| Revision as of 19:48, 12 November 2006 editCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits →Merge into Juan Cole← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:22, 15 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,333,130 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (15 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{blp}} |
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Cole, Views And Controversies Concerning Juan|blp=yes| |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
!align="center"|]<br/>] |
|
|
|
}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This page == |
|
|
|
|
|
This page looks terrible. I don't think the cquote tag should be used for every quote; just for the really long ones. I also don't see the point of adding many more really long quotes -- additional drunk talk from Hitchens is particularly unnecessary, since his main argument is already summarized in that section. It's bad enough that this page was started as a hit piece against Cole in explicit violation of ]. Some of us have tried to correct that, and we've even worked together at times in spite of disagreements. But the current arrangement of the page with every quote separated out like that makes it look like a giant he-said-she-said debate -- not much of an improvement over a hit piece (though I suppose I should be grateful that Cole is allowed to state his views on a page allegedly about his views -- many of the Cole quotes have only been allowed after extended debates). Frankly, I think those who are so invested in bashing Cole day after day should either read what he actually has to say with an open mind (instead of reading it filtered through the gin-pickled brain cells -- what few of them are left -- of the likes of Mr. Hitchens) or simply find a new hobby. This page has existed for months now and 90% of it is made up of attacks and defenses of arguments that are less than 10% of what Cole actually writes about on his blog (never mind his academic publications, which are hardly mentioned). There is not a word about his invaluable translations of material from the Arab press. Not one word. There is some discussion of his views on the Iraq war, allowed on a page allegedly about his views only after an edit war in which Armon ridiculed such commentary as "soapboxing." But no mention about his daily news updates on Iraq or the Middle East. Nothing about Cole's posting of interviews and articles from third parties on important middle eastern issues, or about his analysis of the Iraqi insurgency. Instead we have near-hysterical focus on dubious charges of anti-semitism and belabored defenses against them (from someone who has defended Israeli academics and frequently criticized real antisemitism). And the only real mention of his academic work is in the form of an attack from Karsh in a non-academic publication that borders on ad hominem. That particular quote -- which is not, to my knowledge, cited in any print source other than the place it appears -- is quoted not once, not twice, but three times in Misplaced Pages (it's also on Karsh's page), making its status on Misplaced Pages more important than any quotation from, say, Thomas Paine, Napoleon, Sigmund Freud, or Ulysses S. Grant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for ranting about this. I'm not sure what to do here. I could throw an NPOV or Totally-disputed tag up but neither of those are totally accurate. The problem is not really a specific POV or accuracy dispute; the problem is a page designed to circumvent ] issues that has turned into a huge debate page between Cole and his adversaries. That is really the role of a blog and not an encyclopedia. I could submit an AfD on this page but I'm not sure it merits that either. I don't think we're ever going to settle any of this -- the Cole bashers have shown that they have more free time than anyone else and that they are willing and able to spend that time making sure that Cole is attacked as much as possible on this page. The Cole defenders will keep adding Cole's own words to try to balance out the onslaught of attacks. So we have this ongoing he-said, she-said that is totally unencyclopedic, and it appears that it will keep going on forever. The article is already almost as long as the ] article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm open to suggestions from all sides here; it would be really nice if those of us who disagree about Cole could actually agree on a NPOV article about him. Perhaps the next step is an RfC, to bring in some voices who aren't so committed to one side or another. I'm just not interested in continuing an endless back-and-forth debate with people who won't ever budge (and perhaps I am one of them).--] 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here's a suggestion. Scroll waaay up and you'll see my concerns about what this page is supposed to be -the problem is in all that time it's never been properly sorted out. I suggest we look at other examples like ]. There are "views" and "criticism" sub-page for him. Why don't we just split this article into 2 like that and agree that once the edit box shows up the article-size warning, each one is too long and will have to be trimmed. ] 01:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Chomsky pages on "politics" and "criticism" are even worse than this one. I mean, you're right, that solution has the advantage of avoiding the he-said she-said smackdown approach we have here, but only by sending each party to a corner. Both pages seem too long, and the Chomsky criticism page is atrocious -- lots of "expand" tags, a poorly organized (and poorly written) hodgepodge of everything negative people could find published about Chomsky. This page would be worse like that because all this criticism focuses on Cole's blog, most of it on nitpicky or non-notable issues (I mean really, the Yale thing? for example), and much of it from sources that aren't ]. Chomsky has written dozens of books and been criticized in dozens of other books -- Cole has a few books but all the criticism is about some of the comments in his weblogs, much of it from other bloggers. The other problem is that Cole has specifically addressed much of the criticism directly, point by point; separating these points leads to a pretty incoherent presentation. I don't like the way this page is organized like a debate, but if we're going to have all this junk in here, the refutation should follow the criticism rather than being segregated on different pages.--] 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
COMMODORE. '''though I suppose I should be grateful that Cole is allowed to state his views on a page allegedly about his views -'''. I know you stated that in full seriousness. But it really is funnier than hell. This page has always been a hit piece. I remember when I came to it about a year ago. It was locked up because of the Karsh quote. A compromise was made to unprotect it. A seperate V&C would be created where Karsh could safely live. Guess what. The hit crowd is trying to put full Karsh back on the front section where the rules clearly prohbit it and caused the page to get locked up to start with. An incredible mind boggling display of bad faith. Exposed to the futility of endless reversions, I had to take a long break, but you have preserved here against great odds and deserve recogniton. You are a legend in WP for your persistance, sense of fairness, and balance. As JC would say Cheers. Will314159 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "blogger ethics" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain what this is about? I don't understand. I removed it, but Isarig reverted, indicated he has a strong committment to this passage. He also used the phrase "blogger ethics" to defend it; can you explain this? If I have this right, the claim is that Cole corrected a mistake he made because someone criticized the mistake, and then he got criticized for correcting the mistake? This is notable how? And why is it under "Expertise and professionalism"? Thanks.--] 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'll be happy to explain. No, you do not have it right. Cole was not criticized for "correcting a mistake", he was criticized for changing his blog without indicating he had done so, and without acknowledging the error. "Blogger ethics" say, among other things, that a blogger should not retro-actively alter previous posts by removing content - but rather that wrong content be left on the blog, with either (a) a note which explains the post was in error or (b) the erropnous text appear with strike-through. Cole not only did neither, but proceeded to post on his blog his new "policy" regarding blogs posts, which was essentially " I can change anything I want within 24 hours without indicating I've done so.", The reason it appears under "Expertise and professionalism" is that it is unprofessional behaviour for a blogger. ] 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Fair enough, I see no problem in referring to the changes to his blogs as cited by the references. ALthough to say that it is a violation of some ethical standard should have a reference to that standard. I don't see the WP article on ]ging mentioning this or anything on "ethics". Maybe it should.--] 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: I don't know if there is a code of blogger ethics that applies to this. Maybe there is, but I don't know about it. I suppose if the statement were really outrageous, then deleting it without mention that a change had been made would be present an ethical problem. However, I thought people changed blog entries all the time, but is this point worth arguing? Maybe a reference to the specific example would be helpful (and should be part of a footnote in amy case).--] 23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Isarig can you please point to these "blogger ethics" that say this? I assume you are referring to a specific ethical text that is accepted by most bloggers as an ethical guide? I couldn't find anything , for example. I have been blogging on and off since the mid 1990s and I have never encountered such a guide. I know there is no main blogger professional organization that would publish one, but I wonder if there is a specific code of ethics that you are referring to or this is just the claim of one blogger. As for "unprofessional behavior for a blogger" - is Cole a "professional" blogger? I agree with CSTAR that this doesn't seem worth arguing about, and it doesn't seem notable to me. I'm not trying to be facetious about all this; I'm really trying to understand why this particular comment is notable. Thanks.--] 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here you go: |
|
|
:As to Cole being a professional blogger, I'd say the answer is yes. Even his supporters acknowledge that he rose to notability primarily because of his blog. His Blog carries revenue-producing ads. To claim he's not a professional blogger would require some extraordianry proof. ] 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Isarig, that's pretty feeble for support of an ethical standard that merits that kind of criticism that Kramer dishes out. One of those references specifies a corporate standard. Now if Googleblog did something such as change an entry, that would be upsetting.--] 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm sorry Isarig, having only been involved in the blogging community some 8-10 years, perhaps I am too new to it to be aware of some things. I looked at the links you posted, but they seem to be individual bloggers' ideas of what a good code of ethics would be. Can you point me to the blogger professional organization, or some statement signed by numerous bloggers that indicates that "desirableroastedcoffee", "forrester", and "gingerriverseast" are acknowledged as representatives of the code of ethics advanced by the blog world? I have never heard of these blogs (but, as I said, perhaps I'm new here). My sense of things is that most bloggers have individual ideas about what they think is ethical but I don't know of any blogging professional organization or community that has advanced such a set. My sense is that the blogging community is still in the early stages of ironing out ethical questions, so what may be ethical to one blogger (correcting his own errors) may be a no-no to another. (I didn't read all those links too closely but I really didn't see anything addressing this particular situation by the way). I don't sense there is a whole lot recognized as "unethical" about Cole announcing his own rules for his own blog as you say he did. I'm not going to revert war over this - it's fine with me to leave this up, but I think it's just one blogger complaining about another blogger here. As for Cole's "profession," it is my understanding that he is a university professor. Actually, his vita and professional history do not even list the occupation "professional blogger." And, again, I'm not aware of any professional blogging organization or board of standards that oversees such issues.--] 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I also note that in the graf in question: |
|
|
:''Cole has also been criticized for altering, correcting and removing material on his blog posts after learning they contained incorrect or embarrassing information without noting that changes had been made.. cited in '' |
|
|
it should be noted that the original reference is actually a blog. Thus sloat's characterization is accurate. I suggest we leave this (who cares?) but we add that is a blog (cited by ).--] 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== cquote and other changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the cquote tags from several of the shorter quotes using the (admittedly arbitrary) standard that quotes shorter than 4 lines long should be in the text rather than separated out. After doing this I realize that it is even more an arbitrary standard than I thought, since if I widen my browser, other quotes are less than four lines long. I can come up with a word count to use instead if anyone cares but I do think too many short cquotes is very distracting; that should only be used for longer quotes. I made some other minor changes but one that people might have a problem with is I moved the wikipedia self-referentiality comment to a footnote; it seemed distracting from the flow of the text. I think the footnotes should be used more often for such purposes. I;m mentioning it here because I don't want to be accused of trying to hide this fact; it's pretty obvious to anyone who clicks the link that Cole is commenting because of the wikipedia page. I think this should be done with some other stuff on the page too as it will flow better if we move some of the tangential commentary to the footnotes. I also removed this from the Kramer quote -- "This is what Yale political scientist Steven Smith must have meant when he said that Cole's blog "opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind." I'm not sure what is gained by quoting Kramer speculating what Smith might have meant when Smith speculated about what Cole might have thought. The point Kramer is making is certainly intact without this extra sentence.--] 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I agree that footnotes should be used more often. --] 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== conservative MEF == |
|
|
|
|
|
Come on Isarig - you must be crazy to claim that MEF is not "conservative." Take a look at their website. Which member of the foundation (or, indeed, of the MEQ board) is a "liberal"? Why hide that fact? There's nothing wrong with being a conservative - it's still a free country.--] 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I encourage you to review ]. I am most certainly not crazy, I am enforcing widely accepted WP guidelines. Your OR regarding MEF's editorial board is of no interest to me - take it to Daily Kos if you must. There is indeed nothing wrong with being a conservative, but there is a lot wrong with lableing some organziation as such when it does not describe itself in those terms. we do not introduce the Salon piece with the label "in the left-leaning Salon magazine, Cole said...", nor should we poison the well with similar labels regarding MEQ or MEF. ] 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is definitely one of the more ridiculous claims I've heard. OR?? Get real. Once again, I ask you, name one liberal - or even one "nonpartisan" - member of MEF. Just one.--] 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You just don't get it, do you? For me to name one liberal member of MEF would be my OR. For you to name one or a dozen conservative members of MEF would be your OR. You have no grasp of one of the most basic tenents of this encyclopedia. Go and get educated (and civil, if you can manage it) ] 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Civil? You have the nerve to call me uncivil in the same breath as you tell me to get educated? Where in your education did you learn that it was civil to imply that someone is uneducated? Additionally, your claim about my "grasp" of the encyclopedia is hysterical. Just calm down. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::when you call me "crazy" in one post, and respond to my plea to review ] by calling my arguments 'ridiculous' and telling me to "get real", I am under no obligation to extend civility to you. Nonetheless, that is exactly what I had done - I told you to educate yourself about ], which you have clearly not yet done, as judging by your response below. ] 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Naming a liberal is not OR, it is just R; OR would be to pick up the phone and call the MEF and ask them "hey, dude, you hiding any liberals there?" You don't have to do that, do you. All you have to do is look at their website. is their freakin' mission statement: "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." It doesn't take any OR to call that conservative. Salon.com uses the word "conservative." These guys are behind Campus Watch and Islamist Watch, ferchrissakes. I don't understand why you feel like there is something wrong with being conservative, but let's try a different tack.--] 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You prove my point that you do not understand ]. For "csloat" to claim that MEF is conservative, because according to "csloat"'s research all the staff members are "conservative" is OR. End of discussion. Go read ]. ] 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Isarig, I suggest you also read ]. Moreover, I think it's helpful if you were mindful of the purpose of Misplaced Pages policies; they require interpretation and applying them requires some thought and may not always clear how to apply these policies. I'm surprised that such artful polemecist as yourself has made the claim ''You prove my point that you do not understand WP:NOR''; you have proven nothing whatsoever. There is a limit to how often you can pull of this kind of argument by irrelevant assertion.--] |
|
|
:::::::I have read ]. I think it is quite clear and explicit that an editor conducting independent primary research on the political views of the staff of a magazine, and based on this research pronounces that magazine to be "conservative" - is OR. Am I missing something? ] 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: ''independent primary research on the political views'' to conclude that the magazine is conservative? Well Isarig, I can't possibly believe that is independent research. Note first that Misplaced Pages itself classifies ] in the category ''Conservative organizations_in the United States.'' A cursory google search turns up on ]. Now, please Isarig. be sensible. To claim that Middle East Forum is conservative is not ''OR.'' What good is it to trot rule X, Y or Z and argue that their correct interpretation is that the statement in question is OR when it's plainly visible that it isn't OR. |
|
|
:::::::::You should know better than to use WP as a source for claims made on other WP articles. I ask you again, am I missing something when I say that an editor conducting independent primary research on the political views of the staff of a magazine, and based on this research pronounces that magazine to be "conservative" - is conducting OR? ] 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: However, do you really think it's worth our time to try to dispute this? I don't think so, and I'm perfectly happy to lose an argument over such a minor point. Isarig, doesn't it seem to you this is a useless discussion over a square foot of territory? BTW I also responded to your charge below.--] 06:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If you think it's a waste of your time, stop arguing the point. ] 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC). |
|
|
:::::::::: '''Reply''' I take your point. I will stop arguing the point; evidently it's not a waste of your time.--] 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm taking a different approach here now, though I'm sure Isarig will continue his ridiculous edit warring. I've just added a footnote describing the mission statement of the MEQ; there should be more to come. It is odd that Isarig wants to hide the easy-to-discover fact that MEQ is a neoconservative organ that identifies itself with the far right of Zionist politics and pretends that is mainstream US opinion. Don't be afraid of the truth, Isarig - if MEF is conservative or pro-Zionist, this should not be a source of shame - I doubt Pipes or Kramer find it shameful. Why should you?--] 01:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: CSloat Please calm down. You are not helping yourself by this outbreak. If necessary take a break. Go back reread this entire dialog. Isarig is a clever person, and knows how to manipulate you too well; his capacity at this kind of manipulation exceeds his capability for rational dialog. --] 03:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:CStar, you are encouraged to re-acquaint yorself with ] ] |
|
|
:: Thank you for your encouragement. I don't believe I have engaged in a personal attack against you. |
|
|
::# My response directed to you above said you were an artful polemecist, but that in this instance I didn't believe you had actually proven anything. Isn't this a valid form for ]? |
|
|
:::No, in your response you said my capacity for manipulation is greater than my capacity for rational dialog. If you don't see the insulting nature of that personal attack, it's time for you to take wikibreak yourself. ] 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: '''Reply''' |
|
|
:::: No Isarig, I made two separate responses. In my response to you I said you were an artful polemicist, as is plainly evident from the record. In my response to ''Sloat'' I said that "your capacity for manipulation is greater than your capacity for rational dialog." Now in the context of your interaction with him on this page this is evident. Please don't distort the record. And please, stop ]. Note what ] specifically states: |
|
|
:::::''This policy can be a prime candidate for wikilawyering, which can be defined as asserting a technical interpretation of the policy to override the principle it expresses. This page is frequently edited and examples and remedies that do or do not appear here may have been edited to suit one editor's perspective, but not be generally agreed to by the community. In the end, common sense is more important than the exact wording in this and other policy articles, including the examples included above'' |
|
|
:::: I urge you to file an ] if you feel you are being unfairly attacked. |
|
|
|
|
|
::# In my response to Sloat, I did not address you. What I did say to CSloat about you, was not an attack on you, in my view. If it upset you I apologize. I used no foul language, no personal characterization of you. I said you were a "clever guy" (I also do apologize for not using gender neutral language, and will recognize this as a failing on my part), but that your capacity to manipulate Sloat does exceed your capacity for rational dialog. Is that an attack? Perhaps it ''was'' an attack on Sloat, and I do feel very bad about it. Sloat works very hard on WP, and I don't think I properly recognized his effort. In fairness, I must also say you also work hard, although I hardly ever (but not ''never'' I might add) agree with you. |
|
|
::# If you still insist I attacked you personally, there is no point in my trying to argue otherwise. By all means file an ]; it's possible you might find it entertaining (although I can't see how).--] 06:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Middle East Quarterly == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article currently says: |
|
|
:''The Middle East Quarterly describes itself as follows: "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.."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Fine. That's the description that appears in the web page for Middle East Forumm. The Middle East Quarterly is a resource for the Middle East Forum. It may be approprate to use the description of one for the other, but isn't the claim semamtically confusing? The Quarterly is a publication . The citation now seems to equate a publication with a ]. Is that possible? It certainly appears to contradict the notion that a think tank is an institute a=or a group of people not a publication. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that it's a publication of a think tank... or is that OR also.--] 02:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are quite correct, thta's the wrong description. In describing MEQ, we shoud use it's own description, from , which is as follows: |
|
|
:::''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: This is an improvement, but anything beyond than the first sentence is really unnecessary.--] 04:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm fine with your shortning of the description. ] 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Thanks. --] 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I restored the mission statement. The fact that a magazine calls itself the "most authoritative" journal is not necessary on this page at all - we can delete the whole description or leave the relevant part, which comes from the mission statement. What Isarig put in is just advertising fluff. The mission statement indicates its actual mission.--] 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That is not MEQ's mission statement. It is a cherry-picked statement, taken from a description of MEQ on Pipe's website. ] 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Isarig: do you really believe the phrase "America's most authoritative journal of Middle Eastern affairs" is a mission statement? it's more accurately described as MEQ's editors' opinion of the publication. There is clear disgreement about how to describe the quarterly, in a short sentence. However to characterize Sloat's edit as "cherry-picking" is certainly unfair. --] 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I did not say my quote was the "mission statement". It is a description. csloats's cherry picked description is not the mision statement either. It is quite fair to describe his quote as cherry picked, as it is a single statement, taken from a 15-paragraph description of MEQ, from the website of Daniel Pipes. It would have been equally valid to cherry pick any of the following statements - " cover all of the Middle East, including often-neglected areas such as North Africa." or "we devote attention to domestic politics as well as to international relations. As to the latter, security stakes loom especially large. With the end of the Cold War, the Middle East becomes the most militarized region in the world." or " look at the region explicitly from the viewpoint of American interests." - but of course none of these would quite convey the POV that csloat is so anxious to inject into the article. ] 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That is MEQ's editorial statement; it is not just any "description."--] 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, it's not. ] 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, it is.--] 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, it's not. It's a sentence you cherry-picked from a a 15-paragraph description of MEQ, from the website of Daniel Pipes. ] 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: The sentence is the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the web page of its publisher, Daniel Pipes. See my comments below. --] 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes. And it is not MEQ's editorial statment, nor is it their "mission statement", any more that the other odd 100 sentences in that same page. ] 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sloat is correct in that the paragraph taken from Daniel Pipes' page seems the most informative as to what MEQ's mission is. Isarig has a point in that Sloat is choosing one sentence; however as best I can tell, the mission statement is included within the first paragraph consisting of these 6 sentences |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The Middle East Quarterly is a bold, insightful, and controversial publication, edited by Michael Rubin. In 96 pages, it provides you with the facts and arguments to understand the Middle East’s complexities. Since its founding in 1994, the Quarterly has had influence in Washington – prompting the State Department to review policy, helping lobbyists make compelling arguments on Capitol Hill, and providing speechwriters with sensible policy ideas. In the halls of academe, the Quarterly delivers a welcome balance to the many materials that relentlessly attack the United States and Israel. It is both a policy oriented journal aimed at providing cutting-edge information for specialists and absorbing information for a general readership. You’ll find exclusive interviews, groundbreaking studies, and insightful commentary that take on contemporary concerns – from politics to economics to culture.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
A fair sumary can be extracted by using the third and fourth of these |
|
|
|
|
|
:''the Quarterly has had influence in Washington – prompting the State Department to review policy, helping lobbyists make compelling arguments on Capitol Hill, and providing speechwriters with sensible policy ideas. In the halls of academe, the Quarterly delivers a welcome balance to the many materials that relentlessly attack the United States and Israel. '' |
|
|
--] 00:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree that the description from Pipe's page is the most informative as to MEQ's mission. A better description is the one taken from MEQ's own pages, specifically which says |
|
|
:::''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.'' |
|
|
] 02:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: OK fair enouigh, you disagree. We can discuss it, But see my comments just below (simultaneous edit conflict) |
|
|
: To add to the above, the paragraph cited is the first paragraph of the description of the magazine in the website of the quarterly's publisher, Daniel Pipes. The two sentences extracted from that paragraph accurately summarize what the magazine does. Other facts (e.g. tha the magazine has 96 pages) are clearly of little interest here. Other facts contained in other paragraphs, do not modify in any way what the mission statement is.--] 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm fine with this as a compromise - If you want to make the footnote read <blockquote>''The MEQ describes its goals as follows "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. Since it's founding, the Quarterly has had influence in Washington – prompting the State Department to review policy, helping lobbyists make compelling arguments on Capitol Hill, and providing speechwriters with sensible policy ideas. In the halls of academe, the Quarterly delivers a welcome balance to the many materials that relentlessly attack the United States and Israel. '' </blockquote> - that would be acceptable. ] 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: '''PS''' Also Isarig, could you please refrain from reverting while this is being discussed? Do you really think it matters if the stuff you find objectionable just stays in a wee bit longer? --] 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Did you leave a similar message for ], or are you of the opinion that we should reward violations of ]? ] 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Isarig, please stop this childish behavior. Grow up, or go play in your room.--] 02:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Incidentally, yes, I have left similar (although not identical) messages to Sloat.--] 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I asked you a serious question. Do you believe 3RR vioaltions should be rewarded? ] has been reverting while this is being discussed, and in his over zealousness, has violated 3RR. Surprisingly, you see fit to ask me not to revert, do not see fit to ask the same of ], and even advocate on his behlaf to try and prevent him from being blocked for his violations. Have you learned nothing from you past intervention here, and the uneven-handedness you displayed back then? Why don't you take a break, and review ] which you continue to violate, while you're at it. ] 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Isarig, please stop. I'll tell you what I told Sloat. This display gets you nothing. |
|
|
::::::: Specifically in this instance, I asked you not to revert because there were two pomising proposals on the table we were discussing. I repeat, your behavior is inded childish and all indications here suggest it is getting even worse. File an ] if you believe you are an injured party. Pleas note that I have said your behavior is childish, which if you've read ] is not a personal attack. --] 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Just to be clear what I mean about NPA, and why my assertion that my comments are not attacks, I'd like to include the relevant paragraph (boldface mine) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. '''There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. ''' Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== third hand speculation == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed part of a Kramer quote and Armon restored it -- my explanation was above; here it is again. Please do not re-add this stuff: I also removed this from the Kramer quote -- "This is what Yale political scientist Steven Smith must have meant when he said that Cole's blog "opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind." I'm not sure what is gained by quoting Kramer speculating what Smith might have meant when Smith speculated about what Cole might have thought. The point Kramer is making is certainly intact without this extra sentence.--] 18:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The full quote from Smith is : |
|
|
:"As Yale political science professor Steven Smith explained, ''It would be very comforting for Cole's supporters to think that this got steamrolled because of his controversial blog opinions. The blog opened people's eyes as to what was going on. He was a kind of stealth candidate. I didn't know anybody that knew about this coming in; he was just kind of smuggled. And I think the blog opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind.''" |
|
|
:Kramer's pointing to the fact that he's not the only one who views him as a polemicist. You seem to be of the opinion that it's OK and NPOV to truncate Cole's critics, while filling the article up with Cole's extended soapboxing -it's not. On the other hand, you could argue that the Smith quote is more appropriate for the Yale section. In that case, we'll quote Kramer earlier, and add the Smith quote to the Yale section, given that the preponderance of the evidence points to Cole losing the Yale position due to his blog. ] 09:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Kramer is speculating on what Smith might have thought about what Cole might have in his head. Does anyone seriously consider that sort of third-hand speculation encyclopedic? Really? As for the Yale thing -- the preponderence of evidence shows that Cole did not have the position to "lose" in the first place. (It will also show that there was a concerted and organized letter-writing campaign directed against him, but that's neither here nor there). Can you guys please stop trying to turn this article into an attack on Cole's blog? Get your own blog if you want to vent; this is '''supposed''' to be an encyclopedia.--] 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It's what Kramer wrote. It's not your call to unilaterally decide what criticisms are "valid". They have been made, they are cited and verifiable, end of story. AFAIK '''all''' the criticisms stem from his polemics on his blog -please correct me if I'm wrong. ] 23:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Not everything Kramer wrote is relevant here. This particular item is not encyclopedic. That is wikipedia editors' call. The item is third hand speculation that adds nothing to this article.--] 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You're repeating yourself and not addressing what I wrote . Would you prefer the alternative I suggested? ] 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I did address what you wrote. It is you who did not address what I wrote. To repeat, Kramer's speculation about Smith's speculation about Cole's speculation is not encyclopedic. You have not responded to that claim. Until that item is settled, I'm not sure why there is any need to consider "alternatives."--] 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::]. Re-read what I wrote @ 09:24, 17 October 2006, and get back to me when you're prepared to discuss it. ] 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Ummm, ibid? Reread what I wrote above and get back to me when you have a piece of information indicating that there is something encyclopedic about Kramer's speculation about Smith's speculation about Cole's speculation. Then I'll be prepared to discuss it! I'm not just being cheeky - I have re-read your comment from 9:24 and it just doesn't address this. Kramer's assertion that others feel this way is not encyclopedic. His specific claim here that Smith "might" have thought the same thing when he claimed that Cole "might" be thinking something strange is spectacularly unencyclopedic. Have a nice day.--] 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I guess you need to explain what you mean by "unencyclopedic". It appears that simply quoting what a ''critic'' wrote involves a lot of specious nitpicking about they are and aren't allowed to say, whereas ''Cole'' fisking the absurd assertion of a drunken Australian that Jews "are responsible for all the wars in the world" is somehow important. It's not, and including it as a response to charges of antisemitism is 1) not going to change anyone's opinion either way and 2) even worse, actually makes him look like a lightweight -''the exact opposite of what you intend''. However, your rule seems to be, if it's unflattering to Cole (as ''criticism'' unsurprisingly tends to be) you're going to filibuster until it's deleted or truncated until they become merely setups between Cole's soapboxing on various topics which include any and all responses from Cole no matter how tangential and/or weak. I've already been drawn into this tactic of yours far enough. You're the one making the assertion that a quote referring to another person's opinion is "unencyclopedic". I say that's nonsense and challenge you to point to either a WP or for that matter, ''any'' academic policy which would somehow "disallow" such a quote. If you can't, I suggest you move on. ] 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Stop making shit up about what I'm saying. What I mean by unencyclopedic is -- '''it is third hand speculation.''' It is speculation about speculation about speculation. It is Kramer saying "this is what Smith might have meant" when Smith said "this is what Cole might have thought." I am not filibustering and this has nothing to do with drunken Australians (or Brits-cum-Americans) or bullshit about "soapboxing." This has to do with a claim about something someone else might have meant in a claim about what someone else might have thought. You have not once suggested why this might actually be something worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, and the burden is on you to do so. The fact that you feel this empty quote is somehow worth defending is just bizarre. It doesn't matter - I'm backing off and taking a break from this BS, as you have successfully demonstrated that you have more free time than me to spend trying to bash an academic whose work you have admitted that you have never read. The fact that you consider it vital to plant your little flag in this article by fighting tooth and nail over an empty quote about what some third party might have meant about what another third party might have been thinking shows how weak - and truly ludicrous - your case really is. I have no interest in pursuing this any longer at this time. Perhaps I will return in a few days and file an RfC on this page; I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this ridiculous quote. Have fun.--] 09:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK I'll take that as a "no you can't". Now let's move on. ] 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I can. I did. You didn't respond. I am taking this page off my watchlist because I am sick of arguing with you about it - it's like arguing with a wall. Please by all means move on, but please stop intentionally misinterpreting what I say. I'm outta here -- if you have more to say to me, I have a talk page. Bye.--] 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Campus Watch== |
|
|
Let's not censor the fact that most of the people attacking Cole are associated with Campus Watch, an organization whose main mission is character assassination of people like Cole who are critical of Israel's extreme right wing. In the coming weeks I'll likely add more information about this organization specific to its attacks on Cole. The virulence of the attacks makes a lot more sense when you recognize they are coming from an organized group devoted to attacking academics like Cole. Of course I'll keep my POV out of the edits I make, but censoring the fact that this organization exists or has a particular mission is anti-intellectual and it makes the editors who do it look really bad. I'm sure Kramer is not embarrassed to be associated with Campus Watch; why is Isarig embarrassed for him? The only reason is to try to portray Kramer as some sort of independent scholar who just happened to reach a particular conclusion independent of any organized smear campaign. Have a nice day.--] 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Let's not introduce POV using OR alleging to uncover Kramer's "REAL" occupation. Kramer's role in Campus Watch is so insignificant, if it even exists, that his WP article barley mentions it, in passing, and the Campus Watch article does not even mention his name, let alone claim he's a co-founder. If we're going to add titles here, how about we describe Kramer as a Princton Ph. D? Or as a 2-time fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars? Doesn't quite deliver the POV that you're so keen on, but much more accurate. ] 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::csloat, you don't ''know'' that Kramer '''isn't''' an independent scholar who just happened to reach a particular conclusion. It's just uncited POV. Why are you even arguing about this? You know very well that's verboten on WP. ] 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Ummm, the '''only''' part of Kramer's background that is relevant to this issue at all is his work with Campus Watch. Kramer is cited attacking Cole, and Campus Watch was specifically created to attack professors like Cole. I haven't deleted Kramer's academic credentials but those have little to do with the issue here. It's not a POV at all -- it's a well-known fact that is . Why are '''you''' even arguing about this?--] 19:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are welcome to your POV that "the '''only''' part of Kramer's background that is relevant to this issue at all is his work with Campus Watch". Feel free to expound on this POV on blogs, USENET, etc.. This is an encyclopedia that has no place for OR of this type. ] 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's not what I put in the article and you know it Isarig. The fact that he is a founder of an organization dedicated to attacking people like Cole is relevant to the fact that he is attacking Cole. Enough with the red herrings; either respond to the issue at hand or drop it.--] 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::He is not the founder of Campus Watch. Campus Watch is not dedicated to attacking people like Cole. While your Daily Kos buddies might enjoy cheering each other on with similar accusations, this is POV OR that has no place in an encyclopedia. ] |
|
|
:::::::You are right - Kramer is not identified as a founder of the organization; this was incorrect information that I found at the sourcewatch website -- claims that "The Campus Watch project is the brainchild of Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer, and it is 'dedicated to revealing the alleged bias of mainstream Middle East studies programs at U.S. colleges and universities.'" Apparently this claim appeared in an article that was later corrected after an from Daniel Pipes, who founded the project himself. Pipes is a bit high and mighty about it, methinks -- the mistake is understandable, since Kramer endorsed Campus Watch in their , he continues to be a of the project, and Pipes cites Kramer's book ''Ivory Towers on Sand'' as the primary inspiration for the project, and of course Kramer has in support of Campus Watch lobbying efforts to attack the academic freedom of professors like Cole. As for the rest, you are wrong about campus watch, and this has nothing to do with the daily kos (??), but it doesn't matter -- I concede I was incorrect in saying Kramer was a founder of Campus Watch. I will formulate a different way of getting the point across, that Kramer is part of an organized assault on professors like Cole. Please refrain from ridiculing my POV as it has nothing to do with this. Thanks!--] 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Please, don't waste your time on finding a different formulation intended, as you concede, to push a certain POV - namely that " that Kramer is part of an organized assault " on Cole. ] 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop making shit up. I did not "concede" that I was trying to "push a certain POV." You are making shit up. Please cut it out. It's bad enough that you consistently violate ], ], and that you have successfully gamed the 3RR -- there is no need to just plain fabricate bullshit about me. I have already conceded that you were right about Kramer not being the founder of the Campus Watch. The fact that he is part of an organized assault on Cole is not my POV; it is something Kramer himself admits (read his book for christ's sake). Now, as I said, please leave my POV out of this as it has nothing to do with this. Thanks.--] 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let me quote you: "I will formulate a different way of getting the point across, that Kramer is part of an organized assault on professors like Cole". You may sincerely believe, with all your heart, that it is a fact, but it is not. It is your opinion. If you have a quote from Kramer that says " I am part of an organized assualt on professors like Cole" - go ahead and quote it. If you don't, keep your unsourced opinions (read: POV) out of this article, and stick to the facts. ] 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wrong; it's a fact, Kramer admits it himself; but guess what? I don't care what you think. This isn't a chat room. When I make an edit you have a problem with, then your opinion might be relevant; otherwise please just leave me alone. Thanks.--] 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it's a fact that Kramer admits, you needn't have to worry about "formulating" it - just giev us the quote. ] 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Sloat, you're not helping your case with these displays. It also makes it much harder to follow this interaction (it's a stretch to call this a dialogue.) If you can show Kramer himself has admitted being part of some assault on Cole, then you're done; but that is a tough case to make here, unless you have a direct quote or even published evidence.--] 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::WTF are you talking about? If you have an objection to an edit I made to the article, let's hear it; otherwise this is just banter; why are you attacking me? I backed off the incorrect claim I had made regarding Kramer founding Campus Watch - but it's clear from the evidence I offered above that I did not pull that claim out of my ass. As for my other claims about him, just click on the google link I offered above, or read Kramer's book yourself, or take a look at his congressional testimony (again just click the link I provided) -- you may not like the way I phrased the point about him, but it is ludicrous to assert that he has not aligned himself with others to attack academics who he perceives as insufficiently pro-Israel. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, and I'm through being browbeaten by the likes of Isarig and Armon. The funny thing is, I don't even care that much about Cole! I only care about the truth, and I find it ridiculous that a small group of editors have held this page hostage to their attack on an academic whose work they are totally unfamiliar with save a few articles from his blog. It doesn't matter to me anymore - you guys have fun defaming the reputation of an academic whose work you have never read. Good times.--] 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I'm not attacking you. And I'm certainly not trying to defame Cole. And I'm not trying to defend Kramer. I am saying that if you're going to write something about anybody in this one encyclopedia, and especially in this instance where for whatever reason such divergences of opinion exist, you are going to have to back things up. You may be right about your assertion, but how on earth do you expect to make that claim here, if your argument isn't absolutely airtight? --] 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer certainly believes that (1) most of the US Middle Eastern Studies establishment (such as it is) is biased against Israel; I don't think that opinion would be hard to source. Proving that (2) he is part of an organized attempt to commit "character assassination" against critics of Israel might be more difficult, but I'd be willing to look at any specific source. ] 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Could you source it please? I'm looking at some of Sloat's links, but I think he's going to have to be more specific. But I guess he's outta here. And can you give an argument of why it should be included in an article about Cole. Thanks. --] 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't think that either my proposition "1" or "2" is really relevant, and I don't think "2" is true at all. Do you think that a source for "1" would be helpful? If so, I'll add finding some sources to my to do list. ] 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Well the following general issue has to addressed at some point; In writing about individual A, individual B's writings are used. How much of B's background or affiliations should actually be included.--] 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments section == |
|
|
|
|
|
This section is a mess. I'd say it's the worst on the page. I'm going to rewrite it completely when I get a chance. ] 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Care to indicate what your problem is with it? It seems fine to me, except for the material you keep censoring from Cole's comments to the New York Times.--] 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::A few points. It's: |
|
|
::#overlong |
|
|
::#out of order |
|
|
::#missing infomation |
|
|
::#densely written ] 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with 1, 2, 4. I'm not entirely sure about 3. I'd have to read the section more carefully. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious: is any one (or all) of the disputing parties here willing to write (not for the article of course) very short "elevator" summaries of each section of this article? --] 04:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with #1. It can easily be summarized but not if we want to preserve a lot of the distortions of Hitchens. #2 is kind of silly; what "order" would you like it in? Presumably one that suggests hitchens won the argument? Sorry, that won't wash. #3 contradicts #1. There's always something "missing," but it's not clear that anything vital is missing here. #4 is not easily to determine objectively. I don't find it dense. Which word or words are you having trouble with?--] 05:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Actually, I think you're right about 2. But I still think it's dense. |
|
|
:: Well you could summarize it by your whatever your summary and adding the statement "and a lot of distortions by Hitchens".--] 05:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Huh? ] 09:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: '''Reply (CSTAR)'''I asked for a short summary, the kind one could give in less than a minute, for each section. |
|
|
::: What's yours? If you think one of the section summaries should say "Cole is anti semitic," then that would be informative.--] 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Sorry, I still have no idea what you're talking about. What summaries? You seem to be suggesting waaay POV ones so I assume you don't mean in the actual article. Could you clarify please? ] 07:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: The way I phrased it was misleading. My point is this: SUppose you're explaining the contents of what each article section should say to somebody in a conversation; Such an explanation I assume would be something like thise, "Some critics such as A, B, C have argued Cole is anti-semitic ,,; Cole strongly denies this and has given arguments why he isn't ,, ". or on Ahm. "His speech was translated one way by A, B, C and reported thus in the press ,,, Cole translated it another way. This in turn was contested by D" Basically, I'm trying to use this summary as a way of better structuring the section.--] 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Cheers. I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. ] 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Actually the whole article is dense. I personally don't like articles with lots of quotes, as I've said many times.--] 05:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree, but if the article can't be "good" at the very least it has to be NPOV. I'll minimized the quotes in the rewrite. Re: #2, it's out of order chronologically and makes it harder for the reader to follow the issues. As for #3 what's the deal with the missing punch-up between Cole and Hitchens? Also there's the stolen email issue, and the Iran war pretext issue. Even including that stuff I think it could be shorter. We don't, for example, need to go into the minutia of Persian grammar. ] 09:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::OK I promised to get out of here and I will but I just have to respond to this point -- this whole section is about the minutiae of Persian grammar! To focus on the "stolen email issue" is ridiculous, IMHO, but do it if you like -- but please, this whole section is about whose interpretation of Persian grammar is correct -- that of an academic Persianist or that of a self-proclaimed drunk who doesn't speak the language! OK, enough. Have a nice day Armon I'm sure you will do wonders with this page in my absence. Peace!--] 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Actually Cole and professional translators Sohrab Mahdavi and Siamak Namazi, and the dispute is whether the verb in question is active and transitive or intransitive. Hitchens doesn't enter into it. ] 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Then I assume it's ok to take out the irrelevant quotes from Hitchens completely? Certainly would go a long way to shortening this section.--] 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::You'd assume wrongly then. Hitchens' criticism was of Cole's supposed attempt at whitewashing Ahmadinejad's speech. That's a different, larger issue than which English idiom to use for the translation. ] 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::These are the same issue; Hitchens' whining is based on the flawed translation.--] 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You're entitled to your opinion, but not to present it as fact. ] 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You're entitled to say whatever nonsense you like. Perhaps you believe the term "whining" or "flawed" are "opinions"; you're wrong, but that's fine. The "based on" part, however, is fact, and your whining about it does not change that fact.--] 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC on this page== |
|
|
I'm back from my self-imposed break from this page. Rather than entering back into the edit war over the disputed content, I am starting an RfC on this page. I think there are many problems with this page (most notable are several explicit violations of ]), but I'd like to at least start the RfC on the content that was the most recent subject of an edit war. Hopefully the addition of new voices on this page will help improve it. The content at issue is the following quotation: |
|
|
:''"This is what Yale political scientist Steven Smith must have meant when he said that Cole's blog "opened people's eyes as to who this guy was, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something about the quality of his mind." |
|
|
I think this quotation should be removed. The sentence before it is the reason for it being there, and it is already in the article. The part quoted above, I believe, represents unencyclopedic third-hand speculation. This is a quote from a Mr. Kramer, suggesting that he thinks a Mr. Smith might have meant something similar, when Mr. Smith speculated about how a blog might allow us to see "something" (Mr. Smith isn't clear about what) about "the quality of his mind." I'm not sure why some editors feel it is so urgent that this third hand speculation remain in the article -- {{User|Armon}}, as well as an anonymous IP ({{User|24.68.240.196}}) who suspiciously entered this debate only to make this particular revert and one related revert have pretty much indicated he will fight tooth and nail to keep this sentence in the article. I grew tired of battling with him and withdrew from the debate; rather than reverting I would like to hear what others have to say. Am I crazy for believing that this sort of quotation has no place on wikipedia?--] 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sounds reasonable. —]→] • 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-Not to me. Theres lots of long unencyclopedic insults and rants from Cole but csloat has no problem with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
== anon ip revert war == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone with an anon ip has started a revert war on the recent changes to this page. Since he won't say who he is or what purpose his reverts serve, I am treating these reverts as vandalism. If they are not vandalism, the person using that ip should discuss them here. Thanks, and have a great day.--] 09:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-You dont own this page{{unsigned|65.92.202.247}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, I don't. That's why I try to explain each of my edits on the talk page. Unexplained edits are summarily reverted as vandalism. If you have a reason to make a certain edit, please explain your reason. Then discuss it with others. If you already have a login, please use it; otherwise, you might try getting one, and becoming part of the community. Thanks.--] 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::While I don't necessarily support the edits made by this anon user, and while I encourage him/her to discuss his edits here, I object to your categorization of them as "vandalism". It is a clear cut content dispute (with anon's version being the one in place in the article before ''you'' changed it). Please stop your misleading descriptions of them. Having a login is encourged, but not having one does not in any way diminish teh validity of his edits, and your insinuation sto the contrary are worrisome. ] 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No it's not. Until anon explains his edits, they are indistinguishable from vandalism; he is reverting to information that has been shown to be invalid. I did not say that not having a login makes him less valid, only that it makes him less a part of the community. If he wants to see his edits stay, it would help to participate in the ongoing conversation. If he already has a login, then what he is doing is simple sockpuppetry.--] 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::These edits are quite easily distinguishable from vandalism, by virtue of them being part of this article for a long time before ''you'' changed them. No one accused you of vandalism when you made your changes without explaining them on Talk, please extend the same courtesy to other editors. ] 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It doesn't matter how long nonsense has been in the article; it has been rejected for valid reasons and shown to be invalid. I always try to explain my edits; if I forget and am called on it, I respond with an explanation. I did not accuse him of vandalism until after he started revert warring and continued to refuse to explain his edits despite being asked to. After a certain point I do not feel I need to keep bending over backwards to take seriously edits that the editor obviously doesn't take seriously enough himself to even bother with an explanation for. If this really matters to you, why are you pestering me about this instead of asking the anon to explain himself? I suggest that we treat this as a WP:BLP page rather than as a place for pointless ego battles.--] 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is/was not nonsense, and I categorically reject you describing it as such. It was Kramer's former title, and a valid argument can be made that it is very relevant to his commenatry on Cole. Nowhere has it been shown to be an "invalid" description. I don't think this point is so critical that I would edit war over it with you, but I will not have you calling another editor a vandal, or the previous version "nonsense". The anon editor had a good point in sayign you do not own this page. Be mindful of that. ] 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Shall we revisit the IDF discussion, then, if we're interested in former titles? If you have a reason it should stay in, present it, but let's be consistent. I never said I own this page, and when he said that I agreed with him; there is no reason for you to reassert a claim I never refuted. Again, why are you pestering me about this? It makes no sense.--] 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::As I wrote in my first post here, I don't necessarily support the edits made by this anon user. I don't think the Karsh/IDF and Kramer/TAU are identical, and I could see an editor making a case for one and not the other - but I don't think this point is so critical that I would edit war over it with you. I am not pestering you, but I do want to set the record straight that we are not dealing with vandal who is inserting nonsense, but with an editor who is having a legitimate content dispute with you. So that if/when this ends up being the topic of an RfC or some other dispute resolution , it will be clear what the actual situation is. ] 04:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If the editor has a legitimate dispute, why doesn't he bother to mention what it is? Why are you so set on defending an editor who does not even think his position is worthy of defending himself? Or even articulating for that matter? Isarig, please drop it. The only reason you are pestering me -- and, yes, you are pestering me, in a manner that borders on violation of ] and ] -- is because you have had disputes with me in the past. This has nothing to do with Kramer or the IDF or anything; it has everything to do with your insistence on objecting to everything I say no matter how trivial, just because I said it. If CSTAR or Armon was the one reverting this nonsense you wouldn't bother saying a word about it. Since I was the one who spoke up, however, you have gone out of your way to make arguments -- arguments you insist you don't even believe -- for an anonymous user who does not even think his edits are worth speaking on behalf of himself. Can we please just drop it? If you have suggestions about improving this page, I'd much rather talk about that than continue our little ego war. It's embarrassing to both of us.--] 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::feel free to ask the editor why he hasn't participated on talk to clarify his objections. the reason I am defending him is, as I wrote, that you are mis-characterizing his edits and his behavior, and have approached administrators with a false description of his behavior as 'obvious vandalism'. (and I note that those admins have politely told you to lay off, since you haven't made a case that this is vandalism). I have not attacked you, but your bad faith assumptions about my motives which you articulated above are not only a violation of ], but a violation of ]. ] 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::: was the edit I referred to as "obvious vandalism," and I was just quoting CSTAR's edit summary. If you would like to defend that edit please feel free to; I would be interested to hear your argument. As for asking the editor to participate in talk, I have; see above, and see my edit summary from 10/30 at 1:06. As for admins asking me to lay off, you are the one mis-characterizing things. I reported the anon for a 3RR violation and he was blocked for 24 hours; he came back with another ip and added the "obvious vandalism" to the Cole page, and an admin suggested page protection if it continues but added that "we're not there yet." I agree with him, and I don't see any point at which he (or anyone else) asked me to lay off. You have a lot of nerve citing AGF at me when you have never, not '''one single time''' in the months you have been attacking me, assumed good faith on my part. '''Not once''', in hundreds of edits. It is telling that you have no better explanation of your motives, but I will drop the point if you just leave me alone. Are we through here?--] 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-that wasn't me and you linked to a differnt page. You are full of it! |
|
|
:Perhaps that wasn't you, though it seemed like it was due to the timing. If you have a substantive reason for your other edits, please discuss. You might familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies, such as ] and ]. My apologies to you if you did not commit the vandalism. If you show yourself willing to participate in the discussion about your changes, you might find it more productive than hit-and-run edits (which I have interpreted as vandalism). If they are not, it is up to you to explain them. Thanks, and have a nice day.--] 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Relevant information about Kramer== |
|
|
Thsi article is not about Kramer. It about Cole and his views- and criticisms thereof. Adding comments about Kramer, his supposed agenda or motivation is editorializing that has no place in this article, even when hidden away in a footnote. ] 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is not "hidden"; that is an appropriate use of footnotes (in fact, much of the other stuff in the article should be footnoted that way). Second, the information is substantive and directly relevant to Kramer's attack on Cole. His attack on Cole, as I have been saying, is part of his anti-intellectual agenda of destroying Middle East Studies. This brief comment is evidence of that, and it is relevant to this article (at least so long as we consider Kramer's non-notable blog relevant to this article!) If we agree to take Kramer's blog out of here then perhaps this comment can go too.--] 21:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are welcome to you opinion as to what motivates Kramer. Including these opinions is both OR, and editorializing. Agian- this is not an article about Kramer, and some 3rd party's views about Kramer's motivations has no place in the article. ] 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Third party views on why Kramer is attacking people like Cole is relevant and sourced and not OR.--] 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::SOurced or not, it is not relevant, and is the defintion of editorializing ] 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is quite relevant, as demonstrated above. You need a new dictionary if that is the definition of "editorializing" yours offers.--] 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nothing wasd "demonstrated" above- you just asserted that it is relevant. The reason why it is irelavnt is that article is not about Kramer or his views. Trying to discredit Kramer's criticism of Cole (which IS the topic of the article) by quoting a 3rd party (neither Cole nor Kramer) that alleges some general "evil" motivations for Kramer's actions, which do not directly relate to his comment on Cole (the referenced article does not mention Cole once) is editorializing, and ], besides. Finally, you are cautioned to use a civil tone both here, as well as in your edit summaries. ] 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::First, cut out the warnings - if you have a problem with something I said, let's hear what it is. Otherwise, you are just grandstanding. If Kramer's views are not relevant here, let us remove them - I am fine with that situation (in fact, I agree with it. Nobody has given a good reason for citing Kramer's non-notable blog). Your loyalty to anti-intellectual critics like Kramer and the Campus Watch agenda in general is cute, but it is not necessary here -- save it for your own blog. The fact is that Kramer is engaged in a vicious attack on Middle East studies. That fact is entirely relevant to his attack on Cole, a reknown scholar in that field. The quoted material specifically discusses Kramer's attacks on such people as Cole for scholarship that is critical of US policy in the Middle East. This is easy enough to understand; I am surprised I have to explain this to you.--] 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Your tone continues to be uncivil. Telling an editor to "cut the nonsense" is a violation of ] and ]. Casting aspertions on editors' motivations along the lines of "Your loyalty to anti-intellectual critics" is both a violation of ] and ]. Please stop it. Kramer's views OF COLE are relevant here. Cole's views, on Kramer or othrs, are relevant. 3rd parties' views of Cole's critics, which are not related to specific criticisms such critics made of COle are IRRELVANT. You are welcome to your personal opinion that Kramer is engaged in a vicious attack on Middle East studies - if you find a ] that says sthis, you might possibly add it to Kramer's article, but not here. Here it is irrelvant editorializing. Contrary to your claim, the quoted material does not once refer to Cole. Your claim that we can infer from that article that Cole is included ("attacks on such people as Cole ") is Original Research. Plase cease this disruption. ] 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"Telling an editor to 'cut the nonsense' is a violation of ] and ]": No it's not. Calling an editor an obtuse moron, a right-wing shill, or a lying sack of shit would be a violation of those policies. Asking an editor to cut the nonsense (and then thanking him in advance for doing so, even without any evidence that he will) is a reasonable attack on the ''argument'', not the person. Mentioning "your loyalty to anti-intellectual critics" is again a claim founded on the text that you produce, not a personal attack. It is a fact that you have fought incessantly to conceal evidence of Kramer's motivations, even going so far as to exclude the claim that he is "neoconservative," a claim that he himself has never denied and is easily verified. Please stop misrepresenting my claims as personal attacks. You are the one who has never once assumed good faith on my part; meanwhile, I have over and over again bent over backwards to work with you on these often insipid disagreements. It is disturbing to continue to read your comments to me that are condescending and sneering alongside your seemingly disingenuous demands that I assume good faith or stop attacking you. I imagine we will both be much happier if we just focus on the relevant arguments here. |
|
|
:::::::::You are right that views of Cole's critics ''that are not related to specific criticisms of Cole''' would be irrelevant, but of course the material in question is in fact related to such criticism. Your continued condescending assertion that "I am welcome to my opinion" is just not relevant to anything here. This is not about my opinion. Kramer's attack on Middle East studies is well documented - for christs sake, he petitioned for Congressional intervention against Middle East studies departments! - and there is no OR in suggesting that Cole (the head of MESA!) is part of Middle East studies. I am not including in the article my characterization of Kramer's actions as "vicious attacks," etc.; I am including instead a sourced and relevant third party observation of Kramer's agenda.--] 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Claiming that I have "loyalty to anti-intellectual critics" is a personal attack. Last warning: Do it again, and you will see yourself as the topic of an ] report. |
|
|
::::::::::To the arguments themsleves: Cole is not mentioned in the article referenced. Inferrign anything from that article with regards to Cole-vs-Kramer is OR. A "third party observation of Kramer's agenda" is both irrelevant to the article (which is Cole's views and criticisms therof) , as well as being a logical fallacy. It has no palce in an encyclopedia. ] 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Please do not lodge phony reports to ]. As I said, we will both be happier if we stick to the arguments. You have constantly attacked me and I have bent over backwards to negotiate, but you have not yet appeared interested in negotiation. As I said above, commenting on your arguments is not a personal attack. |
|
|
:::::::::::The material is relevant to the article. You are just repeating yourself on the substantive point; I have demonstrated above why you are incorrect.--] 22:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::There is nothing phony about my complaints. Like I said, you've been warned plenty of times. Try it agian, and there will be consequences. The only thing demonstarted above is taht you do not understand ]. Going from (a) Kramer was criticized for his actions against MESA + (b) Cole is part of MESA, to the conclusion (c) Kramer has been criticized for his actions against Cole is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position - explicitly prohibited under ]. ] 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Such a post to ANI would be a phony report, and it would be recognized as such. I am not afraid of your threats Isarig; I am simply bored of them. You know as well as I do that you have been the one violating ], ], and ] with your condescending attacks. I have asked you (without threatening you, I might add) over and over again to stop, and I have patiently explained why your actions are problematic. I am tired of explaining them again and again. As for the OR issue, you are quite simply incorrect. I have explained that above. NOR would prohibit the action if there was no published indication that Cole was the recognized leader of (not just a "part" of) MESA. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and to defend Kramer as vehemently as you like on the talk pages, but please do not continue to obstruct progress on the article over this non-issue. Have a nice day.--] 00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:As I said, you don't understand OR. I will have other editors weigh in here. ]` |
|
|
|
|
|
::Look clsoat, the relevant point Isarig made was: '''Nothing was "demonstrated" above- you just asserted that it is relevant. The reason why it is irrelevant is that article is not about Kramer or his views. Trying to discredit Kramer's criticism of Cole (which IS the topic of the article) by quoting a 3rd party (neither Cole nor Kramer) that alleges some general "evil" motivations for Kramer's actions, which do not directly relate to his comment on Cole (the referenced article does not mention Cole once) is editorializing, and logically fallacious, besides.''' He's right. If the cite doesn't even mention Cole, you are using it as an attempt to draw inferences which constitute ]. ] 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I read what he wrote and responded. Repeating the comment in bold face type does not respond to the response. Please re-read the above. Thanks.--] 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You responded with unsubstantiated which descended into a pissing match about NPA. You didn't however, address the point, which is why I repeated it. ] 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Please review ] and ] before responding to me again. Please cease your condescending and mocking tone. I understand argumentation theory and have already asked you to stop being condescending about it. Now, as for the issue, I responded to it above. I showed what WP:NOR prohibits and what it does not, and explained why this should not be prohibited under the policy. You simply repeated someone else's words, without dealing with the distinction I made.--] 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The distinction you draw is nowhere to be found in ] ] 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Certainly; WP:NOR is a general policy and cannot be expected to mention specific disputes. The distinction is grounded in the specific dispute. It is an application of that policy. Others may disagree, but the claim is reasonable and it is explained.--] 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't expect the policy to describe a specific dispute, but if your distinction is valid, it should be described, in generic terms, in the policy. But no such distinction, even using generic terms or general principles, is to be found in ]. You invented it out of whole cloth. ] 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::]. ]. ].] 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You don't like it quite as much when the shoe's on the other foot, do you? Who was it that wrote he's merely making 'a claim founded on the text that you produce, not a personal attack"? If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander. ] 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::See above.] 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on this page == |
|
|
|
|
|
An RfC was filed on this page regarding the Kramer issue. Another editor has stepped in to the revert war, but we haven't had any further discussion. If people think the discussion of Kramer's agenda is not relevant to Kramer's actions in support of that agenda, they should make the arguments as to why they feel that way here. In addition, there is a second (logically prior,actually) question that must be addressed in the RfC, which is, should we have extensive quotations from non-notable blogs to begin with? Armon has stepped in and added even more quotes from the blog (as well as an OR interpretation of Kramer's views that is not supported by the quote - I refer to Armon's sentence "Kramer asserts Cole's definition is applied inconsistently, and is essentially polemical"). Kramer's blog is not well-known, not nearly as much as Cole's, and this article appears to be about Cole, not Kramer. I am of the opinion that Kramer's blog is not appropriate for citation here under ]. It is blatant attack journalism (expressly forbidden under BLP), and the reason I wanted Kramer's agenda mentioned in a footnote here is to allow readers to see that agenda when reading his quotations. But the reality is, such quotes don't belong here at all.--] 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Re: the charge of OR -Kramer wrote: '''But Cole's grasp of world history is so light that he's perfectly capable of forgetting this for at least as long as it takes to write a paragraph, especially if doing so serves his polemical purpose.''' -please explain how what I wrote is OR. Re: the blog issue. 1) Kramer is not non-notable, his would be a) an expert blog, and in any case, b) presented simply as Kramer's ''opinion'' as are Cole's blogged opinions. Again, it seems you are simply looking for excuses to remove criticism. ] 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::If that is what Kramer wrote, we can quote it without editorializing. Kramer's blog is not notable; he himself may be notable due to his anti-intellectual attacks on MESA in the US Congress. But his blog's opinion of Cole is not notable - shall we add every blogger's opinion of George Bush to that page? I am not looking for excuses Armon - I am saying if the criticism is in let;s be honest about where it comes from, but if it is criticism from a non-notable blog, let's follow ]. Thanks.--] 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Simply making an , such as: "Kramer's blog is not notable" is not an . ] 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It is not notable as it has not been cited by other reputable sources as a reliable or even reasonable source of information. There is one quote from Kramer's blog cited in an actual article; we can leave that one in (even though Kramer edits the magazine that cites the blog). Blogs are not inherently notable; you are the one who must establish an argument defending its notability; presumption is against its notability. I'll thank you not to be condescending about argumentation theory with me in future discussions.--] 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That is false, as even this very article bears out: Kramer's blog has been cited by the MEQ. Other reputable sources which have cited his blog include CAMERA , The History News Network , Engage Online , WGN Radio and many others.] 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Isarig, it is very frustrating to argue with someone who ignores what is said. I agree Kramer's blog is cited by the journal he edits; I made that point right above and said it is fine to cite that quote (even though the fact that Kramer edits the very journal does make the citation's claim to reliability ridiculously circular). So we are not debating that quote. We are debating about quotes that appear on Kramer's blog '''and nowhere else.''' If one of the other blogs you cite specifically cites Kramer's attacks on Cole, let's see the link. Thanks.--] 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::what is frustrating is arguing with someone who makes both a statement and its contradiction in the same paragraph, enabling him to both make a point, and have enough wiggle room to assert he agrees with that point's detractors. What you wrote is the Kramer's blog "is not notable as it has not been cited by other reputable sources as a reliable or even reasonable source of information.". That statement is false, as evidenced by numerous ] who quote him, a subset of which I listed in my response to you. The fact that even you conceded, in the very same paragraph where you claimed he's not quoted by reputable sources, that the article actually lists a reputable source quoting him, only makes your argument laughable and false on its face, but takes away nothing from my response to you. ] 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You listed what appear to be more blogs, first of all. Secondly, please remember ] and stop hurling accusations. It gets annoying. Third, stop mischaracterizing my argument. I acknowledged that Kramer was cited in one journal ''that he himself edits'' but I said that these other quotes ''did not come from such sources''. Nothing "laughable" about this.--] 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Kramer is expert on the ME therefore his blog is. You've also pointed out that his blog has been cited. It is the blog of an expert. We use them on WP. You also didn't bring this up as an issue before when asserting that the first quote, referring to Smith's opinion, was unencyclopedic. As usual, you're simply attempting to shift from one weak assertion to another weak assertion in an effort to scrub criticism. This is a perfect example of what I mean when I point out that you're engaging in ] arguments. ] 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We are well aware of who Kramer is. The quote from his blog that is cited is not at issue here. The other quotes are. The problem is not just that it is from a blog, however; '''the problem is that this material violates ].''' It is incredible how many times this has been pointed out. The rest of your comment should be struck Armon - I have asked you to please review ] and ] and please '''stop hurling accusations.''' Thank you.--] 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::This article is not a biography. It is an examination of a person's views, and criticisms thereof. In fact, it was removed from Cole biographical entry precisely for this reason - to enable a critical review of his positions without running into ] issues. Cole is controversial. His critics need to be heard. ] 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::His critics can be heard in a variety of places; but all these blog attacks do not need to be amplified by being put in an encyclopedia. WP:BLP still applies (you might look at the note at the top of this page). Your claim that this article was created to weasel out of WP:BLP is a good reason to either submit this article to AfD or for a conduct RfC against any editors who created this page with that intention.--] 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm sure his critics can be heard in a variety of places, and there's no reason why they can't be heard here, as well. If he's notable, and his views are controversial (neither of these points seems to be disputed) - that means we need a place to air out the controversy, and that means giving space to views that criticize Cole. The notice at the top of this page was put up by Will, arguing along the same lines as you - it is not some sort of endorsement, and does not carry any more weight than you asserting it is a ]. Go ahead and put this article up for AfD if you think its creation violated WP policy. It is clear that this article is not a biography of Cole, and it is clear that the subject is worthy of encyclopedic debate. ] 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::This page is an offshoot of the Cole biography and thus should follow ] guidelines.--] 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::yes, it is an offshoot, but is not a biography, and thus does not have to follow ]. If it was notable enough or long enough , we might have created another offshoot, to discuss in more detail the Yale controversy, or the Iranian translation controversy, and neither one of those would have been edited in aaccordance with ], either. ] 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Again, I think your claim that we have an article created precisely for the purpose of weaseling out of ] is very problematic.--] 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Also, . BLP must be enforced on this article, which means a lot of this junk must go.--] 07:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If Isarig was asserting that this article is somehow ''exempt'' from ], then I think he went too far. In any case, I've re-read the policy and this article doesn't violate ] so it's a moot point anyway. The controversies/criticisms presented on this page are intellectual/ideological debates, not accusations that he beats his wife. ] 08:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The page was a hit piece on Cole that degenerated into a "he-said/she-said" debate between Cole and his attackers. Oddly, Cole's defense of his own views were only allowed up after extensive edit wars and tooth-and-nail fights over often ridiculously minor points on the talk page. It has been clearly in violation of BLP for a long time. While I too am disappointed to see so much of my time and effort in working on the page deleted in one fell swoop, I think it was the only solution. Much of the page consisted of nitpicking attacks on Cole and his often vehement responses; as I stated weeks (months?) ago, this page looks like a giant debate, and it should be on a blog, but not here. Your characterization of BLP as only regulating pages that accuse the subject of "wife-beating" is just plain inaccurate; I encourage you to read ] for yourself. Hopefully the editors who turned this into a playground for Cole detractors and supporters to nitpick over every word (and I am guilty of this as well) can agree to leave the Cole page as a biography and not try to turn it into the mess that this page had become.--] 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The fact it turned into a "he-said/she-said" debate is primarily due to your own intransigence regarding '''any''' criticism of a pundit who courts controversy. It's not credible, or intellectually honest, or NPOV to pretend it doesn't exist. It would be like whitewashing the ], ] or ] articles -only serving to make them ''less'' informative. ] 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not intransigent about criticism; I have just insisted on two things - (1) that Cole's response to criticism, and his views, be included on a page ostensibly about his views (something you have often opposed, deleting Cole's comments as "soapboxing" and even deleting his comments on antisemitism as recently as yesterday, even though you had made no arguments supporting that deletion in talk), and (2) that scurrilous attacks against Cole by writers with an agenda do not belong here (but that if they are placed here, then evidence of their agenda must be here as well). If that is what turned the page into a debate forum, all I can say is that a debate forum is far better than the one-sided character assassination that this page would have been without my intervention (and, to be fair, I am not the only one who can take credit for saving this page from that fate). I don't see how Coulter, Hitchens, or Chomsky have anything to do with this.--] 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Censorship in "On the Israel lobby and US foreign policy" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Armon has been censoring a quote from the section "On the Israel lobby and US foreign policy" dealing with Cole's comments about the Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Specifically, the quote is Cole's comment about Mel Gibson's claim about Jews; Cole stated: "'Jews' did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided." I feel this quote is directly relevant and germane to the topic, and Armon has never offered a reason to censor it.--] 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I was typing a request for the consensus you referred to but you reverted before I had a chance. See for my reasons why this should be removed. I'm sure there's a better statement of his position we can use than a straw-man re: Gibson. ] 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::That debate was settled a while ago; see for one of the responses. Again, the cited material is relevant, germane, and on point. Why is it being censored?--] 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Again we see you attempting to both play and umpire. Simply repeating your own assertions, and accusing people of "making shit up" is not a valid address of my concerns IMO. ] 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I only provided the link to show that your comment that you linked to had been responded to. I do not wish to revisit old charges of incivility. The Gibson quote, as I have said, is relevant, germane, and on point. It stays in.--] 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The quote is relevant in my opinion. It is a well-publicized quote by Cole, in reference to a very public event that specifically addresses one current aspect of the issue of anti-semitism. This is the subject of that section under consideration in which quotes by third parties in reference to Cole are included.--] 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) + == Wiki-links in quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sure the Mel Gibson rant was well-publicized, but the Cole quote? Where please. I concede that it's broadly on topic, but I actually think it makes Cole look stupid because he's fisking an absurdity that even Hitler didn't claim. I don't want Cole's view "censored", I want a better example of it. ] 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The Cole quote is on his blog, where many of his views are stated. Please keep in mind the name of this article. Your opinion that it makes Cole look stupid is not necessary here. If you want a better example of his opinion, look for one; do not simply delete the one that is here.--] 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wiki-links in quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I've just removed a few wiki-links from quotes because it doesn't seem right to me and can be used a editorializing via emphasis. Is there actually a policy on this? ] 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I see examples of such links all over wikipedia and I do not know of a policy preventing them; they should be re-added. I also do not see any evidence or even charges of bias due to them, though I could see how they could be abused in the way you fear. I don't think they should be automatically removed, but only that problematic ones should go; e.g. a quote with the word "moron" linked to the ] article would be inappropriate.--] 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge into Juan Cole == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that ]'s page protection and message that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." is based on a of the situation, and that while I'm not unsympathetic to the idea, I doubt it's going to work. ] 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It will work just fine as long as the people who edit the page don't try to turn it into an attack piece on Cole. As for your claim about a "misrepresentation," may I direct you once again to ].] 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Cole has attacked and has been attacked, reporting it doesn't constitute an "attack piece". The is there for anyone who cares to look. "Pages created solely to avoid BLP policies" would not include this one, as a consensus was reached to create it, and not as a POV fork. You participated in the discussion at the time and know this very well. ] 11:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Concensus is not eternal, and it does not supercede BLP policies. At the time I did not know that editors would turn the page into a POV fork. Now it has been justified (by Isarig at least) as having avoidance of BLP as its main raison d'etre. The decision to delete this page was clearly based on what the page has become, not what it might have been months ago. Now, please read ] and do not accuse me of lying again.--] 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you want to have this material on the Cole Page where it originally was, that's fine with me. If you think that's an end-run to remove sourced material you don't like, well you've got another thing coming. ] 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Merging== |
|
|
{|style="padding: 0.2em; margin-left:15px; border: 1px solid #B8C7D9; background:#f5faff; text-align:center; font-size: 95%" align="{{{1|right}}}" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!style="background: #cedff2; padding: 0.3em;" |Relevant policies |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="padding: 0.3em"|]<br />]<br />]<br />]<br />''See also:''<br />]<br />] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an encyclopedia, not a collection or exposé of controversial views found on a blog. Important views ''that have been the subject of comment in independent reliable sources'' should be ''summarized'' '']'' in the main article, ]. This should not be a blow-by-blow account; this should not be a collection of quotes; this should not even attempt to cover each topic he writes about on his blog. It should be general statements that are verifiable in ''published'', ''secondary'' sources that have been evaluated by an editorial staff. There should be no ] of primary sources like blogs, and no selective narrative by Misplaced Pages editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
Before engaging in this merge, familiarize yourself with the Misplaced Pages policies in the list at right, which the article ] and every article on Misplaced Pages must follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
The prior text of this page can be found at . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Addendum: This is not simply a ] problem, though that is the reason why the page cannot presently stand as it is; the BLP problem is a consequence of the larger lack of secondary sources for the contents of this page. Misplaced Pages is not a catalogue of blog controversies; these controversies do not warrant mention independent of published, secondary sources (see similar ]). If you have trouble deciding what is neutral and what is appropriate to include in a biography of a living person and to what extent it should be included, decide based on the level of coverage in secondary, published sources, and represent the statements of those secondary sources accurately. Misplaced Pages is not "a place to air out the controversy". —]→] • 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
