Talk:Juan Cole: Difference between revisions

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.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6: Nov 2006 part one /Archive 7: Nov 2006 part two /Archive 8: Nov 2006 part three /Archive 9: Nov 2006 part four /Archive 10: Nov 2006 - Dec 2006 /Archive 11: Dec 2006 - Jan 2007 /Archive 12: Jan 2007 - Feb 2007 /Archive 13: Feb 2007 part two /Archive 14: Feb 2007 - Mar 2007

Let me give my suggestion for this paragraph, which is quite honestly hard to read as it stands now. I edited in a paragraph that I think is an improvement, for the following reasons: 1. it is similarly short but has much more real information; 2. it presents both sides (Cole and Hitchens) and summarizes their important arguments in a more NPOV way; 3. it leaves out the name-calling that does not belong on a biography page - but someone who cares can look up the gory details; 4. it is more comprehensive (it includes the context for the Nazila quote); 5. it is not as confusing (I couldn't tell who the Hitchens quote was supposed to belong to - it read as if it was a translation). 6. I also changed the heading title since it didn't seem appropriate. What do you think? Thank you, Jgui 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work; thanks. The one thing I would add is the comments Cole made about his actual opposition to the Iranian regime (which is quite vociferous). I'd be tempted to add his point that Hitchens actually agrees with him, too, but I think it isn't necessary. If there are no objections I'll add the former in a few days. csloat 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may not be needed. See the Views section that I added on Iran; it pretty well sums up what he feels about Ahmadinejad. Jgui 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section looks good, thanks Jgui. I don't think it needs to be expanded any more now; since the focus is on Cole and Hitchens, if more from Cole is added, so should more from Hitchens. - Merzbow 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cole's specific argument against Hitchens' specific argument should not be ignored. Hitchens called Cole an apologist for Ahmadenijad and Cole responded by affirming his profound and personal opposition to Iran and to Ahmadenijad. This should at least be mentioned if not quoted directly. Merzbow, that argument is rather silly -- this is not about balancing the word count between one party and another; it is about accurately representing the "debate" that occurred. If Hitchens is quoted calling Cole an "apologist" for the Iranian regime, Cole should be allowed his response. After all this is a page about Cole. csloat 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue for ages about whose argument intrinsically needs more space to represent, and we're never going to agree. The best way to compromise in situations like this is to give equal space. It's worked in many other article (like the Criticism of Islam subtree), it can work here. - Merzbow 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the Criticism of Cole page you might have a point; in a WP:BLP you don't. Also we're not talking about how much space to give each argument; we're talking about whether to represent one side of the argument (Cole's) or not. csloat 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP makes no requirement that a person criticized be given 3x the space to respond. In de-facto criticism sections we will represent both sides equally. It's the only way to do things fairly in cases where editors are naturally inclined to believe that "their" side deserves more space because they happen to agree with it. - Merzbow 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if Hitchens makes 2 arguments and Cole responds with 3, we should censor one of Cole's arguments in order to create a phony sense of "balance"? csloat 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we would make an editorial decision to either summarize the three arguments more or present only the most notable two. - Merzbow 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to summarizing the arguments but "present only the most notable of the two" sounds like censoring one to me. In either case, I am against the idea of imposing "balance" on a debate when it doesn't exist in reality. I respect your sense of fairness, but I feel your way of enforcing it is drastically flawed. We have a whole page on the Holocaust; should we give "equal time" to Holocaust deniers on that page so that we can present the "other side" of the debate in a "balanced" manner? csloat 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On issues where the pre-existing notability of certain sides hasn't been pre-established by a consensus of tens of thousands of scholars in discussion over 60 years - like the Holocaust debate - the default state should be to give equal time. When the relative notability of Hitchen's accusations and Cole's responses has been accorded the same examination, then I will grant your point. - Merzbow 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying; it's the implementation that is flawed -- again, I don't think it is WP's job to impose "balance" on a debate by censoring one side or letting another side soapbox when a more accurate depiction of the debate is possible. In this case, all I'm advocating is that we fairly report both sides (and you seem to agree with that point). csloat 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added Cole's views on Iran in the Views section, since they were so forcefully written and strongly felt in the citation I was reading for the above change. Thanks, Jgui 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This version by Jgui [1] is in my opinion an accurate and verifiable portrayal of the Hitchens Cole dispute. --CSTAR 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more fluid and to the point to me. Abbenm 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CSTAR and Abbenm on this point; the current version by Jgui is far more acceptable, and it seems to satisfy the problems raised on both sides of the dispute among editors. Armon's edit warring is entirely destructive to this process. csloat 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too can live with the current version. Since the RfM is apparently on ice, perhaps we can do a poll/RfC thingy now and see what the general view of the current revision is. Wachholder0 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that any version of this article which uses pov original research like "This article plainly shows Cole's frustration" and states Cole's excuses for Ahmadinejad's statements as if they were fact could be thought of as a "better" version. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what are you talking about? --CSTAR 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking bout a revision made not to the "wiped off the map" section, but to the Iran section. And I think he's right on that specific point, it's a weird phrase that probably shouldn't be included. However that is not relevant to the translation section, which was also reverted. Abbenm 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree there. But this comment here on the "Wiped off the map section" is misplace. --CSTAR 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The inferior version of the "Wiped off the map" section stated, for example Cole felt the speech had been mistranslated to incorrectly imply a military threat. He noted that Ahmadinejad had been quoting Khomeni, and stressed that the speech was about the "occupation regime" and "is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all." We have no idea how Cole feels about anything, we only know what he has written. In addition, he claimed (not "noted") Ahmadinejad had been quoting Khomeni, since it's not a given fact Ahmadinejad was doing so. Also, it's not up to Cole to "stress" what the speech is really about; he can certainly argue or claim it is about that, but he can't "stress" it as if Cole's opinion on this is also a given fact. The inferior version of the section was riddled with issues like this, and it deleted some well-sourced and relevant information. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but one of your points is simply preposterous. That Ahmadenijad was quoting Khomeini is a well-known fact, and it is not denied by Hitchens or anyone else. Nobody is helped by having Wikipedia cast doubt on Cole's statement in that regard. csloat 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you certainly have a point about the statement "Cole felt" or "Cole stressed"; however, much of what you deleted are quotes, which are in fact what Cole has written. You also deleted a full sentence that included the disputed translation. To refer to a translation in any other way is, in my opinion, tendentious.--CSTAR 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add the quotes to the current version, then, which at least is written in an NPOV way? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a full article on Ahmadinejad's comments. This describes the Cole/Hitchens fight of which the erased points about Hitchens stealing, warmongering, and drunkenness, are germane. IMO, it's tendentious to remove what caused notable controversy and to reframe it according to what is thought to be Cole's POV. <<-armon->> 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name-calling is not germane or notable at all. The only thing notable here - the thing discussed by WP:RS's - is whether Ahmadenijad's comments represented a real military threat to Israel or not (and, it turns out, Hitchens ultimately agrees with Cole on that point). In any case, as I said, I support the Jgui version with the modifications recommended by CSTAR above. Certainly Cole's POV should not be represented as fact, but we should make minor adjustments to fix that rather than revert to the extremely tendentious version. csloat 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the more detailed description of Cole's position from the previous version into this one. What does everyone think? Tewfik^Talk 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still absolutely against reproducing non-notable charges like alcoholism and email-stealing. - Merzbow 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the cites. It's not tenable to say they were non-notable. <<-armon->> 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not tenable to say that they are notable. The fact that some other bloggers went into a tizzy about this is not relevant. The name-calling is only put in here to make Cole look bad in a backhanded way. Let's just stick to the substantive arguments. csloat 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Cole wrote is what he wrote. What other people commented on is what is notable, not what editors here think. <<-armon->> 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cole wrote a lot of things, not all of them notable. This is among the least notable. Again, blog tizzies do not make something notable. The NYT and the Guardian commented on the substantive issues here, not the name calling; it is the substantive issues that are notable, not what some blogger got upset about. csloat 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also accused Hitchens of unethically using his private emails, having a "debilitating drinking problem", and pushing for a neoconservative-backed invasion of Iran. These are very serious claims, and Coles wrote that about a world-famous journalist! Many notable people commented on it. Are you seriously asserting it is not notable? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These name-calling claims are not notable as they have not been discussed by any WP:RS. When such reliable sources mention the dispute at all, they discuss the substantive issues of translation and of the "threat" represented by Ahmadenijad, not Hitchens' (well known) drinking problem. That Hitchens is a drunk is not disputed; he himself is proud of it and wrote an article to that effect, so it should not be used here to make Cole seem like some kind of slanderer. The claim of stealing private emails is bogus, as you should know - Cole accused Hitchens of unethically obtaining an email from a private email list, a matter that Hitchens responded to by saying that it was the person who sent him the email who is ethically suspect. Lame response, but whatever -- Hitchens did not deny Cole's basic point there. That hitchens is pushing for a neoconservative backed invasion of Iran is not really all that notable or astounding either. The problem here is using these claims to make Cole look bad, when the claims themselves were not reported on by any WP:RS. When reliable sources do discuss this argument, they refer to the substantive issues (e.g. the NYT article and the Guardian article), not to the fact that Hitchens is a well-known drunk. Hitchens also called Cole a "minor nuisance," a "fool," and an "ignoramus" -- shall we quote that too, and delete Hitchens' substantive points, as you suggest we do with Cole?csloat 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tewfik's compromise is good. It expands Cole's points which was one concern, and keeps the cited second section, which was the other concern. <<-armon->> 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Nazila did not translate that passage as saying that "Israel should be 'wiped off the map'", she translated it as "Our dear Imam [Khomeni] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map". Please keep it the latter or find a source that quotes her specifically as saying that "occupying regime" means Israel. - Merzbow 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever changes are subsequently made to this section, please retain the full sentence containing the disputed translation.--CSTAR 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. <<-armon->> 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence with Cole's views on Ahmadinejad. Cole has publicly stated Ahm. is une merde, and I don't think we should imply anything else. However, these views don't seem relevant to this section IMHO. --CSTAR 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to address the complaints about my original text, and fitted an improved version of some of my original text into the current version. I left the Hitchens text as it has evolved, except I added the "claim" since without it, it read that Cole misinterpreted (which is actually only what he is claiming). On the Cole stuff, I left the statement about Ahm, since Cole makes a point of including it to be clear that he is not attempting to support Ahm. And I rewrote or used more extensive quotes to address all of Jayjg's comments about "NPOV" - thanks for the suggestions. But I disagree that I deleted "well-sourced and relevant information" since I deleted only the scurrilous comments and their blog citations that in my opinion certainly do no belong here. But although I don't think the sentence should be here (I agree with csloats comments on this), I put in a shortened and less inflamatory version which is at least tolerable, and I left all of everyone's favorite citations (although I hope someone will delete some of them since it looks silly to have so many). Let me know what you think, Jgui 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. - Merzbow 08:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, the notability of Cole's accusations are indisputable and cited. If you want to clean up "inflammatory" statements, you can begin with the Iran section. There is no reason for euphemism here, and the objections are weak or hypocritical, and depend on ignoring the evidence. <<-armon->> 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion left off here if I'm not mistaken. Maybe you missed it, but it would be better to reply there (or here, but to those points) than to re-state a disputed opinion as if it's fact. Abbenm 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I see up there is an accusation of bad faith and speculation about my motives. Unlike Cole's blog post on Karsh which had no secondary source support, the post about Hitchens, did, and the specific accusations noted were commented on extensively. That's a BIG difference. <<-armon->> 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think jgui's version of the "Map" section is a good compromise, and I've reverted back to it. I think it's a candidate for a solid consensus version (with armon appearing to be the only holdout). Can all editors respond here to indicate their support (or not) of it? - Merzbow 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• It's not clear to me why Cole's opinion of Khomeini and Ahmadinejad are there; The section seems clunkier with that added phrase. I suppose one could argue that it's a response to Hitchen's accusation of apologist, but in the current ordering it doesn't have the position of a response.
• I object to the use of "surprisingly personal"; I don't think that with these two very polemical individuals this is a surprise at all. In any case, the term is too subjective.
• I think one can safely delete or replace some words. "Cole pointed to"? Yuck.

--CSTAR 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the non-editorializing version of Cole's accusations, "surprisingly personal" is risible. Also, the cites were not all to bloggers. I've also restored the old heading -I don't know what the problem was with it, and it wasn't simply a translation dispute. I think your other points are also valid, but I've limited my edit to those two issues. <<-armon->> 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say one way or the other about whether the ColeHitchens accusations against Cole should be included or not. I wouldn't, but I can't see why anybody gets worked up about including them. However, it is fair to note Hitchens made (or implied) other accusations of a "personal" nature: for example But this apologist, who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English. Saying somebody "affects expertise" is in my opinion a reference to a character trait. So Hitchens is not above the fray by any means. --CSTAR 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert that Hitchens is above the fray, however that wasn't what was generally commented on, rather, Cole's response. i.e. this, and this <<-armon->> 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cstar, I think you have correctly identified the issue - that this was a tit-for-tat (where the first lob in this one was actually thrown by Hitchens), and if we start quoting one we will have quote the other in order to achieve NPOV. That will consume a lot of bandwidth, and it seems clear to me that this simply does not belong in a biography anyway. If we keep the sentence I have added back (with edits to address the complaint about "suprisingly personal") then we have a summary of the situation that can easily be researched in depth simply by clicking on links. I also changed the title: "Cole, Hitchens and 'Off the Map'" just seems amateurish to me - it sounds like its from a High School paper. Why on earth should Hitchens' name be in the title of a section in Cole's biography? Let me know what you think, Jgui 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, Hitchens name is there because the paragraph describes a dispute they had. I fail to see how clarity in a subheading is "amateurish". <<-armon->> 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

armon, the old version that you restored talks about bloggers, which is why I included that language. The wider coverage is implicitely covered in the first half of the sentence, just as it was implicitely covered in your first sentence. Thanks, Jgui 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be striving for concise clarity, I don't think your sentence achieved that. <<-armon->> 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Armon's last version. The headings he has used are more descriptive and refer to something the reader will have heard about. Elizmr 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I think this Armon version [2] is the best of the recent iterations. Elizmr 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and reply to JguiRe: Why on earth should Hitchens' name be in the title of a section in Cole's biography?

Why not? It is about Cole and Hitchens. I believe the section has room for improvement, but I don't see the title as an issue. I still have an issue with the ordering of the section and the claim of "unethical use of private email" (Cole said that Hitchens wrote his essay using material that circulated in a private email group). I also would note the fact that accusations went both ways. --CSTAR 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about this?

Hitchens also impugned Cole's command of both Persian and English, and Cole accused Hitchens of unethically using his emails to a private discussion group, having a "debilitating drinking problem", and pushing for a neoconservative-backed invasion of Iran. <<-armon->> 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cstar, I don't object to the section heading on fairness grounds, I just think it reads amateurish, and is not worthy of a serious encyclopedia. But if there is a consensus on any title, I'm OK with it.

Cstar, I agree that the ordering is wrong in the Elizmr favorite version as it stands now. There is no logical flow from the Nazrila quote to Hitchens bashing Cole and it is jarring. There is a logical flow when Cole's comments are put first since Cole is responding to the translation and sets the stage for Hitchens talking about Cole.

And why was the Cole argument rewritten in Elizmr's favorite version to weaken it? Since we're describing a debate, shouldn't both sides of the debate get their best presentation?

Finally on the Cole Hitchens quotes. Hitchens did a lot more than "impugne Coles's command of Persian and English". That's a very antiseptic way of putting it, and sounds like the kind of thing an average writer could do in the course of writing an average article. But it is far from the truth. In fact during their spat Hitchens called this tenured professor a "minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic community", "in need of a remedial course in English", "10th rate", "a sordid apologist for Islamist terrorism", "Professor Juan Cole does not know what he is talking about, in any language", "his English is lousy", "He is a complete dim bulb", "shows what an idiot Juan Cole is", "Cole, who is the embodiment of the mediocre" as well as comment on Cole's "illiteracy". And lets not forget that it was Hitchens who started this name calling, and it was Cole who responded.

Any reader who wants to get into this can do it easily using the overly-copious cited references and a couple google searches. But let me ask you this question - do you really think these quotes belong on a WP biography page? Because it will be necessary to include some of these to set up the reasons for Cole's response. It is far better, in my opinion, to describe it as I have done without quotes from either side, and leave it to the reader to research if desired.

I am restoring my version plus changes but leaving the present section heading since Elizmr's only complaint was about my heading. The only reason given for putting in "Elizmr's favorite version" is that "I don't think [Jgui's] sentence achieved concise clarity". If that is the only problem with my paragraph, then perhaps someone could tell me exactly what that means and how one judges and achieves "concise clarity"? Cheers, Jgui 02:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is not acceptable and your chonology is wrong. The Slate article came first, and most of insults you quote were actually a response to the blog post. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jgui. If this is going to be a name-calling slugfest, let's not forget the insults slung by Hitchens, (who has written that his daily intake of alcohol is enough to kill or stun the average mule). I prefer to keep it professional on both sides. In any case I have another proposition -- why not put this stuff in a section about Cole's views on Iran (which is, of course, his main area of academic expertise, both in terms of language and history)? If this is truly to be an encyclopedia entry and not just a "battleground," that would be a much more appropriate solution, and the Hitchens/Cole spat would be a part of that section rather than a main focus of this page, which seems rather ridiculous. Just a thought. csloat 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section describes the Cole/Hitchens fight of which you two are determined to erase Cole's notable accusations of Hitchens stealing, warmongering, and drunkenness. Again, this is simply a tendentious attempt to remove/obscure what caused notable controversy, in fact, there was speculation that this had some effect on his Yale appointment [3]. This is why it is both less clear, and POV. Sloat's idea is a transparent attempt to do the same by other means. His first objection if this was moved to the Iran section would be that any details of the controversy would be "off-topic".

If Cole gets into notable battles, and he does, they will get reported here. Again, we have a full article on Ahmadinejad's comments and the analysis of them. We also have a section in this article for Cole's views on Iran which should probably be more illuminating than an offloaded quote from the spat post. I've raised a similar issue regarding the Afghanistan section, but apparently no one's very interested in improving those sections, and would rather raise any number of specious objections to a far less problematic and better cited passage. Is it inflammatory or antiseptic? It was too much detail, and now there's not enough. This is not reasonable, it's disruption. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "disruption"; this article is being treated as if it's someone's personal gossip column, and it is perfectly normal for a group of unrelated editors to take serious issue with this. That "no one is very interested" in improving unrelated sections of the article is not relevant to the problem that a particular set of editors are very interested in bringing a lot of attention to a particular spat of blog fights. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever have anything to add to the discussion other than accusations of bad faith? You bore me. <<-armon->> 14:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could repeatedly go on about how notable two bloggers calling each other poopy-heads is, and how such discussion is of vital importance to a biography article, but I see that side is already well-covered. Currently there's no constructive discussion going on, so I'm sticking to copy-edits and leaving notes in the summaries. At some point I'm sure both the name-calling in the article and the name-calling in talk will calm down. Chris Cunningham 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Armon, there is no accusation there of bad faith and he makes the point that you are wrong to call these reasonable arguments disruption. And, in fact, your post repeatedly accuses me of bad faith and even predicts my behavior. Again, you keep saying this name-calling is notable but you only want Cole's name-calling reported but not Hitchens'; every version of the paragraph you have put forward presents Hitchens' arguments as reasonable, deletes Cole's substantive arguments and substitutes the name-calling. It's tiring. You justify this with repeated references to other blogs as if that makes it notable (yet you are always the first to insist on WP:RS on other matters). All I'm trying to do is give this some perspective -- this guy is a reknown expert on Iran, and this spatfight is a tiny blip on the radar of his career; let's put it in that context where it belongs rather than blowing it up as if this was the most important thing in the world. We still don't have any WP:RS that seems to think the name-calling is important; that some blogger speculated it had something to do with the Yale job (another blip on the radar) really doesn't change that. The only thing notable about this controversy is that someone who is known for attracting a lot of media attention (but who doesn't speak Persian) publicly accused Cole (an academic Persianist) of mistranslating the Iranian president's threat and of therefore being an "apologist" for the regime. That they called each other names during the ensuing argument is unprofessional, perhaps, but really not notable. (and, in the world of blog arguments, it isn't even that unusual). csloat 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re do you really think these quotes belong on a WP biography page?. Maybe that's not the right question to ask. The problem with this section is that it is notable in one way and not notable in another. It certainly was widely reported in blogs and in opinion columns, but none of the references listed can be considered hard news items (as opposed say to Michel Bachmann's recent pronouncements on the Iranian plan to divide Iraq). Whose account of events should we then use? Joel Mowbray's editorial in the Washington Times? Some blog? Cole's account? However, I'm not going to waste time on arguing for non-notability, because (a) I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to microinterpret the byzantine guidelines and policies regarding WP:OR and WP:RS which on an admittedly cursory examination [4] seem to change every two hours (b) Even if an argument for non-notably were presented, I would still favor inclusion of some reference to the spat, because of its interest, possibly even salacious or morbid interest. So what should we say? Unfortunately, in this instance all we've got is a bunch of quotes. Perhaps, in some cases, we might get by with a reasonable paraphrases, but most certainly not regarding the actual translation.

Anyway, I prepared to live with almost anything, so long as the full quote of the translation is there and some mention of Hitchens less than decorous characterizations of Cole are also there. --CSTAR 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you're OK with what I proposed. <<-armon->> 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) If not, then how would you write the sentence(s) to include Hitchens' barb? <<-armon->> 14:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cstar, OK I guess there is still a debate needed on the last sentences - for whether it is preferable to summarize that there was a vitriolic dispute and provide citations, or is it preferable to insert quoted accusations such as idiot, illiterate, unethical, debilitating drunk into the text of this biography. Its pretty clear to me which is preferable, but lets put that aside for now and temporarily leave the unbalanced quote sentence provided by armon and deal with the other editorial issues. You complained about the sentence order, and I agreed with you above. Unless someone gives a reason for putting Hitchens first, we seem to be agreed that Cole should go first since it has improved clarity. I will make this change. Armon has inserted a paragraph that weakens the Cole argument, but has given no justification for doing so. No one is trying to weaken the Hitchens argument - so no one should try to weaken the Cole argument. I have left the Hitchens argument exactly as Armon inserted it since he apparently prefers his version, but will change to use the preferable Cole version. I would hope that this version is acceptable to everyone, with the exception of the last two sentences about their personal dispute that still needs discussion. Please do not make changes without discussing them here first. There should be no need for reversions prior to this version - make changes to this version to avoid edit-warring with versions that get more and more out of sync. Thank you, Jgui 15:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. The Slate article came first. No one should try to amplify the Cole argument either. As for edit-warring, take your own advice. <<-armon->> 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, this is simply untrue. The Slate article was in response to Cole's writing on a private email discussion group, i.e. Hitchens was reacting to Cole's private email (quoted here). How do you justify gutting the Cole argument? Jgui 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a show of hands - who thinks the "drinking problem" sentence should be summarized as Jgui has done, or should continue to mention the accusations in detail, as in armon's version? I think it should be summarized. - Merzbow 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised. Wikipedia is not an almanac of flame wars. Chris Cunningham 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote that it should be summarized. Jgui 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this link on grounds of reputability and notability. One does not have to look far on the Internet to find critiques of public figures on partisan websites, and I hadn't previously believed that the mere existence of such critique was grounds for inclusion. The link in question calls Cole all sorts of crazy. The article as-is already does a pretty good job of pointing out that the Right generally thinks Cole is a terrorist sympathiser, so I don't see the value in exaccerbating this with more partisan links. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a supporting cite for the statement regarding his critics POV. It doesn't violate BLP, so please stop removing it. <<-armon->> 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How doesn't it violate BLP? It's weaselly ("some people"), it tars by association (strong claims given legitimacy by inclusion) and it's from a site for which no-one has vouched notability (and which is plainly partisan). In other cases (Hitchens) at least the hosting site had legitimacy, and aside from the name-calling the claims contained within were facts which could be backed up and not just opinions. I'm removing this again; Hitchens is one thing, but leaving in random freeps is quite another. Chris Cunningham 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've taken to reverting copy-edits now. I'm sure there's a good-faith explanation for that. Chris Cunningham 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it simply a "copy edit" when whole sentences and citations are removed. You removed a response from Cole on the AS charge. <<-armon->> 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you didn't. I either misread or looked at the wrong diff. You just removed mention of more than the 2 named critics. This is inaccurate and strange in a section concerning "Criticism". <<-armon->> 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"more than the 2 named critics" were given by the weaselly term "others". Of these "others", one is a hard-right site of no established notability. And yet again, you've reverted copy edits to tense. This is still a BLP violation and it's going back again. If it is established that Cole has received notable criticism from sources more reputable than random hard-right websites, feel free to cite them by name and this can be discussed. The current wording is a smear of no noted credibility and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. <<-armon->> 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content which violates BLP does not, to my knowledge, count as edit warring. I still maintain that this is a BLP violation. Chris Cunningham 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, this revert has been justified as sufficiently contentious BLP grounds. Chris Cunningham 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were strongly cautioned on your Talk page that this is not a clear cut case of WP:BLP violation, and that you were being given the benefit of the doubt, provided you stop edit warring. I see you've decided to push it, so I will report you again. Isarig 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Push it"? Unbelievable. What does the benefit of the doubt count for if the smear remains indefinitely due to a series of like-minded editors using 3RR litigiously to prevent it from being removed? (this is obviously rhetorical, given this poor article's long and cynical history.) Chris Cunningham 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your subsequent block shows, it is quite believable. The benefit of the doubt is with regards to your personal conduct - that you were operating under the (mistaken, but good faith) belief that this is a clear-cut case of a WP:BLP violation - and hence you were not intially blocked for an egregious 3RR violation, but strongly cautioned not to do so anymore. Since you persisted in the reverts, despite the warning, your actions could no longer be considered good faith, and you were blocked. Many editors do not share your POV that the criticism of Cole is a smear, and the soluion is for you to get consensus here, not to disruptively revert those parts you disapprove of. Isarig 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In armon's version (or at least the version he reverted to) it says this:Alexander H. Joffe in the Middle East Quarterly writes that "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme", and other critics accuse Cole of being anti-Israel and of apologizing for radical Islam.[45][46][20] Isn't this lumping two different criticisms? Apologist for Islam (noted by Hitchens as in the Wipe Out dispute) and the dual loyalties and antisemitism which is the subject of the section? For this reason I think Chris Cunningham's version is preferable. I am avoiding the notability issue of Front Page Magazine since the source is cited explicitly and any reader can find out its location in the political spectrum and possible biases.--CSTAR 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page because of the reverting. It seems to me that either Front Page Magazine is the only source for the claim, in which case it shouldn't be used as a stand-alone source because it's extreme and it seems to give its contributors a free hand to say what they want, or other sources are in agreement with it about Cole, in which case those other sources should be used instead. But if Front Page Mag is the only source for the claim, then that should give us pause for thought. BLP takes precedence in situations like this, and I accept that this is a borderline example because no alleged libel is involved, but even so, we need to be careful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated deletions eliminted not only FrontPage Magazine (which I agree is a source that should be used with caution), but also Slate, which is a reliable source which is not in the same category. Isarig 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPM is NOT the only source for the claim. FPM, Hitchens in Slate, and Joffe all hit on both themes. The sentence should be rewritten to present just the general accusation, with all three cites included, instead of quoting Joffe in particular and then proceeding to the general accusation. - Merzbow 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just want to make a few points which I think are salient. 1) the BLP issue was raised later after 2 other editors, including an admin had reverted. As there isn't actually a libel issue, this is a misuse of BLP in order to get a leg-up on a content dispute in which he objected to "random freeps". This is just wikilawyering. 2) It's only "my version" in the sense that I was defending a formulation of the criticism section which had finally reached some kind of consensus until this BLP claim was thrown out. 3) I doubt anyone would argue (at least I certainly wouldn't) that FP isn't strongly partisan, but it's hardly "extremist" and I doubt it could be called any more partisan than Democracy Now!. The citation was one of three supporting the sentence. This, in my understanding, is the proper way of using partisan sources, not on their own, but supported by others. However, if it is simply an issue of the one citation, it's easy to replace, and the full sentence can be restored using the other two. CSTAR's observation that it lumps two different criticisms is a different issue which can be corrected with a rewrite, rather than a deletion. <<-armon->> 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above. Elizmr 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now, which, although it is also partisan, also tries to report straight news. Frontpage is all partisanship (and it is quite extreme; it seems obsessively focused on character assassination of academics). More to the point, DN is not cited here as a source of praise or criticism whereas FPM is. If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim, what's the harm in just leaving out the FPM? csloat 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome to the POV that 'Frontpagemagazine is far more objectionable than Democracy Now', but please realize this is just your personal POV, and others see it differently. From a WP persepctive, there is no difference. I don't understand what you mean by "If you guys are right and there are other sources for the claim"- the revert is there for all to see, and it revrted the Slate refernce. I'm ok with restoring the claim sourced to Slate. Isarig 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to your POV that it is just my personal POV, but it is actually an easily verifiable fact. csloat 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's not only a 'fact", but an 'easily verifiable' one? Go ahead and prove it, then. Amuse me. Isarig 06:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologist?In his Slate article, Hitchens made two apologist claims: a specific claim that Cole was an apologist for Ahmadinejad and the different (and less specific) claim that he is in the fringes of the "academic Muslim apologist community." Is this the same "apologist claim" as the assertion thatCole is an apologist for radical Islam, made in the FrontPageMagazine.com piece by Harris? I think we are on flimsy ground if we assert that Harris and Hitchens are making the same point or even that Hitchens is making a single "apologist" claim. I think that without further clarification, this is an example of "name calling".--CSTAR 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harris charge, which appeared in FPM has also been reproduced on George Mason University's History News Networks [5]. Can we put this back in now, or are we now going to claim that HNN is also a partisan, objectionable, character assassinating source? Isarig 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, that's not the question I was addressing. As I said specifically above, I didn't cite its appearance on FPM as the issue.--CSTAR 00:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can reword it as we wish, but Hitchens is directly calling him an apologist in the very passage you quoted, how you can say that's not an "apologist" claim is beyond me. - Merzbow 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not responding specifically to you. If you'd like, we can reword to reflect which sources specifically claimed he was an apologist for radical Islam (HNN, FPM), and which sources claimed he was just an apologist for Islam or Ahmadinijad. Isarig 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an apologist for what? In one case he's calling him an apologist for Ahmadinejad. Is that the same thing as an apologist for radical islam? In the other he's on the fringes of some "muslim apologist community". Could you clarify this: what is the specific apologist claim Hitchens is making?--CSTAR 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) or rather, is this the same claim as being an apologist for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources for criticism, from a superior publication. From National Review: [6], [7], and [8]. Specific quotes in these articles echo the dual loyalties, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western accusations. - Merzbow 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but text search reveals that in none of them does the word "apologist" appear; (in fact apol does appear, but as "crapola"). So what specific criticism in any of these three articles is an accusation of being an "apologist" for radical Islam?--CSTAR 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they supported that particular wording of the accusation, but similar accusations of equal seriousness. We need to come up with a new rewording that incorporates all these sources. Maybe we quote none and generalize them all, maybe we quote all a bit and generalize none. But they are certainly all echoing the same themes, even if their particular wordings are different. If we're not going to reduce this section to a quote-farm, we need to admit that we do have editorial discretion to draw inferences between differently-worded by similarly-themed accusations. - Merzbow 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that editorial discretion may be needed, but finding suitable compromise wording here isn't going to be easy.--CSTAR 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]