| Revision as of 21:00, 26 October 2005 editAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,907 edits Current state of page← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:59, 27 October 2005 edit undoLeeHunter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,703 edits →Current state of pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| As the page stands now, everything above "external links" reads like a pretentious stilted official capsule biography, so that there'e no indication whatsoever of the controversies, disputes, and criticisms that he's been involved in before the "external links" section of the article. This is not satisfactory -- the reason why he's in Wikpedia at all is because of the controversies. ] 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | As the page stands now, everything above "external links" reads like a pretentious stilted official capsule biography, so that there'e no indication whatsoever of the controversies, disputes, and criticisms that he's been involved in before the "external links" section of the article. This is not satisfactory -- the reason why he's in Wikpedia at all is because of the controversies. ] 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :He may be somewhat notorious to supporters of the Iraq invasion, but the basic reason he is in WP is that he is widely-cited commentator on Middle East affairs. The various controversies flow from that fact. --] 00:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyvio== | ==Copyvio== | ||
Revision as of 00:59, 27 October 2005
Current state of page
As the page stands now, everything above "external links" reads like a pretentious stilted official capsule biography, so that there'e no indication whatsoever of the controversies, disputes, and criticisms that he's been involved in before the "external links" section of the article. This is not satisfactory -- the reason why he's in Wikpedia at all is because of the controversies. AnonMoos 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- He may be somewhat notorious to supporters of the Iraq invasion, but the basic reason he is in WP is that he is widely-cited commentator on Middle East affairs. The various controversies flow from that fact. --Lee Hunter 00:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio
Just because text appears identically elsewhere on the net, does that mean it is automatically copyright-protected?
from Talk:Juan Cole/Temp
I hope this is better than my first try!
Wikifed.
I hope this stub is going to replace the original page on or about November 30 (as the copyvio deletion policy states). Cole has just become newsworthy as a result of a lawsuit threat.--Dhartung 12:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Michael J. Totten"
Who is Michael J. Totten? Is he just some guy with a blog? Is the link here solely because it's something critical of Cole, or is he salient for some other reason? Sullivan and Goldberg, by contrast, are well known. —Ashley Y 03:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
- seems like it. There's now about four links there based around Totten's article purporting to be a "fisking" (new word to me, is there a wikipedia entry on it yet?) of Juan. I reckon possibly only the response by Ali to that one entry in Juan's blog is of any great significance. PaulHammond 12:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
incestuous blog links removed
I removed a couple of blog links because they didn't seem to be about anything other than an extraordinarily trivial side issue - that Cole repeated somebody else's assertion about whether some Iraqi blogger had a US sponsor. I also removed the link to Riverbend. It was just a post that said, more or less, 'hey check out Juan Cole'.--Lee Hunter 01:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, there's nothing encyclopedic about any of those entries. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good. —Ashley Y 03:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Links
Every link in this article is derived from critics of Juan Cole except for the link to his blog.
Other than the standard CV stuff all we have is a criticism of him. -- posted by 62.255.32.14
- I agree, except that Sullivan and Goldberg are notable figures. Almost anybody else's "response to Cole's blog" being listed is silly and promotional. Misplaced Pages does not exist to aggregate criticism. That's what sites like Technorati are for.
- My impulse here is to delete the "Iraqthemodel" link and replace it with the Foreign Policy in Focus article which featured Cole among other bloggers. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see that the NPOV tag is needed. The critical articles are mostly balanced with his own (very effective) responses. --Lee Hunter 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but Misplaced Pages isn't here to "balance". It's here to provide encyclopedic information to the public. This has nothing to do with whether he gives as good as he gets or not; the Misplaced Pages might as well cross-reference all the people who praise his posts as well. Any given debate with another blogger is not intrinsically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)