Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bonewah (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 11 February 2010 (→Why does this article downplay the blog?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ahmadinejad

Cole is also a vocal critic of President Ahmadinejad.

There isn't any reason not to include this, is there? Cole called his beliefs "monstrous". The Squicks (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This should definitely be included. Once upon a time, a group of politically motivated editors were adamant that this information be censored, and they even went so far as to create a belabored argument claiming that Cole was some kind of apologist for Ahmadinejad. It was nonsense, and the involved editors have since moved on to other things (though one or two of them left after being outed as sockpuppeteers on other pages as I recall). It's been a couple years; I think this rather non-controversial statement can go back up without trouble. But who knows; I haven't really been following this page much of late. csloat (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen the opposite. People who deny the holocaust themselves and who love Ahmad cite Juan Cole as a supposed ally of themselves. The Squicks (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen that myself, but I suppose people will say the damnedest things. csloat (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If he criticizes, it is better to mention. Kasaalan (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general note, I think these individual country/region sections are a bit wordy, and not quite wiki, if you know what I mean. (I can say more if this isn't clear.) IronDuke 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean, but would like you to say more on this subject anyway. My feeling is that you are talking about the same sort of concerns that myself and other editors expressed above in the Coatrack tag section. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of coatrack, just that it's sort of unweildy. Can we not use a more summary style? IronDuke 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Law of US

The article claims

"Cole has mentioned being contacted by a lawyer representing Gibran's heirs, who asserted the family's claim to copyright, although these works (published 1905 - 1915) were clearly out of copyright."

I am not very familiar with US copyright laws, yet the starting date of copyright expiration is not the date of the publish, yet the date the writer passed away in some parts of the world. Do anyone familiar with the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey IronDuke: (1) Stop vandalizing the talk page to make a point. I'm sorry you felt insulted when I asked you to stop being disruptive before, but you are just compounding the problem by deleting my comments. (2) Stop vandalizing the article. Deleting "public intellectual" after a thorough discussion of the issue, backed up with evidence from several reliable sources including Foreign Policy and the Chronicle for Higher Education, led to a concensus that in fact the term "public intellectual" was entirely fitting. You then left the edit alone for, let's see, over 2 weeks, and when I tried to press the issue by making the case clearly in talk one more time, you dismissed the entire debate and said you had no argument with any of this. If that is the case, your most recent edit was completely disruptive. Now, just stop it, ok? Thanks, csloat (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I had no problem including the phrase in the article. I do have a problem with it in the lead, as I made clear. Where do you see consensus for this in the lead? Also, please stop attacking me. It's unhelpful. I hope you can see that. IronDuke 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not make it clear that you had any disagreement; in fact, when I summarized carefully the arguments on both sides for putting it in the lead you said "I think you've pretty much summed up the debate. I have no idea who the debate is with, but you have summed it up well." So at that time you were conceding that the phrase was appropriate. Now you are stating the opposite; I don't know which of your positions was disingenuous but I don't care. Please respond to the points I raised above and state why you think the fact that Cole is a public intellectual should be censored from the lead of this article? Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - asking you to stop being disruptive is not "attacking you." Please do not mischaracterize it as such. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, your comments have been extraordinarily unpleasant to deal with. I don’t know why you insist on that, and I’ll resist the urge to speculate. However, I must respectfully insist that you stop. It isn’t only that’s personally unpleasant for me to deal with, but it sets a very bad example for other people.

I find it odd that continue to not comprehend my argument—you almost sum it up in your latest post—but I’ll try to explain it more clearly. You argue that the term “public intellectual” should appear in the article. I can accept that. It still seems a bit peacocky, but I’ll live. Putting a term like that, with weak sourcing (and I haven’t seen you show that the source in question is so strong anything in it must go in the lead of any subject it mentions) in the lead, however, is wrong. It contravenes what most people understand by a WP:LEAD. The detail, even if it were objectively true (and it’s a pretty mushy term at best), is simply too small for the lead. Nothing to do with “censoring.” Is that clearer?

I asked you about consensus and you didn’t get around to replying. Can you say where you found consensus to include the term in the lead? IronDuke 01:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I do feel like some of this is getting to be a distraction to the main issue. In terms of what should and shouldn't be on this talk page, I'd be willing to have an informal mediation, if you and I could agree on a mediator. IronDuke 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To start with, please remove or refactor your first paragraph since its not relevant to the question at hand (your objection to the article as it presently reads). I would really like to put to an end this emotive guessing of other people's motives. It serves no purpose other than to irritate.

To your main point, you so far have not defined why the two prominent papers Chronicle of Higher Education and Foriegn Policy are "weak" in this context. I honestly do not understand your argument. What is wrong with them? How are you defining "weak"?

As far as whether or not the term is "objectively true" or "a bit peacocky" in your words, your argument does not make sense to me either. Doesn't the term 'Public Intellectual' exist? Is it not a valid term? What makes it invalid and objectively false whereas other terms like 'Expert' or 'Academic' or 'Scholar' are okay? This all seems like specious reasoning. The Squicks (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about with regards to the 1st paragraph? I literally have no idea. Amd I don't have to define why a single source isn't enough to cram a peacock term into the lead. IronDuke 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can call other people "unpleasant" if you so wish. I was merely pointing out that, in my opinion, such statements are unhelpful and tangential to the main point here, so re-factoring the text seems like a good idea. The Squicks (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Amd I don't have to define why a single source isn't enough to cram a peacock term into the lead.

(a)There are two sources here. And one of them was cited for other information already.

(b)It takes up bare nineteen character spaces, which is hardly "cramming" or overloading anything.

(c)It's no more of a peacock term that the other terms that I just quoted like 'Scholar' or 'Academic' or 'Historian'. You still have not come up with any evidence as to why the term is objectively invalid. Even if it is indeed a peacock term, which I believe it is not, Misplaced Pages guidelines allow it to be included since it is a quote.

(d)I'm still waiting as to why you consider those reliable sources to be "weak".

(e)Since you represent the minority position, the burden of proof is on you to disprove the majority. The Squicks (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Scholar" a peacock term? "Historian?" Look, it doesn't belong in the lead. Passing mention in two sources (even one as extraordinarily illustrious as The Chronicle of Higher Education) just doesn't cut it. And I've yet to hear a rebuttal of my point re WP:LEAD. Or why there is a consensus for inclusion. Having said that, if it's your fondest desire to have this in the lead, so be it. I can't agree, but it's not worth fighting over. IronDuke 01:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point; "public intellectual" is no more "peacocky" than "scholar" or "historian." You see how you reacted with contemptuous ridicule when you considered whether "scholar" is a peacock term? That is how many of us feel when you claim that "public intellectual" is a peacock term. For me, the meaning of the term is just as clear as the meaning of the term "scholar." You say "it doesn't belong in the lead" but you never say why. You -- again with contemptuous ridicule -- now concede that the Chronicle of Higher Education is an impeccable source, and yet you assert that "passing mention ... just doesn't cut it." First, where is your source indicating there is a question or a doubt about whether Cole is a public intellectual? There simply is none - every source that even considers the case states that he is one. Frankly, IronDuke is the only source I've ever heard question that fact. Second, the mention is not "passing" (in the Chronicle's case, it is the central point, and in Foreign Policy, the case is made with analysis and eloquence), but it's unclear why you think that matters. Passing or not, it's clear he is a public intellectual. Finally, you claim you have not seen a rebuttal of your point re WP:LEAD -- that's because you never made such a point. All you did was say "per WP:LEAD" but you never explained (even when pressed by The Squicks) why the lead should exclude such a well-established and notable fact. That is not an argument. I am glad to see that you say it's not worth fighting over; I hope that means it won't be deleted again. Thanks for going with the consensus on this. Cheers, csloat (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss TS's point about "historian," et al. Thanks for the correction. My point about the lead, which I made many, many times, was that it didn't adhere to WP:LEAD, that the lead be a precis of the article. Even assuming that Cole is undeniably a public intellectual, the fact itself is so minor (and nebulous) as to have no place in the lead. But I said I wasn't going to fight over it, and I'm not, unless consensus should change at some time in the future, which I don't have any specific reason to anticipate will happen. Cheers. IronDuke 16:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point about the lead; it's just wrong. The fact that he is a public intellectual is neither "minor" nor "nebulous." It's actually quite central; it is in fact the reason any of us have heard of him in the first place. Hope you will come to understand why it must stay in the lead; thanks for your input. csloat (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to responding to the excellent points above, IronDuke, can you please explain what is "peacocky" about the term "public intellectual"? I mean, let's get down to specifics here -- which word don't you understand, "public" or "intellectual"?

I'm not going to continue reverting your vandalism to the talk page but please stop pretending I have personally attacked you. I haven't. csloat (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether the lack of solid sources for a term means the term should not be included in the lede. But I would err to the safe side. It's probably best that the lede's content be solidly sourced. But what's more important at this time is the abuse that IronDuke has incurred at this talkpage. I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the multiple personal attacks or the subsequent denials of any personal attacks..--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think those are personal attacks, report me and be done with it -- this isn't the forum to complain about such things. I think I was accurately pointing out that IronDuke is wasting everyone's time here, and I fail to see a single personal attack in any of the links you have here. We've got a clear sense from at least two unimpeachable sources that Cole is a "public intellectual"; and we don't have a single source anywhere expressing even a hint of doubt about that fact; it's pretty clear this belongs in the lead.

By the way, going back over the previous arguments above, and this is the post that IronDuke said he agreed with previously. That refutes clearly both of his main arguments, that the term "public intellectual" is squirrely and that the sourcing is "weak." He's effectively buried previous refutations of his contributions in paragraphs of nonsense about personal attacks that never occurred -- in the meantime never actually bothering to respond to the arguments here other than to repeat without evidence his original assertions. csloat (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your not restoring your previous remarks. IronDuke 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am completely mystified by the idea that the two ironclad reliable sources- Chronicle of Higher Education and Foreign Policy Magazine-- are "weak" or "not solid". I mean this in the most truthful way; I don't understand where this objection comes from. The Squicks (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the personal attacks issue, IronDuke has dished it out as much as (or more) than he has taken it in- and any fair reading of the above commentary shows that clearly.

Obviously, I cannot speak for Sloat and I won't. As for me, my reverting of IronDuke's deletion of talk page material (material that I explicitly stated that I did not agree with myself) 'is not a personal attack, and I'm speechless that it's being labeled that. My comment why are you whining about it now was indeed completely silly, and I do apologize for that. The Squicks (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also apologize for statements like "Sigh", "Stop it", and the like. I fought IronDuke's mud-slinging with my own mud-slinging, which was not appropriate at all. But I am only human, and I would like him to apologize to me as well. The Squicks (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, I appreciate your apology, but do not think your behavior (in tandem with csloat's) was comparable to mine. I said before, and say again, if you have some specific thing you want me to refactor, I'd be willing to consider it. IronDuke 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to apologize for your hateful mud-slinging and naked personal attacks, than that's fine with me. I'm more than willing to let it die. Of course, you and I had a negative personal history of editing articles before this article, and that negative history will live on. But that history is not destiny, and I can let it go. The Squicks (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you continue to feel bad about our interaction. IronDuke 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

I seem to remember hearing him referred to as "Juan Cole" very often around 2004, 2005, and more recently as "John Cole". Are these the same person or am I just confused? Should this be noted in the article? 174.21.16.199 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

John Cole, the author of the blog Balloon Juice, is a different person. Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Iraq

Removing:

While lecturing in early 2003 in a University of Michigan course focused on the impending conflict, Cole expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, even though it might lead to unforeseen consequences.

The part where it's claimed Cole "expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, even though it might lead to unforeseen consequences." was actually unsourced. The end-note simply gives the course number for a short or mini-course, "Special Topics," within the interdivisional (IDIV) cluster of residential college (RC) courses at U Mich., the title of the special course, "Why War on Iraq," and the RCIDIV section that short course was in that semester. You have to hunt around to get the syllabus in pdf form to find out that Juan Cole gave one visiting lecture on "The Formation of Saddam Hussein" - which should have been the cite - on March 19, the day the US invaded Iraq.

7:40 a.m. March 19, 2003: Bush Gives Order to Execute Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Not only is Cole not quoted, not only is the citation not a citation, but the person in whose opinion Cole, during his lecture on the formation of Saddam Hussein, on the day of the invasion, expressly stated that he thought the US should act to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime, etc. is never mentioned. Nor has how it got to the Misplaced Pages article been documented. Moreover, and worse, Juan Cole has completely disputed the interpretation of his remarks:

I never supported the invasion of Iraq.

You are citing some undergraduate's misunderstanding of my position in spring of 2003, which I explicitly and repeatedly stated-- that war on Iraq was a very bad idea. Go back and look at my weblog in that period. And somebody please fix the idiot wikipedia article written by some sleazy neocon from which you got this ridiculous idea.

Juan Cole: Are Khamenei and Ahmadinejad Determined to Make Iran a Pariah?: My column is out in Salon

Strong language, but in fact, the "cite" was 3rd- or 4th-hand and to anonymous opinion to boot. --MarionADelgado (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the first paragraph of the Iraq section is sheer op-ed by the Wiki contributor. The sole reference allegedly demonstrating that Cole was ambivalent about the Iraq invasion is from after the invasion had commenced, and it's to a day of reporting on breaking news events in Iraq. Whoever thought that was a good citation should have quoted the part where Cole is attempting to distance himself either from pro- or anti-war opinion, at least in the end note.--MarionADelgado (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is original interpretation of a primary source, and thus outside our remit. As this is a BLP, anything potentially controversial which isn't adequately covered by reliable secondary sources can and should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article downplay the blog?

I'm not really sure why this article seems to go to excessive lengths to de-emphasize the blog, when Cole has no real notability outside of the blog. There would be very little reason to have an article on Juan Cole on Misplaced Pages at all, if it weren't for the blog, and the various associated controversies which have followed along behind the blog... AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There is a whole section on the blog and a ton of citations from it. If anything there is too much of his blog here. There is no "downplaying" of the blog; it's pretty clear from the evidence that it is well regarded and played a significant role in his career, as noted in the article. The various "controversies" you mention were blips in the blogosphere, but his real notability is found in what's published in reliable sources, not what some blogger said about his mama or whatever. When you go to the reliable sources you find that the so-called "controversies" really have had little impact. csloat (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, without the blog Juan Cole would be a relatively unknown academic and minor wannabe-pundit, like thousands of others out there, a large number of whom don't have Misplaced Pages articles devoted to them. Many of the blog controversies may not be very meaningful in themselves, but they gave him publicity without which he would have remained in obscurity. AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead does mention his blog, and there is a whole section about it in the body of the article. Moreover, a great number (too many, in my view) of the citations are to his blog. What is it you would like to see changed? Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles