Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Juan Cole. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 22 |
drunkard
I believe it is time to either delete the drunkard comment entirely or put it in context, as I argued above. Thoughts? csloat 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I frankly don't see that this adds anything (any effect it has, seems to detract from Hitchens, unless I am missing some subtil nuance in American political dialogue) and out of the context in which it was stated is actually confusing at best and at worst misleading. Does this make Cole look like a whiner? I doubt it; the more likely outcome is that the reader will discover that Hitchens does have an affinity to the bottle (though I better be careful what I say here, as I just discovered on reading this page recently that Sloat was blocked by User:JoshuaZ on what I think is overzealousness in enforcing BLP. Hitchens apparently gets better treatment here than the unfortunate Archimedes Plutonium who gets called just about everything from kook to crackpot.--CSTAR 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- And Cole gets better "treatment" than sloats's focus on Hitchens' alcoholism and blow jobs apparently. What's your point? <<-armon->> 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- If say "X", my point is "X". --CSTAR 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Defending the indefensible, apparently. <<-armon->> 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- How so? --CSTAR 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- By ignoring sloat's repeated and egregious breeches of BLP, which is somehow acceptable because of a non sequitur about poorly some other guy is treated. <<-armon->> 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- repeated and egregious? Hmmm, I think that's "a little over the top. The incident leading to a block I referred to (in the archived talk page) just referred to sloat's referring to Hitchens as a drunkard, an assertion which doesn't originate with sloat. The point, if I need to repeat it, is that BLP seems to be used rather selectively here, don't you think? Particularly egregious in this case, for the case I brought up as a comparison consists in taunts against an obviously disturbed individual with little chance of rational discourse. And my point was also a question of profound concern: do I need now to worry about an overzealous admin because I said Hitchens has an affinity to the bottle? --CSTAR 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- By ignoring sloat's repeated and egregious breeches of BLP, which is somehow acceptable because of a non sequitur about poorly some other guy is treated. <<-armon->> 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- How so? --CSTAR 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Defending the indefensible, apparently. <<-armon->> 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If say "X", my point is "X". --CSTAR 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neither does the charge of antisemitism originate with Israig, yet you wanted a week-long block and a permanent ban. But, as you've said repeatably, you're not "neutral". <<-armon->> 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Isarig's accusation, I remind you, in an edit summary was "Jew baiting". I see you have some difficulty in distinguishing charges here. --CSTAR 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is you who is having difficulty in distinguishing charges here. csloat used the exact same charge to describe Karsh's characterization of Cole here. For some reason, you did not see fit to block him for a week, or even a day, or even gently warn him, let alone propose a permanent ban. It is one thing to be non-neutral, quite another thing to hypocritically employ double standards. Isarig 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So I understand your statement clearly, are you asserting I am a hypocrite AND employ double standards? I just want to make sure I get your sense clearly. That's a pretty stromg accusation. If you had said I acted inconsistently or failed to do diligence I plead guilty. But you are impugning my character here by using words which I really think are out of bounds of WP:AGF. ANd why? because I thought the ban on sloat was unjustified? Because I thought some poor guy doesn't get the same protection from personal attacks as Hitchens? --CSTAR 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not impugning your character here, I am describing your actions, in an accurate way, which you do not dispute. You wanted a permanent ban on me, and not even a word of caution to sloat, for identical language. That is the very definition of double standards, and you are now hypocritically defending sloat from charges of BLP violations. It is, BTW, not the first time you have done so - the very first time I was blocked on WP for 3RR was in the course of an edit war with sloat, on this very article, in which he violated 3RR as well. You stepped in (depsite being being involved in the edit dispute, but that's another matter), blocked me, but let sloat off the hook. Had I been more knowledgable about WP policy at the time, I would have sought action against you for misuing your admin status. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are accusing me of hypocritically employing double standards. That's quite a clear impugnation of character. We are talking about one incident which happened 4 nearly months ago; another which happened 10 months ago. Inconsistent in emitting judgements about them? Yes, I admit to that. As far as the edit to the Juan Cole article, I made one edit revert back to the status it had prior to your block. These time frames in the time scale of WP are enormous; If you look at the guidelines for last year, at least in December 2005, the rules for admin action on articles was much different than it is now, and at that time allowed some flexibility which now doesn't exist. But by all means, if you had a case then, you probably have one now. --CSTAR 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in "making a case" out of it. Nobody's perfect but the problem is that the disruption sloat has caused has gone on for more than a year and shows little sign of letting up. It's frustrating that you haven't been more proactive in dealing with him in all that time. Yet again, this talk page descends into meta, sigh. <<-armon->> 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked you to stop directing false and abusive comments towards me with every single post you make, Armon; please do so. Thanks. csloat 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in "making a case" out of it. Nobody's perfect but the problem is that the disruption sloat has caused has gone on for more than a year and shows little sign of letting up. It's frustrating that you haven't been more proactive in dealing with him in all that time. Yet again, this talk page descends into meta, sigh. <<-armon->> 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are accusing me of hypocritically employing double standards. That's quite a clear impugnation of character. We are talking about one incident which happened 4 nearly months ago; another which happened 10 months ago. Inconsistent in emitting judgements about them? Yes, I admit to that. As far as the edit to the Juan Cole article, I made one edit revert back to the status it had prior to your block. These time frames in the time scale of WP are enormous; If you look at the guidelines for last year, at least in December 2005, the rules for admin action on articles was much different than it is now, and at that time allowed some flexibility which now doesn't exist. But by all means, if you had a case then, you probably have one now. --CSTAR 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not impugning your character here, I am describing your actions, in an accurate way, which you do not dispute. You wanted a permanent ban on me, and not even a word of caution to sloat, for identical language. That is the very definition of double standards, and you are now hypocritically defending sloat from charges of BLP violations. It is, BTW, not the first time you have done so - the very first time I was blocked on WP for 3RR was in the course of an edit war with sloat, on this very article, in which he violated 3RR as well. You stepped in (depsite being being involved in the edit dispute, but that's another matter), blocked me, but let sloat off the hook. Had I been more knowledgable about WP policy at the time, I would have sought action against you for misuing your admin status. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So I understand your statement clearly, are you asserting I am a hypocrite AND employ double standards? I just want to make sure I get your sense clearly. That's a pretty stromg accusation. If you had said I acted inconsistently or failed to do diligence I plead guilty. But you are impugning my character here by using words which I really think are out of bounds of WP:AGF. ANd why? because I thought the ban on sloat was unjustified? Because I thought some poor guy doesn't get the same protection from personal attacks as Hitchens? --CSTAR 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is you who is having difficulty in distinguishing charges here. csloat used the exact same charge to describe Karsh's characterization of Cole here. For some reason, you did not see fit to block him for a week, or even a day, or even gently warn him, let alone propose a permanent ban. It is one thing to be non-neutral, quite another thing to hypocritically employ double standards. Isarig 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, this was the edit summary to which I was referring, in which if understand coirrectly, you are explicitly saying COle is a "Jew Baiter".--CSTAR 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, unlike sloat, I do not deny nor seek to mimimize my past actions. That characterization is unaccepatble on WP, I was wrong to do so, and said so, and was rightly blocked for it. Just as sloat was rightlu blocked for his BLP vioaltion which you are defending. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please leave me out of this. The block was rightly lifted. Hitchens himself has referred to himself in the same way I did, and it just isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. Please let it go. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean Hitchens refers to himself as a boozehound? The block was lifted because it happened too long ago. The consensus was that you DID violate BLP. <<-armon->> 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know; the word I was temporarily blocked for using was "alcoholic." And I was unblocked because another admin did not think it was much of a BLP violation (though he said it was tactless, and I agreed, and I agreed not to do it again, which I have not). We now know for a fact that Hitchens has described himself as an alcoholic, as has his wife, making the BLP charge laughable, which is why it is odd you keep bringing it up. The only "consensus" that I violated BLP was you and Isarig. Can we please drop this? It is tiring.csloat 06:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean Hitchens refers to himself as a boozehound? The block was lifted because it happened too long ago. The consensus was that you DID violate BLP. <<-armon->> 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please leave me out of this. The block was rightly lifted. Hitchens himself has referred to himself in the same way I did, and it just isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. Please let it go. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, unlike sloat, I do not deny nor seek to mimimize my past actions. That characterization is unaccepatble on WP, I was wrong to do so, and said so, and was rightly blocked for it. Just as sloat was rightlu blocked for his BLP vioaltion which you are defending. Isarig 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, this was the edit summary to which I was referring, in which if understand coirrectly, you are explicitly saying COle is a "Jew Baiter".--CSTAR 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- One more point, armon, you are absolutely right, I indeed have said I am not neutral. Can you seriously argue that you
aren'tare neutral?. In fact I doubt many editors in WP are neutral. What contributors should strive for is neutrality in writing articles. I doubt you can point to a specific instance where I have failed this neutrality test by persistently reverting edits to an article. Yet one further point; I can give as good I get. Despite this, I haven't harbored long-term rancours in WP and have tried to constructively engage you, Isarig and other editors who I have strong disagreements with. --CSTAR 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)- I don't expect you to be without bias, and neither do I assert that I'm free of them. I've also attempted to work constructively with you, and I think that due diligence regarding POV, including my own, is perfectly
illegitimate. The non neutrality I object to is your protectiveness regarding sloat's constant disruptions. <<-armon->> 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) - I note that aside from blocks to vandals and blocks in response to 3rr complaints posted on the admin's noticeboard, I have blocked two individuals on sight: Sloat and Isarig. In this instance, I agree with sloat. Why should that be defensive? And perhaps I didn't show my impatience with him enough on the recent editing of the wipe out controversy, despite some areas of agreement with him. BTW due you mean "perfectly illegitimate" above?--CSTAR 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, "perfectly legitimate" -maybe that was a Freudian slip hehehehe. <<-armon->> 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't expect you to be without bias, and neither do I assert that I'm free of them. I've also attempted to work constructively with you, and I think that due diligence regarding POV, including my own, is perfectly
- One more point, armon, you are absolutely right, I indeed have said I am not neutral. Can you seriously argue that you
- Armon, are you planning to engage the issue here, or just take swipes at me? I'm not the one who publishes articles in Vanity Fair defending alcoholism or blow jobs, so I really don't even understand your insult. But please don't explain it; instead, do you have any comment on the actual issue here? csloat 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So what "context" do you and CSTAR propose? That Hitchens IS a drunk? <<-armon->> 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is very funny armon! Context means the surrounding text; in this case, the surrounding text of the phrase "debilitating drinking problem".--CSTAR 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So what "context" do you and CSTAR propose? That Hitchens IS a drunk? <<-armon->> 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, well, getting back to the article. In what way is "debilitating drinking problem" out of context? I don't see it, so I'll need to have it explained to me. <<-armon->>
- Well Hitchens showed up drunk at a class according to Cole's quote. That's part of surrounding text of the quote, no? --CSTAR 04:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hitchens heckled him at a talk and Cole claims he was drunk, so? Does this make Cole's ad hom less of one? The cites don't focus on this previous encounter. <<-armon->> 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (I don't think they mention it at all in fact) <<-armon->> 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, you mean you don't even know what the full passage says that you are arguing so vehemently against including? It figures. csloat 06:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hitchens heckled him at a talk and Cole claims he was drunk, so? Does this make Cole's ad hom less of one? The cites don't focus on this previous encounter. <<-armon->> 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (I don't think they mention it at all in fact) <<-armon->> 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well Hitchens showed up drunk at a class according to Cole's quote. That's part of surrounding text of the quote, no? --CSTAR 04:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, well, getting back to the article. In what way is "debilitating drinking problem" out of context? I don't see it, so I'll need to have it explained to me. <<-armon->>
- What I propose is clearly spelled out above, that the phrase either be stricken or that it be placed in context. The way it is in the article now - the version you are defending - is an out of context comment that adds nothing to the article. Either use the whole quote or strike it completely. And please stop the tangential nonsense about my alleged BLP violation; as you are well aware, there really was no BLP violation; the block was lifted, and since that point we have learned that Hitchens himself makes the very claim I was temporarily blocked for making. So can we drop it? csloat 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is the typical non-compliant false choice you give. Either a whitewash, or soapbox. The article should be neither. <<-armon->> 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Non-sequitur. I propose neither whitewash nor soapbox; I simply propose not taking partial quotations abusively out of context. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Assertion is not argument. Show how it's abusively out of context. Also, look up non sequitur (logic). <<-armon->> 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It has no context whatever. The full paragraph provides context. Don't tell me you can't comprehend this. As for non sequitur, I am quite aware of its meaning, but thanks for the link. csloat 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Assertion is not argument. Show how it's abusively out of context. Also, look up non sequitur (logic). <<-armon->> 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Non-sequitur. I propose neither whitewash nor soapbox; I simply propose not taking partial quotations abusively out of context. csloat 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is the typical non-compliant false choice you give. Either a whitewash, or soapbox. The article should be neither. <<-armon->> 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I propose is clearly spelled out above, that the phrase either be stricken or that it be placed in context. The way it is in the article now - the version you are defending - is an out of context comment that adds nothing to the article. Either use the whole quote or strike it completely. And please stop the tangential nonsense about my alleged BLP violation; as you are well aware, there really was no BLP violation; the block was lifted, and since that point we have learned that Hitchens himself makes the very claim I was temporarily blocked for making. So can we drop it? csloat 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So it appears we have two alternatives here - put the full context of the quote in, or take the quote out. Shall we just vote on it, or does anyone else have anything more to add? It would be nice to move on. csloat 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The full quote is nonsense name-calling... the shorter version is also nonsense name-calling, but is superior because it only takes up 1/5 of the space. The best option, as I've said before, is not to mention this charge at all, but if we have to, then have it be as small as possible. - Merzbow 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do we "have to" mention it at all? I think if we have to mention it at all, we should at least provide the context -- nonsense name-calling may be what it was, but it was not out of the blue, and the context (Hitchens showing up drunk at a lecture, and the fact that Cole's use of the phrase was exculpatory rather than accusatory) must be included. Otherwise the quote is deceptive -- it makes it appear as if Cole is calling names without cause in order to criticize, when in fact he is calling names based on actual experiences and was doing so in order to explain. csloat 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Exculpatory" -gimme a break. Well at least you admit you're pov pushing. <<-armon->> 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The non sequiturs are not helpful. Yes, as Cole himself suggests, and as Helena Cobban also points out, Cole's comment was exculpatory. And, if you read the context for the comment -- which you claim to not be aware of above -- we would not be having this conversation. csloat 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Says who? Some redlinking blogger on a non notable blog who wrote; "Was it ad-hominem for Juan to mention that? Yes, probably, although he was doing so in a quasi-exculpatory way" [1] It's a lot harder to quote mine when the stuff's online. <<-armon->> 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Juan Cole said it himself when he wrote that he was making excuses for Hitchens' poor arguments. Though, yes, Helena Cobban, who has been writing a regular column for Christian Science Monitor for over 15 years, who is a contributing editor of the Boston Review, who has written five books on contemporary politics in the Middle East, also said it. Quote mining? Another non-sequitur. The issue here is whether Cole should be quoted out of context or not. I am arguing that if we are to quote Cole, he must be quoted in context.csloat 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're caught fudging the facts yet again and you still want to argue. Amazing. <<-armon->> 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're making false accusations again. Cut it out. csloat 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're caught fudging the facts yet again and you still want to argue. Amazing. <<-armon->> 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Juan Cole said it himself when he wrote that he was making excuses for Hitchens' poor arguments. Though, yes, Helena Cobban, who has been writing a regular column for Christian Science Monitor for over 15 years, who is a contributing editor of the Boston Review, who has written five books on contemporary politics in the Middle East, also said it. Quote mining? Another non-sequitur. The issue here is whether Cole should be quoted out of context or not. I am arguing that if we are to quote Cole, he must be quoted in context.csloat 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Says who? Some redlinking blogger on a non notable blog who wrote; "Was it ad-hominem for Juan to mention that? Yes, probably, although he was doing so in a quasi-exculpatory way" [1] It's a lot harder to quote mine when the stuff's online. <<-armon->> 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The non sequiturs are not helpful. Yes, as Cole himself suggests, and as Helena Cobban also points out, Cole's comment was exculpatory. And, if you read the context for the comment -- which you claim to not be aware of above -- we would not be having this conversation. csloat 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Exculpatory" -gimme a break. Well at least you admit you're pov pushing. <<-armon->> 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do we "have to" mention it at all? I think if we have to mention it at all, we should at least provide the context -- nonsense name-calling may be what it was, but it was not out of the blue, and the context (Hitchens showing up drunk at a lecture, and the fact that Cole's use of the phrase was exculpatory rather than accusatory) must be included. Otherwise the quote is deceptive -- it makes it appear as if Cole is calling names without cause in order to criticize, when in fact he is calling names based on actual experiences and was doing so in order to explain. csloat 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
bloggers
I also think we should delete the sentence "This produced furious debate among bloggers.[27][28][29]" As I argued above, this really isn't notable. All of the sources cited are blogs. The hitchens controversy is only "notable" - and barely so - because it was published in Slate and commented on in the Guardian and NYT. The fact that bloggers found something to gawk at is of ephemeral significance at best. Thoughts? csloat 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- No they're not. Only one, Language Log is a blog, albeit a notable academic blog which is providing a balanced secondary source analysis of the controversy. The sentence itself doesn't "pick sides". Give it up. <<-armon->> 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which one do you claim is not a blog? They all look like blogs to me. We don't have any provision for separating out "notable academic blogs." There is no need for insulting and condescending comments such as "give it up" -- I think we'd all be better off if you simply state your position and sign your comment. csloat 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here are the cites for that section:
- Philip Weiss, Alcoholism, Privacy and Blogging: the Cole-Hitchens Feud, The New York Observer, May 4, 2006
- News Hits staff, Juan up, Metro Times, 5/10/2006
- Joel Mowbray, Hatchet man or scholar?, The Washington Times, May 22, 2006
- Here are the cites for that section:
- ...and for blogger sentence...
- This is not a blog
- Michelle Meyers, Private e-mail fuels Cole-Hitchens slapfight, CNET News.com, May 4, 2006
- This is also not a blog
- Your objection is repetitive and false. <<-armon->> 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Realclearpolitics -- not a blog; just a list of blogs. No actual content; it certainly has no relevance here. C|net -- while C|net publishes articles too, that particular piece is a blog -- it's run on blogma software, it is signed "Posted by Michelle Meyers," it is self-published piece. The "language log" is also a blog, even though you seem to think it is more credible than other blogs in some unspecified way. Again, the point that bloggers are all aflutter about this is totally irrelevant. csloat 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Read the RealClearPolitics article before you comment. Read the Cnet cite as well, "Michelle Meyers is an associate editor who tracks online happenings in media, entertainment and politics." <<-armon->> 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant that RealClearPolitics is a political website started by two friends. The actual linked page that you cite as a WP:RS is simply a list of blog links. Totally non-notable. As for the c|net blog, the fact that it is the blog of an associate editor does not make it a WP:RS. csloat 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- RCP "aggregates" opinion on the web. Cnet cite is ABOUT blogs -it's not a blog, it's a news report. <<-armon->> 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- That particular piece is a blog entry. See my points above, or look at it yourself. As for RCP, it "aggregates" a list of blog entries. Again, this is not notable. csloat 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- RCP aggregates what they view as notable so we don't have to. It's also part of the fox news website. [2] <<-armon->> 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is just a list of blogs; it doesn't matter who owns the site. It's not encyclopedic, even if a website considers it notable.csloat 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Secondary sources, not editors opinions, is how we're supposed to establish notability. I'm done discussing this with you. <<-armon->> 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right, and a list of blogs is not a notable secondary source. I am finished too; I assume we won't have another revert war when I remove this non notable sentence, right? You appear to have backed off each of the citations you were previously claiming as notable. csloat 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'd assume wrongly. <<-armon->> 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- So you plan on edit warring even though you have no leg to stand on in the argument? I see. csloat 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You'd assume wrongly. <<-armon->> 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Right, and a list of blogs is not a notable secondary source. I am finished too; I assume we won't have another revert war when I remove this non notable sentence, right? You appear to have backed off each of the citations you were previously claiming as notable. csloat 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Secondary sources, not editors opinions, is how we're supposed to establish notability. I'm done discussing this with you. <<-armon->> 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is just a list of blogs; it doesn't matter who owns the site. It's not encyclopedic, even if a website considers it notable.csloat 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- RCP aggregates what they view as notable so we don't have to. It's also part of the fox news website. [2] <<-armon->> 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- That particular piece is a blog entry. See my points above, or look at it yourself. As for RCP, it "aggregates" a list of blog entries. Again, this is not notable. csloat 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- RCP "aggregates" opinion on the web. Cnet cite is ABOUT blogs -it's not a blog, it's a news report. <<-armon->> 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant that RealClearPolitics is a political website started by two friends. The actual linked page that you cite as a WP:RS is simply a list of blog links. Totally non-notable. As for the c|net blog, the fact that it is the blog of an associate editor does not make it a WP:RS. csloat 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Read the RealClearPolitics article before you comment. Read the Cnet cite as well, "Michelle Meyers is an associate editor who tracks online happenings in media, entertainment and politics." <<-armon->> 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Realclearpolitics -- not a blog; just a list of blogs. No actual content; it certainly has no relevance here. C|net -- while C|net publishes articles too, that particular piece is a blog -- it's run on blogma software, it is signed "Posted by Michelle Meyers," it is self-published piece. The "language log" is also a blog, even though you seem to think it is more credible than other blogs in some unspecified way. Again, the point that bloggers are all aflutter about this is totally irrelevant. csloat 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We should copy-edit Cole's position on the speech
I think that this was a good edit but I think Cole's position also needs a copy-edit. I don't think a reader who hasn't read the sources would find the following very clear:
Cole wrote that although he "personally despise[s] everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini",[23] that he "object[ed] to this translation". Regarding the term "occupation regime" he claimed it "is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all." According to Cole "the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all."[23]
Thoughts? <<-armon->> 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would help simply to add the actual Cole translation ("vanish from the pages of time" I believe), which seems to have gotten lost here. csloat 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK how about this:
- Cole objected to the translation for two reasons. First, because he believes that it suggests that Ahmadinejad "wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland", and secondly, because Cole asserts that a more precise translation would be "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" which is likely a poetic phrase, rather than a military threat.
- Here is the source:
- The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
- But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
- How's that? <<-armon->> 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not just quote the second reason directly, and leave out the first, which is extremely unclear in your rendition, and in Cole's rendition, is basically a repetition of #2? His point is the same in both places; he doesn't think Ahmadenijad is issuing a threat of military invasion against Israel. I see no reason to overcomplicate this. How's this:
- Cole objected to the translation because he said "it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that 'the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.' It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."
- csloat 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or, to preserve Armon's rendition of point #2:
- Cole objected to the translation because he said "it is just an inexact translation." Cole argues that a more precise translation would be "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" which is likely a poetic phrase, rather than a military threat.
- csloat 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the second is a repletion of the first reason. One reason is that it's not a military threat, and the other is that the translation is flawed. In any case, Cole makes the distinction so we should present his reasons as accurately as possible. If the Hitler/Poland quote is unclear, we should maybe just change it to First, because he believes that it suggests that Ahmadinejad advocates an invasion of Israel... <<-armon->> 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. csloat 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. - Merzbow 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. csloat 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the second is a repletion of the first reason. One reason is that it's not a military threat, and the other is that the translation is flawed. In any case, Cole makes the distinction so we should present his reasons as accurately as possible. If the Hitler/Poland quote is unclear, we should maybe just change it to First, because he believes that it suggests that Ahmadinejad advocates an invasion of Israel... <<-armon->> 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not just quote the second reason directly, and leave out the first, which is extremely unclear in your rendition, and in Cole's rendition, is basically a repetition of #2? His point is the same in both places; he doesn't think Ahmadenijad is issuing a threat of military invasion against Israel. I see no reason to overcomplicate this. How's this:
- How's that? <<-armon->> 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored Cole's response to Hitchens, which included his point that he despises Ahmadenijad and Khomeini. That shouldn't be deleted. I also replaced "argues" with "asserts" as mentioned above. Otherwise, this looks good; all we have to do now is delete the next paragraph with all the name-calling and non-notable blog reporting :) csloat 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Causality
We cannot attribute Cole's media comments solely to his blog. He was cited as a "Middle East expert" on al Qaeda right after 9/11 in the Toronto Star, for example. One can easily argue that it is his expertise that made his blog popular rather than the other way around. csloat 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- the refernces provided make that claim very explictly: Before September 11, 2001, Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, enjoyed anonymity outside his professional circle. ...
Cole started his blog, which he called Informed Comment and subtitled Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion, in April 2002. It quickly established itself as a popular source of information on the Middle East, attracting a reported 200,000 page-views per month. Informed Comment also caught the eye of journalists, earning Cole dozens of mentions in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies, an hour-long appearance on NPR's "Fresh Air," and 14 appearances on the "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer. " Isarig 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have shown there is at least one citation of Cole as an expert on this topic prior to his blog, and I have shown that the causality cannot be determined. The sentence should be erased. csloat 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- The full cite, by the way: Toronto Star, October 21, 2001 Sunday, Ontario Edition, NEWS;, Pg. A01. We also have Cole's letters from December 2001. He was also cited in Newsweek on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait back in October 1990. I'm not disputing that his expertise became far more widely known after 2002, but pinning everything on his blog seems dubious. csloat 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That he may have had the occasional reference in media prior to the blog does not contradict the claim made in the article, which is that his blog made him more well known and led him to being a more regular commentator. the claim is sourced, and should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
- A direct quote saying someone believes his blog may have been the impetus for his reknown may be useful here, but not an assertion of causality that cannot be proven. Wikipedia should shy away from such assertions. If you do choose to revert, please only include relevant citations and please cite them directly; also, please at least edit for spelling if you revert. Thanks. csloat 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've made changes to the text while keeping this assertion in there rather than reverting; hopefully all sides can agree to this. The claim of causality is now attributed to its source (please feel free to edit that if other sources agree, or to include a quote there), and I've included a sentence establishing that Cole's opinion was sought as early as 1990. csloat 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to withdraw from editing this article for a while, as an attempt to cool down our on-going dispute. As a final comment, I am fine with attributing the claim to its author, so long as it does not become a silly game , i.e, if another reference is fond which makes that claim, by a different author, it would NOT be ok to continue and describe this as "according to Karsh and <new ref>.....". Isarig 14:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That he may have had the occasional reference in media prior to the blog does not contradict the claim made in the article, which is that his blog made him more well known and led him to being a more regular commentator. the claim is sourced, and should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
revert by Armon
Armon, you deleted sourced and relevant content that Isarig agreed to above. If you have a different opinion can you explain it? I don't think it is right for Wikipedia to attribute causality as a fact when it is someone else's opinion. I also don't think it is right to erase several accurate citations from WP:RS that show Cole has been a commentator on these issues since 1990. csloat 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are the only one asserting that there is a problem with how it was phrased for quite a while now. It is cited and accurate so there is no need to bloat it with competing POVs -especially when yours is OR. <<-armon->> 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is not "bloat"; those are accurate citations, and they are not "OR." It is not accurate to attribute causality when it cannot be shown. All I'm asking is that the claim be properly attributed - your resistance to this seems irrational. csloat 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)