members of powerful Jewish conspiracy bent on domination of Misplaced Pages. (To be crystal clear, Sloat has NEVER done this kind of thing, but other editors holding with Sloat on the points we are discussing---such as will314159---and editors who have already joined the discussion on this mediation page above have made this sort of attack). It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this kind of nonsense. Could we look at the content under discussion in a dispassionate and rational manner, and refrain from ideologically-based personal attacks? ) Elizmr 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion subsection 1 (New antisemitism)

Taking what appears to be one of the most argued issue here - the alleged "new-antisemitism" of Cole (issue 3 on the request page), it's my understanding that the parties would be satisfied with a RS repor tof Cole's response to the claims (correct me if I'm wrong). Kudos go to Armon for finding this while recently blocked. The report there is certainly extensive and appears neutral (though I have no deep knowledge of the suject matter), and provides us with a quote from Cole, which can probably be factored into the article to demonstrate his feelings, and keep the article NPOV. The report itself is based on the Yale controversy, but there's a quote which does appear to be a backlash against the antisemitism claims:

“These articles,” said Cole, “attempted to make my critiques of the Likud, on both sides of the Atlantic, look like an attack on American Jewry in general, which is manifestly not the case. For these people, Likud equals Israel equals Jews, so all criticism of revisionist Zionism and Greater Israel expansionism is anti-Semitic.”

Before we move on to working out how exactly the source should be used in the article (to make sure it's balanced), I'd like to make sure that this would be an acceptable compromise for csloat, regarding your second point where you say that no defence of Cole is made in the article. Hopefully having this RS will help to make it more BLP conformant, by including relevant info from both sides of the debate. Now, the issue of "questionable periodicals" remains, though I get the feeling that if Cole made such a statement as above, there must have been other sources. If these are the only sources to be found, and are known to be biased, it might be appropriate to mention the background of the periodicals in the article (not saying "this periodical is biased", rather "caters for ..." or something).

In terms of the additional issue to be mediated in the request page: I don't think that we can mediate on either of those two issues, as they have much greater implactions across wikipedia (I can hear the cries of cabal now), and such a discussion should take place on WT:BLP, linked from the admin noticeboards and village pump. Martinp23 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with working this response of Cole's into the article. I see nothing questionable about The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Yale Herald or numerous other periodicals that carried this charge against Cole. Isarig 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - if those periodicals carried this charge, then the mediation summary would appear to be only mentioning one or two, so ignore the "quetionable periodicals" bit in my statement above. Martinp23 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The "questionable periodicals" referred to Frontpagemagazine and the Middle East Quarterly. The periodicals Isarig cites are not "questionable" but the articles he refers to in WSJ and NR are each an opinion piece by someone with an extreme view of Cole that borders on character assassination. I'm not sure which Yale Herald piece he's referring to but it is a university paper. csloat 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing questionable about the MEQ, either. Frontpage Maagzine has already been removed from the article, though given your recent advocacy to include equally partisan and questionable sources such as antiwar.com, I find your position to be a wee bit hypocritical. Isarig 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MEQ is a partisan journal that is associated with Campus Watch, an organization whose mission is character assassination of professors who are seen as insufficiently pro-Israel. Some have advocated its removal from the article, so it is at least debatable (personally I am ok with keeping it as long as all references to it are clearly identified). As for front page, you are wrong: Antiwar is also partisan but it is not so narrowly focused on character assassination as the two magazines in question here. But in any case, this dispute is not about antiwar.com or about whether you find me hypocritical Isarig -- let's try to stick to the issues. csloat 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (my link didn't seem to work right but its the footnote numbered 24 that has frontpage in it).

MEQ is neither partisan nor associated with Campus Watch. It is an academic journal with broad participation of academics who are experts in their field. Your smear-by-association technique of describing (your alleged) mission of Campus-Watch as MEQ's msssion is something that could only be described as scurrilous propaganda. You are correct about FrontPage - it has been restored after being removed. You are welcome to the POV of the antiwar.com is not so "narrowly focused on character assassination", but this opinion has little basis in fact. If you believe that partisan sources should not be used - I am happy to remove Frontpage from this article, and antiwar.com from the MEMRI article. But if you insist that antiwar.com is good enough for WP as a source, then I submit that so is FrontPage. You can't have it both ways. Isarig 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MEQ is extremely partisan. It is founded by the founder of Campus Watch, and it is produced by the Middle East Forum, again, a partisan organization whose goal is to attack those in Middle East Studies considered insufficiently pro-israel. As for anti-war.com, you are totally wrong and you produce not a shred of evidence to support your claim but it is totally irrelevant as that is not the periodical we are discussing here. Front page and antiwar.com are not in the same league, as you should be well aware. But it doesn't matter -- this discussion is about the Juan cole page, not the memri page. csloat 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MEQ is far from partisan, and is not affilated with C-W, other than through the fact that both were started by the same person. They are "affilated" in the same way that Microsoft is affiliated with Gates Millennium Scholars, or with the Seattle Seahawks. You are welcome to your personal view of it, but it is not founded in reality nor in what the MEQ says about itself. This discussion is about, among other things, what sources are suitable for use in WP articles. If it is your contention that a partisan website like antiwar.com, which is partisan by its own description, and is 'devoted to the cause of non-interventionism' as well - as 'represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate' is suitable as a source, I reealy see no grounds for your objections to Frontpage, and even less so for MEQ. Isarig 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the story was covered in WSY (et al),then I'm sure we can agree that there is no question of its notability. WP:RS commands caution when dealing with partisan or religious sources, which is what is up for debate here, now. I think we need to bring links in at this point - csloat, saying that there's a correlation between the founders doens't tell us whether a source is truly partisan, though it may guide us. Isarig, I make the same point about antiwar.com (though the point is weakened, somewhat). It would be nice for you to provde links, Isarig, demonstrating that MEQ is not partisan, and for you to provide the opposite, csloat. Ideally, I'd like to see neutral 3rd party references, and hopefully we can decide from that. However, can we not avoid the issue of using the debateable sources by just using WSY (or others), which don't present a sticking point in WP:RS (even if they were authored by partisan reporters, I'd expect the WSY not to publish something too controversial, and we can strive for compromise on the issues). Csloat - will you be happy with having WSY/NR as sources for the new anti-semitism debate if the sourced response from Cole is included? Perhaps, if not, you can suggest a more amicable compromise. Thanks, Martinp23 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not "covered" by WSJ -- there was an op ed piece attacking Cole in the opinion section of WSJ. As for MEQ, here's what Cole has to say: "It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job ..." The journal is published by a think tank whose own mission statement outlines its partisanship: "The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America. MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies. Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public." Publisher Daniel Pipes is a well known partisan hack on these issues. Isarig may not like the characterization because he agrees with their politics, but to claim they don't espouse a politics is a feeble distortion. As to your question, I would be happy with a neutral third party commenting that a controversy exists in a WP:RS. If we are talking about the Yale controversy, such sources exist (the Jewish Weekly cited by Armon), but then we need to include the position that it is not really a controversy (I've been advocating that all along). If we are talking about the Karsh attack, I have yet to see a neutral third party WP:RS commenting that the Karsh-Cole dispute is worth noting. I also feel that even if there existed such a source, we need to be careful about WP:BLP. Publishing fringe attacks on an academic in Misplaced Pages just to make the academic look bad is really ridiculous. I proposed a test a long time ago that Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr have never addressed -- does the addition improve the article in any way? The only argument they've made in favor of this antisemitism stuff is that it is not expressly prohibited by BLP. That, even if it were true, is hardly a ringing endorsement of the addition. Finally, *if* the jew-baiting stuff is to be included, Cole's explicit responses must be included. This includes his explicit response to Karsh, if we are quoting Karsh. csloat 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agian with this misdirection and slight of hand? The mission statement you are quoting is that of MEF, not MEQ. The groups are related, but not one and the same. The mission statement and goals of MEQ are stated on its own pages, which I reproduced below, and they are clearly non-partisan. To use what Cole has said about MEQ as the basis for evaluating it is ridicolous. This whole issue started by an article critical of Cole carried by MEQ, to which he responded on his blog in his typical hysterical fashion. If we use Cole's judgement as a way to evaluate MEQ, we could equally use MEQ as a way to evaluate Cole! Publisher Pipes is, according to his WP entry, an "American neoconservative columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of Middle Eastern history". csloat is welcome to his opinion of Pipes, but other than the ad hominem nature of this attack, it is meaningless. The publication has an editorial board, which does not include the publisher. No doubt Pipes, like any other living person, espouses certain politics. But if we are to conclude that it follows that any publication of his must, by definition, espouse the same politics, we will quickly realize that there are no non-partisan publications in existance. Finaly, a warnign to clsoat: last time I used the term "jew-baiting" to describe something, I got blocked, and rightly so. I suggest you strike out your description of Karsh's comment as "Jew baiting", or face similar consequences. Isarig 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. For starters, take a look at MEQ's editorial statement:

Since its founding in 1994, the Middle East Quarterly has become America's most authoritative journal of Middle Eastern affairs. Policymakers, opinion-makers, academics, and journalists turn first to the Quarterly, for in-depth analysis of the rapidly-changing landscape of the world's most volatile region. The Quarterly publishes groundbreaking studies, exclusive interviews, insightful commentary, and hard-hitting reviews that tackle the entire range of contemporary concerns – from politics to economics to culture, across a region that stretches from Morocco to Afghanistan. The Quarterly, founded by Daniel Pipes and edited by Michael Rubin, appears in a print edition, and is available in full-text (except the current issue) on this website. The Quarterly welcomes submissions of original articles, and will consider pre-publication of chapters from forthcoming books. The Quarterly specializes in timely and expeditious publication of articles that impact on today's critical issues. For more information on submitting a manuscript

.

There is not even a hint of partisanship in there, and WP policy is to describe sources as they describe themsleves. Contrast that with antiwar.com, which is explictly partisan, one would almost say proudly so (my emphasis):

"This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian.

.

Turn to what MEQ says about its goals:

"The editors have three main goals for the Quarterly: to educate Americans about a particularly volatile and dangerous region; to construct a framework for U.S. policy in the Middle East; and to guide American policy. The Middle East Quarterly is neither strictly academic nor popular but attempts to bridge these two worlds. This implies a tension: articles need to be cutting edge (to interest the specialist) and accessible (to attract the general reader). They should be both scholarly and opinionated. In addition, they should address the concerns of a primarily American audience. To achieve all these goals, the editors especially prize articles with new information and generally shy away from statements of opinion. Articles should contain full references; complex arguments are welcome. At the same time, the text should be lucid enough to reach a general readership. We also ask authors to write in such a way so that even readers who disagree with their conclusions will read their work; that is, do not hit the reader on the head with your views, but let them emerge from the information.

But equally as important as what the journal says about itself, are the actual contents. Taking a look at the current issue, we find a balanced discussion about the status of Kirkuk - should it be a Kurdish or Turkish area, with one side presented by Kurdish professor of law, who is also an historian, and the other side presented by the first counselor at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. Both articles are full of copious footnotes, sourced to reputable, peer-reviwed academic journals, authoratative books and original documents. They are the equivalent of any article one would find in an academic, peer reviewed journal. Looking at the issue before that, we find articles by the head of the department of Middle Eastern and African history and senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University; by a professor of contemporary Middle Eastern history and political science and director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel at Emory University; by a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University ; by a Ph.D. in Persian studies from the University of Cambridge who's currently the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University; by a lecturer in the defense studies department at King's College, London. etc... There is nothing that even remotely resembles the charges of "character assassination of professors who are seen as insufficiently pro-Israel" . As I've written before, this publication has an editorial board comprised of more than a dozen experts in their fields - academics and historians, reasearchers and ex-diplomats, Arabs, Turks and Israelis. To put this in the same category as a self-described partisan rag such as antiwar.com, which dedicates a "special section" to conspiracy theories and self-acknowledged speculation about Israel's forknowledge of 9/11 is beyond the pale. To insist that the latter is a good source, but the former is questionable is not only hypocritical, but ludicrous on its face. Isarig 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In additiopn to that, let me add some neutral 3rd party views of MEQ. here's the description of MEQ from UPenn's 'SERIAL ARCHIVE LISTINGS': "Middle East Quarterly is a journal of Middle Eastern affairs, published by the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, PA.". Now, let's look at the criteria for inclusion in these listings (agian, my emphasis): "The serial must be significant. Serials listed must be carried and cataloged by a major library in order to qualify for listing. (Hence, most amateur 'zines do not qualify for listing here.) As I start listing serials, I may also give priority to serials I consider especially important. " Needless to say, "antiwar.com" does not meet these criteria, and is not listed. Isarig 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to summarise, but I'll just say that there is a deadlock now, and if all parties would like to resolve the dispute, some compromises must be made. I'll go on at the bottom of this discussion section - please put any new comments there (being concise). Martinp23 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I voluntarily am taking a break from all of this based on the heated argument between Isarig and I in WP/ANI. I'm hoping a couple days off will lead to cooler editing and I hope others can take a cue from this. But I was asked to comment here so I will. First, I think this new antisemitism stuff does not belong here at all. If it does, I am happy with the quote from Cole above, and I think the Jewish Week piece has some other valuable bits of information -- for example, the fact that the "yale controversy" is mostly the result of a letter-writing campaign from Joel Mowbray. Second, if the specific "protocol-reminiscing" quote from Karsh is included in the section for attacks on Cole, then Cole's specific response must be included. All of the hair-splitting about whether Cole adequately supports his argument that Karsh's claim is outrageous and propagandistic is beside the point. It is not for Misplaced Pages to determine which arguments are well supported and which are poorly supported. The fact is, Cole specifically indicated that he found Karsh's arguments "beneath contempt" and that Karsh used "propaganda techniques" -- we should not hide this response from readers. I agree with CSTAR's analysis of that issue. csloat 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've factored the response re: Karsh into a new section below. Martinp23 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding sources: I completely endorse Isarig's discssion above on the MEQ as a completely acceptable source.
• Regarding the remainder of the discussion, I am having trouble following it. Could we specify more clearly exactly what content we are discussing here? Elizmr 10:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - this section is about whether the anti semitism claims can be included in the article, and that we can factor in Cole's response to them.

Subsection a

As mentioned above, we're at a deadlock here, and compromises have to be made if this mediation is to suceed. I'm going to suggest one now: the claims are included, sourced to MEQ and WSY (or a more mutually acceptable source if possible), and Cole's response is also foactored in to the paragraph. I realise that this goes against your feelings about MEQ, csloat, but I hope that you'll be willing to allow it, based on the neutral context that the source has been placed in by Isarig. It would seem from the evidence that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, and I hope all parties can agree on that, if nothing. Please keep responses to this section as short is possible (below 100 words) for now. Martinp23 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this suggestion - including the claims of antisemitism from MEQ and WSJ, with Cole's response (sans the inflammatory adjectives). Isarig 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK (more opinions, anyone?) Martinp23 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for csloat's response because of the 4 of us, he's the only one opposed to their inclusion. We could claim a 75% majority, however think that would be misleading because I can think of 2 other editors, Lee Hunter and CSTAR, who have been involved in this debate for a long time and have tended towards csloat's position. I think they agree that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, even though they violently disagree with the charges, but I think it would be well worth getting clarification from them. <<-armon->> 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of what can only be termed "external involved parties" is a little difficult here - would it be possible for them to raise thier specific objections here though csloat (as a "spokesperson")? Would te parties agree to this? We really have to work towards a fully acceptable compromise, becuase, as a mediator, I cannot enforce a consensus on the page - that is for ArbCom. Martinp23 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has been "violent." I've been taking a break from this all and will continue to do so for a couple of days, but I'm responding here since it seems to be solicited. I oppose the charges being included for BLP reasons as outlined above. Fringe views, even when published by reliable sources, do not automatically get included here, and as has been demonstrated, nobody has shown how this would improve the page. If they are to be included, the response must be included, and they must not be put in as "facts" in any way. csloat 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - please see my comment above, too. Csloat, would you be willing to propose a sentence/paragraph which could go into the article about this issue, so we can get a sense of what you'd be happy to have? This can be something vague, or precise, but please use sources (the 100 word limit is waived for this). Thanks, Martinp23 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're asking me to do research and write a paragraph about something I don't believe belongs here, and to make it a paragraph I would be "happy to have"? I'm not sure that's possible, even if I were willing to do research for my opponents, which I'm not sure why I should be. Why not ask them to do their own research? Am I misunderstanding something? csloat 09:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Writing for the enemy. This is crux of the problem and why this mediation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. <<-armon->> 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon does put his finger on what I was suggesting - I have got the inference from some of your posts that you'll be willing to have the attacks included only if they are presented in a germane form, and because I'm unsure of the best proposition I can make. As mediator, there's no way I can enfore any consensus brought about here, as we need to get a mutually acceptable compromise. It is my job to help the parties work towards such a compromise, by introducing ideas and catalysing the discussion, hence my request to you. There are sources already provided on the issue should you wish to use them, and some of the excellent points raised by the external parties may help (you may decide not to be specific about the charges, but wikilink to an article which provides more background). Please try - I can feel your opposition to the idea, but I hope that it will help us to work towards a compromise. Martinp23 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also - any ideas for sentences to use from the other parties are perfectly welcome (as well as from the external parties) Martinp23 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. How's this for a first stab at it?

Juan Cole was attacked as "anti-Semitic" in the Middle East Quarterly for his claim that neoconservative U.S. officials with close ties to Israel's Likud party hold dual loyalties. Cole has argued that these allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy Cole has specifically criticized the Middle East Quarterly: "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director. They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job."

Of course, this leaves out the Karsh nonsense, which is appropriate. If we are to include that, I am OK with the proposal from Isarig that quotes most of Cole's response (excluding the "beneath contempt" phrase). I still don't like the above - it gives notability to an extreme view, as is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP, but it is my attempt to "write for the enemy."csloat 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with csloat's proposed sentence, though maybe the counterquote about the MEQ could be trimmed or summarized. My position on the "Karsh nonsense" is that it can be included if and only if Cole's response is included, without any daintiness about adjectives. What we cannot do is quote a marginal, fringey and potentially libellous criticism of Cole, and then omit Cole's response because we find it a touch intemperate for our taste. If we decide to include the material, here's how I think it should read: "In an article for the New Republic, Professor Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, cited Cole's criticisms of neoconservatism and AIPAC and argued that '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.' Cole dismissed the piece as 'outrageous,' suggested that the attack was actively solicited by the New Republic's publisher, and criticized Karsh for having 'put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism.'"--G-Dett 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not a party to this mediation. Kindly keep you opinions to the section set aside for ouside parties. Isarig 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC) To your recommendation, I think that's reasonable. I would be ok with some the following: "Professor Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, cited Cole's criticisms of neoconservatism and AIPAC and argued that '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.' Cole suggested that the attack was actively solicited by the New Republic's publisher, and criticized Karsh for having 'put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism.'" Isarig 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion subsection 2 (Karsh)

Should the article include an attack by another academic (Efraim Karsh) on Cole's expertise along with Cole's response? 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Csloat is happy for the quote from Karsh to be included, as long as Cole's response is included. So, that's one issue of the way, but now we need to come to a compromise over what parts of the quote to include. The Wiki (or its posters) can't be help responsible for BLP issues if we jst quote Cole's response from an RS - as long as it's attributed to him, it's his opinion, not ours. For this reason, I think it's important to use a direct quote, to make clear that these are Cole's words, and would suggest that the parts of the quote which are perhaps less relevant to the issue are trimmed (anyone can look the quote up anyway, through the sources). Realistically, as csloat says, we are not the judges of Cole's utterances, and how well the respond to a certain issue. We can only do our best by included what is relevant from them. What are everyone's thoughts on this proposal, and any alternatives to it? Martinp23 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- I am not "happy" for the quote to be included. I think it should be excluded on three grounds: (1) WP:BLP, (2) it is a scurrilous attack with no substance, and (3) it adds nothing to the article. If those who think the quote adds something to the article can respond adequately to those three problems, then I would accept the quote as long as Cole's specific response to the quote is also included. If that is the case, then I agree with you that Cole should be quoted directly rather than paraphrased. csloat 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - that was just the inference that I got from your post above, though you have now set the record straight. Martinp23 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about quoting Cole from a RS, but the problem is that his blog, where the quote comes from, is not a RS. If WP repeats libellous quotes posted on a blog it most certainly can be held responsible for them. I am willing to compromise on this, though. I think there is agreement that the "beneath contempt" part is empty name callign and shoudl be removed. CSTAR has convinced me that there is some merit to the argument that by calling the Karsh attack a "propaganda technique" Cole was making an argument of sorts, so I'm ok with keeping that in, though I'd rather see it paraphrased. Isarig 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarising: Isarig feels that the blog, where the quote would come from, is not a reliable source. Perhaps this is debateable based on the quote being from Cole, and Cole reporting directly to the blog. He also prefers paraphrasing though this does afford us greater protection wrt libel. (italics are my feelings, based on other expressed opinions). Martinp23 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(A procedural question - do you want me to wait for you to respond to isarig before I reply to his stuff below, since he is now replying directly to me?) Blogs are not always disallowed, and Isarig knows it. In this case the entire controversy surrounds comments Cole made in his blog, so Isarig's point is both disingenuous and hypocritical -- he wants to include a scurrilous attack on Cole's blog but then wants to censor Cole from defending himself on the grounds that the information comes from Cole's blog. This sort of argument is exactly why my conversations with this editor get so heated, and this is symptomatic of the problems that caused me to file a WP/ANI report against him. But let's stick to the substantive issue -- it's clear his position that the blog is a priori disallowed is ludicrous. The second issue, whether it should be quoted or paraphrased -- I think the answer is obvious. First, as you stated, direct quotation is best as it protects us from any libel issues. Second, it is more accurate and it allows the readers to judge for themselves the merits of the arguments quoted. Third, allowing a vehemently anti-Cole editor such as Isarig to paraphrase Cole is really stacking the deck. I'm sure isarig will say the same about allowing me to do the paraphrasing -- I am not particularly "pro-Cole" but it's obvious he perceives me that way. Finally, isarig is dead wrong that "there is agreement that the 'beneath contempt' part is empty name-calling and should be removed. Frankly, it's an accurate statement, and it is part of the Cole response to Karsh. If isarig thinks it is empty that's his right, but I don't see any reason to exclude it from Cole's response to Karsh. csloat 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(Procedural response: yes please) Csloat feels that as the section if focusing on the blog, it is right to use said blog as a source. surely the best source for a quote from someone is their own writings - in this case the blog. Csloat agrees that the section be quoted, and feels that Isarig's claim that "beneath contempt" is name calling and there is agreement on this is false, and feels that it is relevant from the opinions presented to me thus far, there is a consensus for the beneath contempt bit to be dropped - hopefully this can be a compromise (see below). Italics mine - Martinp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) WP:BLP does not prevent us from including charges, unpleasant though they may be to the target, if they were previously carried by a WP:RS. WP:BLP says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.", and provides an example: 'Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source' - we have an exact analogue here: An academic is alleged to include themes from The Protocols in his writings. He denies it, but the New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New Republic as the source'

(2) You may find it "scurrilous", but it is not without substance. The substance of the argument is this: Cole alleges that a pro-Zionist Cabal, made up of Jewish Americans in the Bush gov't is the one "really" running things in Washington, to Israel's benfit rather than the US's. This is a theme common to the one in The Protocols, which alleges a behind-the-scenes Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. You may think this charge is false, but it is a charge with substance.

(3) What it adds to the article is important information about why Cole is considered a controversial figure, and by whom. It explains what some critics find objectionable about his positions. Isarig 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to csloat's comments above - not much to summarise, and I want to make a different comment anyway :) Martinp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to present another possible compromise here? I realise that we can thrash this issue out for much longer, but hopefully we can clean it up quickly. The compromise it that we drop the "beneath contempt" part, leaving it open to review much later on, outside of mediation, and allow the quote from the blog. A quote is a primary source, and I feel that by quoting Cole's opinion from the blog, we're going be as accurate as possible. I also do feel that WP:RS will allow for this, with it being the most reliable source possible for this kind of quote. On a side note, can I have a link to blog post? Thanks, Martinp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this compromise, with just a slight tweak: We keep the Cole quote from his blog (here's the link, we drop the "beneath contempt" part, and write 'Cole said Karsh used "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." This retains the actual argument Cole is making (that comparing what he views as criticisms of Neoconservatives to the PotEoZ is propaganda), and drops most of the inflammatory name calling and adjectives. Mind you, this is not just between me and csloat, there are other parties to this mediation.Isarig 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Isarig's statements numbered (1), (2), and (3) above. Elizmr I have a few comments on use of Cole's blog reply to points rasised about him in Karsh's NR Online article. In prefacing my comments, I want to be clear that I was NOT a party to removing any of Cole's reply from his blogpost to Karsh's NR article on the Cole page, and I am NOT addressing the merit or lack of merit in any points Cole makes in his reply. That being said, I find the use of this post in the article quite problematic for two reasons: 1. Karsh's article appeared in the NR Online. A Cole response directly to the NR Online in the form of a letter would have allowed the author of the original piece (Karsh) to reply in the form of an author's reply to the letter. Cole, however, moved the venue of his reply to his own blog, where he has complete editorial control and where Karsh cannot further clarfiy or respond. 2. The post of Cole's that we are proposing to include is entitled "Misplaced Pages, Karsh and Cole". In the first sentence of this blog post Cole writes, "The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me", and then goes on to respond to Karsh. We then take Cole's reply and put it in the Misplaced Pages article. By doing this, aren't we allowing Cole to indirectly edit his own Misplaced Pages entry? Elizmr 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(cut n paste mostly from discussion below w/CSTAR) I do have a problem with using this particular blog post of Cole's.

Karsh, being published in a RS, was in effect, forced to present some kind of evidence for his beliefs otherwise he'd bring the publication into legal jeopardy. Cole on the other hand, has no such constraints on his blog. This is the problem I see with BLP as applied to Karsh. The fact that we remove a "beneath contempt", or not, in the main text doesn't alter the fact that we're using a poor source which is potentially libelous. We can't say "well the magazine's lawyers vetted it -sue them". I don't see how using the source, but sanitizing what he wrote, really makes a difference.

The other big problem I have with using this source, is that it seems to be the result of Will's trolling on Cole's blog about his WP article and an attempt to directly provide "balancing" content. If Cole had come here to WP to comment on his page, and had made the same comments on talk, it wouldn't be source for the article. There's an even lower level of editorial oversight on his blog than here, where he could get blocked. This seems to me to set a very bad precedent for the project because it allows self-published bloggers to, in effect, write their bios and lash out at their critics offsite and have it incorporated here. I believe that even if there is a case for using them, we should dispense with self-published sources once it becomes this obvious that they are self-serving. To put not-too-fine a point on it, this will allow even more partisan POV to be injected into this article, and WP in general. In that case, I suppose that anyone subject to criticism had better get a blog.

I also think that focusing this into a narrow Cole/Karsh dispute (for which we don't seem to have any RSs making note of it as such) is extremely inaccurate, and insisting that he get a "hit in", is not actually improving the article because it should be a survey of the issues -not a blog war. Karsh is one of Cole's critics on the topic of conspiracy theory veering towards AS. I believe the quote we have from Karsh is a statement they would probably all agree with, but some have gone further.

However, I want to stress I do think that a) Cole has a right to respond to his critics, and b) the article would be poorer without it, and c) to that end I've not removed any source without providing an alternative source for his response -at the moment we have the two I've suggested and there may be more. <<-armon->> 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment/clarification I've raised an objection to the blog post as source, not to having a response. Aside from the other issues I raised, I honestly believe that this and especially The Misuse of Anti-Semitism this form a better "defense" of Cole's position, and better explains it, than a short, rather intemperate blog post. <<-armon->> 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion subsection 3 (Yale)

Should there be four long paragraphs of discussion about an appointment to Yale that Cole never received? 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be adequate coverage of what was a major controversy over Yale declining to offer him the position. I don't think it's particularly overlong at the moment but I'm open to tightening it up and making sure it's accurate and NPOV. <<-armon->> 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the Yale thing should be included in the article at all. Despite the notability, it is a bit of a low blow for a biographical page. Elizmr 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Elizmr. If it is to be discussed at all, four paragraphs is way too much. A sentence or two is plenty, as discussed in talk ad nauseum. csloat 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Procedural suggestion

I don't know how the mediation process in WP works; perhaps it would be best if

• We allow the mediator to respond to (or at least paraphrase) any comment before replying.
• If this suggestion is too onerous on the mediator, maybe we could allow a "cooling off" (say several hours) period between comments.

Is this useful or practical? --CSTAR 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent ideas. I think we can go for the first one, at least for now. So, notice to all parties - please don't respond to a comment until I've left a note about it. Martinp23 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Isarig 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Elizmr 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. <<-armon->> 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Unfortunately, it looks like this issue is going to be brought to arbitration by Durova, based on issues spreading over several pages, involving other users and outside the scope of this mediation (and of the ability of mediation to solve disputes). Regretfully, when the arbitration commences, mediation will have to stop, which is slightly annoying as we appear to be starting to make some headway in the issue. I'm mentioning this now so that we're aware of what's coming, and to invite the parties to express their opinions on continuing mediation now, on this narrow issue, or leaving the whole broad issue of the behavoir of several users to the ArbCom. Basically, wht I'm asking is whether all parties are happy for mediation to continue now, or if you would like to wait until we get to ArbCom? Martinp23 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just had a look at that discussion in the Adminstrator's/incidents page, I think it is profoundly unwise "to lump everything" into one dispute. I personally have had several serious disagreements with Isarig, but I also have a great deal of respect for his intelligence and arguing style. I'm prepared to deal with him on disagreements on an individual basis, in generally civil discussions. What you are proposing is that this limited disagreement be settled in a "world war" with lots of other potentially acrimonious disagreements involving a wide swath of articles. Looking at some of the issues, this would mean in addition that in some instances I might be in some unpleasant company the company of some unpleasant issues.

Please reconsider. What you are proposing really will destroy Misplaced Pages. I think Jumbo Jimbo should put a stop to this immediately.--CSTAR 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin, if you are referring to this post, it reads as if this mediation is expected to continue while the arbitration case is put together. We ought to, with all that has been assembled here already. Abbenm 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Abbenm, yes, I was referring to that. My position is that I would like this mediation to go on for a long as possible (until we can sort out the issues), though the case will have to stop when/if the matter gets to ArbComm. My post above was to inform the parties of this, and to check, as mediator, that they would all be happy to proceed with mediation in good faith. CSTAR, some of the behavoiral issues here go far beyond the scope of mediation, across many articles, and will probably need ArbCom actions to rectify them. Martinp23 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this mediation continue, as I think we're making good progress, much due to your efforts. If/when there is arbitration around the recent issues brought up at WP:ANI, the issues will be of a more general nature (hostile editing environments) and/or personal issues related to specific editors, and I don't see why that should cause this mediation to stop. Isarig 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Isarig -- I see no reason for this mediation to stop, though I don't know the details of what happens when arbcom gets ahold of an issue -- is everybody blocked for a while or something? csloat 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be on hold for now, but I'm happy to continue as well. <<-armon->>

Outside parties

Please keep comments here short and to the point, and remeber that your views may not neccesarily be taken into account - please don't take offence if this happens.

Comment by CSTAR

Of the issues in the dispute, I am only concerned about the question of how to suitaby present the charges of antisemitism arising from Coles dual loyalties allegation and the responses by Cole. For this reason I decided not to list myself as officially involved in the dispute. Consequently, I was somewhat taken aback by your comment your views may not neccesarily be taken into account.

From WP:BLP "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

There is not a unique way to report the facts of the matter here, the existence of a dispute involving Cole and other Scholars. The facts are roughly that some writers have accused Cole of antisemitism based on his dual loyalty charge and that Cole has denied those charges.

I have nothing against stating that "some critics, such as Karsh have claimed parallels between 'new antisemitism' and anti-semitic tracts such as the Protocols." However, to include Karsh's quote without providing an account of Cole's response, either quoted in full, paraphrased or some mixture thereof fails the neutrality test in my view and is perilously close to advocacy journalism.

What is in the article currently is not a paraphrase of Cole's response as suggested by Isarig here. I had said that in the context of an argument, Cole is making a point, specifically that Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" The paraphrase makes no mention of the real problem with the Karsh quote and its inclusion here, that is to say the association of Cole's writing with the "Protocols". According to Isarig, "That's not an argument, that's name calling . It's no better, as far as content, than saying "karsh sucks"." He further added in a subsequent reply "It does not respond to anything Karsh says, it does not defend Cole's position in any way - it is merely saying "it sucks"."

To be clear I'm happy to remove the "beneath contempt" comment which in my opinion adds nothing, but everything else is fair to include.

It is also not in dispute that "Karsh sucks" is not an argument. In saying that "Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.", Cole clearly tries to show something specific: that to associate his criticisms of the Neoconservative clique to a belief in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (or even more ambiguosly that it "resonates powerfully) is unwarranted; moreover its is the kind of unwarranted conclusion used by propagandists.

Let me quote a noted academic Doug Walton (Informal Logic, A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 1989)

In every reasonable dialogue, each participant should have a clearly designated thesis or conclusion the he is obliged toprove in the argument. This means that he is under a burden of proof to establish this particular conclusion. Hence if there is justifiable reason to think he may be straying off this burden of proof, his argument is open to a charge of ignoratio elenchi (Irrelevance).

To justify Cole's use of "propaganda" here to describe (what admittedly Cole claims is) Karsh's pseudo-argument, let me first quote the WIkipedia article on Propaganda

Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, appealing, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view.

Let me further quote Karl Popper (Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition) to illustrate that propaganda is a legitimate charge in the domain of argumentation.

Even more precious is the tradition that works against the misuse of language which consists in pseudo-arguments and propaganda. This is the tradition of and discipline of clear speaking and clear thinking; it is the critical tradition, the tradition of reason.

To illustrate my point, suppose Karsh used a different argument, for example some fallacious statistical argument (or even an invalid use of a syllogism) to infer that Cole has some property X. Does Cole have to prove that he does not have property X; wouldn't it be sufficient for Cole to point out that Karsh uses statistical fallacies to infer X? Wouldn't that be a valid response?

The fact that Cole assigns a name to the type of argument ("propaganda technique") is not "name calling" any more than would characterizing an argument as "slippery slope" or a "statistical fallacy." Moreover Cole doesn't merely assign a descriptive name to the Karsh statement. In addition, he says how it attempts "to insinuate criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" It directly addresses the association that Karsh makes to 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

In conclusion, any paraphrase or quote from Cole which does not specifically refer to that association, would be incomplete.--CSTAR 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Except Cole's accusation was simply that, an accusation. The "argument" Cole supposedly made is mythical. The charge of "propaganda" is so close to what his critics charges that he engages in as to be the equivalent of a schoolyard taunt of "I Know You Are But What Am I?" -nothing but simple Proof by assertion coupled with a circumstantial ad hominem. Unlike Karsh, who presented evidence for his assertions (even if you think it's flawed) Cole presented none -this is likely why it was dismissed as name calling.

However, the fact that it's an invalid argument would be beside the point if it were in a RS. Karsh, being published in a RS, was in effect forced to present some kind of evidence for his beliefs otherwise he'd bring the publication into legal jeopardy. Cole on the other hand, has no such constraints on his blog. This is the problem I see with BLP as applied to Karsh. The fact that we remove a "beneath contempt", or not, in the main text doesn't alter the fact that we're using a poor source which is potentially libelous. We can't say "well the magazine's lawyers vetted it -sue them".

The other big problem I have with using this blog post in particular, is that it seems to be the result of Will's trolling on Cole's blog about his WP article and an attempt to directly provide "balancing" content. If Cole had come here to WP to comment on his page, and had made the same comments on talk, it wouldn't be source for the article -or would it? There's an even lower level of editorial oversight on his blog than here, where he could get blocked. This seems to me to set a very bad precedent for the project. <<-armon->> 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the RS issue (to say nothing of others), Cole's response can be included. We've already covered this issue and the only responses I received were in agreement. Abbenm 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Proof by assertion. Cole does not have the burden to prove anything. Karsh does. aIt's valid for Cole to say that a conclusion is unwarranted.

It is the responsability of WP to present issues in a fair, accurate way as per WP:BLP. Your argument says that because of potential litigation, WP can only present half the story. Then WP is becoming advocacy journalism.

The will incident is a red herring; we are not talking about management of Cole's blog, we are talking about a WP article.--CSTAR 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Proof by assertion -he does have the burden if he makes counterclaims, and he did. Your argument only works if you truncate what he said.

I agree, which is why I looked for alternatives.

I don't see how it is, the incident and management of Cole's blog is directly related to whether it's a good source to use for a WP article, esp when it's making claims about people other than the subject of the article. <<-armon->> 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Name-calling" presumably means ad hominem. The terms "outrageous" and "propaganda technique" refer to the attacks not the attackers; by definition they are not ad hominem. I would have thought this obvious.

2. Karsh's opinion that Cole's writing "resonates powerfully" with the argument of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion represents a tiny and marginal opinion. It's been echoed by no one anywhere. We need to be careful about how we present it, as per WP:Undue weight.

3. The "alternative" Cole response is not an alternative; it's original research. It is something Cole said about a speech by Larry Summers; he doesn't even mention Karsh or the Karsh quote. The horsetrading rationale is ill-conceived. It makes no sense to try to compensate for a violation of WP:NPOV by turning around and violating WP:OR. We have the choice to violate neither, which is what we should do.--G-Dett 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvement of Article vs. Notability

Between the Talk:Juan Cole page and this one, it has been repeatedly asked how this Karsh inclusion improves or adds insight to the entry on Juan Cole (123 4567).

In link #5 I ask if the substance of the Karsh insertion does anything besides imply anti-semitism, because that suggestion alone would be factually invalid, and not biographical.

In (the only) response Isarig said that Karsh makes a worthy point of some sort within his original article, but that it "does not come out in the current quote". And perhaps hypothetically Karsh makes dozens of great points about Cole in his original article. That doesn't help this encyclopedic entry. As it stands, I see nothing biographical about implying that Juan Cole is an anti-semite and I do not see how or where the present quote does anything besides this. If nothing else, it should be agreed that this section has to be changed in some way from its present form.

This is infinitely easier for me to accept if it can adequately be considered a controversy and solely that, but not as a factually valid or objectively insightful addition. A lot of time has been spent arguing the latter (or a mixture of each) in relation to both Karsh's statement and Cole's response. If we consider it a controversy, I think tensions and objections relating to POV edits or name calling or scurrilous attacks and RS issues ought to be much less intrusive and constraining for each side. All this, assuming notability is established. Abbenm 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Armon. Re: "-he does have the burden if he makes counterclaims, and he did. Your argument only works if you truncate what he said."

It doesn't seem surprising Cole will make counterclaims. Political discourse cannot be expected to suddenly come to a grinding halt. But are these counterclaims an issue? I thought my proposal was essentially truncating what he said.

But it does seem that you and I have arrived at an impasse in the discussion of this particular issue, in the sense that further back and forth will rehash what we have just said. Do you agree? Fortunately, there are some general principles on which we do agree, such as the need to include a suitable response from Cole.

Perhaps the mediator sees a way further, I don't yet see it.

--CSTAR 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This section is descending into chaos, I'm afraid. Third parties can now address concise comments here or (preferably) on my talk page, but please avoid drawing yourselves into the conflict by arguing - you're not parties to the mediation, so you're not bound by some of the mediation "rules", so I'm expecting good faith here. Similiarly, could parties avoid responing to issues here, unless I've opened the comment up for discussion. I'm here to foster discussion - and I really don't want to have to restrict 3rd parties in order to do so. Martinp23 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The third parties have raised some good points above - it would be helpful to produce a list of them and incorporate them into the discussion. csloat 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do - I'll try to get this done at some point, but I've taken the points raised here on board. Martinp23 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that we concentrate on the issues originally raised by the original parties to the mediation rather than moving the bar at this point. Elizmr 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plea for context

Quick comments on my belief that the solution is to deal with the context of the dual loyalties/Likudnik/new anti-Semitism disputes:

1. There are many others in respective and influence positions in media that use the term "Likudnik" to refer to "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration. For example, Tony Karon (Senior editor for Time magazine), in his blog today wrote "Elliot Abrams, the last of the Likudniks in senior Bush Administration positions, has spoken openly of the need for the U.S. to fund, arm and train Fatah activists to launch a 'hard coup' against the elected Hamas government." Tony Karon has written a large number of Time cover stories in the past two years.
2. There is coverage of the general concept/accusation of dual loyalty in the following articles: Dual loyalty, Diaspora politics in the United States, and Ethnic interest groups. One should deal with this in context as a service to our readers. Critics have also written about specific US-based think tanks as not distinguishing between US and Israeli interests -- see JINSA#Criticism. Additionally, others have made claims about a document known as A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm#United_States_foreign_policy. Such issues could be dealt with in a more coherent and integrated way in order for both sides to be accurately represented. The number of respectful commentators on both sides of the issue is large -- to single out Cole's words outside of proper context is unfair and only leads to issues.

Thus the solution would be to create an article about this specific topic which presents both sides of the issue in full context so that the reader can judge the issues properly. This moves it away from being a simple matter of which specific sources to include, and towards a full debate on the issues. --70.48.71.143 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. csloat 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do tend towards this opinion - it is a far reaching concept, and needs proper discussion. Martinp23 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Please see discussion at Criticisms as part of larger socio-political conflict. There is no disagreement about providing context. <<-armon->> 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully agree with Armon. Also, a comment left by an anon editor on this very Misplaced Pages specific mediation page discussion is strange. Anon--why not identify yourself if you want to join this discssion? Elizmr 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - Darling by Jonathan Calt Harris, Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2004
2. Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006 13(1)
3. Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic
4. Juan Cole, The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, The History News Network, September 30 2006; see also Juan Cole, "Criticize Israel? How dare they!" Chicago Sun-Times (23 April 2006) p. B2.