Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 13 October 2006

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Review of Karsh's books

JSTOR has a few reviews of Karsh's books from academic journals. Not sure that they have direct hyperlinks, though.

Cole section

Isarig (talk · contribs) is censoring Cole's direct response to Karsh's criticism of Cole's blog, using the bogus reason that Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. (Ironically, he is at the same time insisting that a blog comment be included on the Cole page). I understand his point but I think it is invalid here - Karsh's article is called "Cole's bad blog," it is about Cole's blog, and Cole replies specifically to Karsh's arguments on his blog. Cole is a reputable source, and his blog is widely cited in the mainstream media, and this section of the Karsh article is specifically about Cole's blog. To erase Cole's response to Karsh's criticism of his blog just because the response appears on that blog smacks of censorship.--csloat 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are making it very hard for me to WP:AGF when you repeatedly misrepresent my positions and actions. So from the top: People are not WP, by definiton. Sources which publish people's opinions can be either RS or non-RS. When Cole is cited in Salon, or testifies before congress, those comments are in a WP:RS and can be reproduced here. When Cole rants on his personal, self-published, on-line partisan blog, those comments are not published by a WP:RS and have no place here. So, when Karsh criticizes Cole in TNR, those comments, being published by a WP:RS can be presented here. If TNR decided to publish a letter to them by Cole making the same arguments, it may be published here. But so long as they only palce they appear is on the blog - they're out. If you don't like it - take it up with WP:RS. And as a final point - the comment I'm insisting on keeping at Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole appears in Middle East Quarterly, a RS, not a blog. Isarig 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First, read WP:RS, especially the part about self-published sources like blogs. I will quote relevant parts below. Second, Karsh is commenting specifically about Cole's blog - the title of the article is "Cole's bad blog." Clearly we have broached the topic of the blog here; to deny the blogger a response because it wasn't published in TNR is bogus. Third, WP:RS is a guideline, not a rule, and the page specifically says at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is clearly the occasional exception.

Now, looking specifically at the section of WP:RS in question here, we read first:

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

Clearly, Cole fits this criteria; he is well-published, and he is writing in his field of expertise (in fact, he is writing about his blog, which is what the Karsh article was about!) For Isarig to wave around WP:RS as a cut and dried rule is wikilawyering; it is very obvious that the blog response to Karsh's criticism of the blog is both relevant and notable in this context.

Next, we read that:

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it

Clearly, this condition is met as well; Cole's blog is a more than reasonable source of information about Cole's blog. These conditions are each presented as sufficient rather than necessary conditions for the inclusion of a blog citation and this particular citation from this particular blog meets both conditions.

Your final point - which is an aside that is neither here nor there - the source cited is the "sand box blog," so yuou are wrong that it was not published in a blog. However, you are right that the sandbox blog is quoted in MEQ; I had not noticed that originally, so I withdraw my aside about the irony here.--csloat 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me address the follwoignpoints in order

'to deny the blogger a response because it wasn't published in TNR is bogus' - no, it is not. There's a reason why WP:RS was written - self published sourced have no editorial oversight, while RS do. If Cole makes his arguments in a letter to the editors of TNR and they publish it - we know that someone has found these arguments , at a minimum, to be non-libelious, for example. We can't say the same for Cole's rant on his personal blog. If we make an exception here, we're making an end-run around WP:RS which renders it meaningless. You may think that "This is clearly the occasional exception", but I disagree.

It's ok, per 'professional researcher writing within their field of expertise' - no, criticism of Karsh and of WP editors is not Cole's field of expertise. Nor are antisemitism, nor neoconservative politics. These are the subjects of Karsh's criticism of Cole, and the topics of his repsonse. The only thing which , passably, may be considered "his field of expertise" is information related to his academic record. If you want to limit the Cole rebuttal to the sentence that says "Cole responded to Karsh, first noting his "extensive" publications on the twentieth century Middle East, including articles "in refereed academic venues on the Taliban, on September 11, the Ayatollahs of Iraq and democracy, on the historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and many other twentieth century and twenty-first century subjects." - I'll be ok with it.

It's ok, per "sources of information about themselves " - do read the full sentence, , which ends "in articles about themselves". This article is not about COle or his blog, it is about Karsh. That's why we can't use the Cole quote here, but can use it in the Cole article, or the C&V article. Isarig 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, those arguments don't wash. Read WP:RS. It's not a "rule", it's a guideline, and in this case it is clear that Cole's arguments on his blog are directly relevant to Karsh's arguments about his blog. You're just wikilawyering (and doing a poor job of it) to make a weak case. If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine, but if it's going to be here then the response should not be censored. Your claim that TNR publishing something makes it non-libelous is feeble. What is libelous that Cole said? If you have a question about something we can discuss it. TNR publishing Karsh's words does not guarantee that they are non-libelous. The only way to determine that is to sue someone for libel and see who wins in court. As for your second claim, you are doing a terrible job of trying to make a red herring out of this. The issue here is Cole's blog (again, that's the title of the article by Karsh! To pretend otherwise is laughable). Cole is responding to Karsh's criticism of his blog. The only reason for censoring it is you don't think Karsh is right but you want to hide the response so that maybe others will think he is right. Again, it's just feeble. Give it up. As for your final point, you're right this article is about Karsh, but the section in question is about Cole and his blog in particular. Cheers!--csloat 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles