Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

A party withdrew from the process.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Could the involved parties please avoid editing Juan Cole until we can sort out the issues? Mart inp23 13:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to where it was. <<-armon->> 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not where it was prior to mediation, Armon. Prior to mediation Cole's response to Karsh was included. You deleted this response after mediation had been called for, and I called you on it, and I asked you to show good faith by restoring the material. You refused to do so and you refused to respond to my arguments there. It wasn't until Isarig agreed to the material being included and then backtracked just a few days ago that you entered the discussion again. The pre-mediation status of the page included the material that you deleted. Do not use Martinp23's request that we stop editing the page as an excuse to edit the page again, restoring it to a version you prefer! Once again, by the way, your most recent edit went against a change Isarig and I agreed to in mediation, and you have never once made a single argument justifying that particular change. csloat 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mediation started in the middle of December, and from the 2nd, there were no edits until that date (or until about the 23rd). It seems that Armon has indeed reverted to the state of the page at the start of mediation. At least now we hopefully won't have any edit wars for the duration of the mediation. Thanks, Mart inp23 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armon made an extremely controversial change -- removing Cole's response to Karsh -- after mediation had been requested. You can verify that by reading the two links I provided in the paragraph above. While your statement may be technically true if the start of mediation is after everyone agreed to it, it is not true in that I had asked for mediation (and Armon was part of that discussion) before that date. csloat 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, fair enough, though I've been viewing the start of mediation from the day that this page was started, and from the cessation of editing on December 2 of Juan Cole. Mart inp23 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my (continuing) inactivity, as a result of internet problems. I'll get back to mediating here as soon as my phone line is repaired. Again, sorry Mart inp23 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation proper, initial instructions and offers of assistance from unlisted parties[edit]

To start with, I'd like the involved parties to post their side of the dispute in the sections prepared below. Try to ignore the comments left here by others in this preliminary stage and just write what your raw view of the debate is, what you're specifically supporting and why. For now, please don't reply to the comments made by eachother in your statements.

Please respect civility, no personal attacks and assume good faith in all comments on this page and, for that matter, ever. If you'd like to see another issue mediated upon, mention it in your statement and we'll take it from there. Also, for ease of reading, please sign yourposts. Thanks, M a rtinp23 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is public participation/input in this dispute encouraged, discouraged or ignored? -CSTAR 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, until I get the statements from the listed parties, I'm not encouraging non-parties to comment. However, once we've got this stage out of the way, I'll (depending oon how I feel then) invite outside opinions here or on the article talk page. M a rtinp23 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but please keep in mind that some of the issues at stake here have wider ramifications in Wikipedia. Also, though I am not a direct participant im this dispute, I have been a participant in discussions that have preceded this dispute.--CSTAR 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to add CSTAR to the list of disputants or otherwise encourage his participation as he has offered valuable mediating input in the past and he is very familiar with the nature of the dispute.--csloat 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I'm not neutral, so I don't have a mediating role to play. However, I am very concerned about the use of quotes from third parties in articles in general. As regards this specific quote from Karsh, a kind of modus vivendi had been reached by some of the parties involved. As a result I don't consider myself directly involved in this dispute, although I have an interest in oits outcome and the principles that are used to resolve it. For now it's best if I wait for a few days as suggested by the mediator. Then I will make some comments as an "outside opinion", although as mentioned earlier I should not be considered neutral.--CSTAR 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSTAR, if you wish, you can add yourself to the list of disputants here and make a statement below or you can make a seperate "outside opinions" section further down - my thinking in delaying this is that it may be helpful for all of us if the named disputants present their points of view before we get outside opinions, so if you'd like to mske an outside opinon, would you be happy to wait for a few days until I've got the statements from the parties done? To make it clear, I'm very eager for your opinion, but want ot make sure that it only surfaces at the right point :) Thanks, M a rtinp23 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I may also be interested in contributing as a non party, depending on what gets covered by all other commenters. As a newcomer to an already present dispute, it is very possible that my own (non-neutral) thoughts will already be represented, so it may not be necessary for me to contribute. In any case, I will likely be following this. Abbenm 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Cole dispute has ramifications for a whole number of articles, as well as the question of how contravetial subjects can be covered on WP. A group of editors have a bias against those who are critical of Israeli policy, and the tactics used in the agressive edit wars surrounding Juan Cole are typical of these cases, including quoting defamatory attacks on the subject from sources, and then reverting any attempts to add in the response of the subject. Fundamentally I believe that this is a question of conflict of interests. Good luck. Abu ali 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my capacity as mediator, to promote a healthy environment for discussion, I have refactored the inflammatory comments of Abu ali above, removing claims of biases and strongly worded attacks on the integrity of some editors. If Abu ali is not happy with my actions, he is free to remove his comment :) Please assume good faith. Mart inp23 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to change everyone's words around? This could get confusing, but if you're going to do this to get rid of inflammatory comments, please do so with the statement by Armon below, which has very little comment on the substance of this dispute and revolves entirely around his perception of my motives and conduct. csloat 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be offended if you feel I'm overlooking certain comments - I'll be carefully reading through the comments below, and will refactor any inflammatory comment. If I do make changes, although they will be open to discussion, I ask that such discussion be directed towards me on my talk page, rather than inflame the situation here. I'll avoid changing comments wherever I can, and try to preserve the meaning of them. Mart inp23 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Though this dispute may have ramifications in WP generally, for me at least the issues involved can be narrowly focused: suitably of certain types of quotes, suitability of certain types of responses. It doesn't help to bring in ancillary considerations which may flare tempers even further and may confuse the issue at stake here.--CSTAR 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comments now appropriate?[edit]

The mediation has now been officially open since December 15; all but one of the parties directly involved in the dispute have come forth with a statement. Would it now be acceptable for comments by other parties to be entered at this point?--CSTAR 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'll create a new section at the bottom where, if you can/will, you can give me an overview of your view of the debate, and your opinions. Mart inp23 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial statements[edit]

Armon[edit]

Statement by Armon here

Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic, who, in 2002, made himself into a public intellectual and became notable as a blogger and then as a pundit. Cole is one of the most respected foreign policy commentators from the left, and is a strong critic of the Bush administration. [2] In doing so, his work has attracted both praise and criticism and he has been a player in several widely reported controversies. However, it is the criticism, and the criticism inherent in the controversies he's been involved in which csloat demands be erased from the record because it doesn't accord with his POV. As the evidence still remains, and his arguments for removal are based almost entirely on his opinions of what is the "Tuth" and wikilawyering about WP:BLP this left him in a rather untenable position so he and User:Will314159 took a "by any means necessary" approach to editing this and the defunct "Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole" page. Will314159 eventually went so far that he was finally blocked for an extended period. However, sloat's behavior has been less obviously egregious, but has been just as disruptive, composed of filibustering, incivility, bad faith arguments along with continual accusations of bad faith, edit warring and tantrums. I have repeatedly asked him to stop, and I've repeatedly attempted to get him to understand that his POV is not shared by everyone, nor is it appropriate to slant or censor the article accordingly. I'd hoped that Will's block would have improved the situation, and cause him to self-reflect, but it seems to have had no noticeable effect.

This is the context for the latest "battle". It came about due to V&C page never having an agreed mission and becoming an overlong tit for tat where the criticisms they couldn't remove where countered by extended soapboxing. Sloat then pretended that the page was created "so that editors can avoid following WP:BLP rules" and suggested the "the whole page be AfD'd". The page was finally put out of it's misery by Centrx, however, he also stated that "Neutral, well-sourced parts of this page that are highly relevant to this person are to be merged into Juan Cole." He explained himself further here. Sloat then attempts to block merging the material and we end up here.

As I agreed, I am willing to have this mediated, but I want to make clear that regarding the properly sourced material we are merging (which Isarig has clearly explained below is properly sourced) that I am only interested in discussions which insure that the material from WP:RSs we decide to merge is presented accurately and in a NPOV manner. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, arguments outside this are completely untenable and are simply abusive. As this has gone on for an absolutely absurdly long time I consider this to be the very last stop before arbcom, and I think that's appalling. <<-armon->> 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Sloat[edit]

Statement by Commodore Sloat here

Juan Cole is the WP:BLP of an academic. The named parties have been involved in frequent and often bitter edit wars over certain material in the biography. Some of the key points follow.

(1) There is a long section on the biography - four full paragraphs - about the "Yale appointment." Cole was never appointed at Yale. Yale considered him for an appointment (a job he had never sought or applied for), but he was not granted the appointment. I do not feel this is notable enough for four long paragraphs and a separate section -- I think one or two sentences indicating Yale considered him for a position but he did not receive it and that there was some controversy about it is more than enough. I am not saying we need to delete all reference to Yale here but I do not think that we need to take up this much space on a job that Cole never sought or received. I think a quote from Cole (or a quote that Armon cited in discussion from Zachary Lockman, president-elect of the Middle East Studies Association) is sufficient to establish what little notability there is to this issue. As it is, it appears as if the job Cole doesn't have (and never sought) is more important and prominent than the job he has been doing for over a decade.

(2) The second set of issues surrounds an attack against Cole as a "new antisemite." The three other editors in this dispute have supported versions of the page that attack Cole as an antisemite and then deleted any attempt to show that Cole was actually not an antisemite. As a bit of background, Professor Cole has long publicly opposed antisemitism. He has even opposed the academic boycott of Israeli academics, a boycott supported by many of his colleagues in Middle Eastern Studies. He has also specifically and vocally opposed conspiracy theories that suggest that Jews are behind the Iraq war. I can cite sources here but I think all the disputants agree and have seen the sources of this information.

The charge of antisemitism is based on the fact that Cole has criticized a prominent group of neoconservatives in the Bush Administration; a couple of these neoconservatives have very close ties to Israel's Likud party. Because Cole has criticized "Likudniks," arguing that some of them demonstrate "dual loyalties," some have interpreted this claim as antisemitic. Armon and the others have inserted the following material into Cole's biography:

Cole's claims that certain US government officials hold dual loyalties to Israeli interests has been attacked as an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory" and an example of new antisemitism.^[1] ^[2] Efraim Karsh, professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes; "Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings." ^[3] Cole says the allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. ^[4]

I do not feel this material comports with WP:BLP. It consists of claims about what Cole must be really thinking rather than about what he says. It consists of libelous name-calling that is explicitly at odds with what Cole actually has said publicly about Jews, about Israel, and about conspiracy theories. We have had a long debate about this issue that I would not like to revisit. The bottom line for me is this -- I do not see a dispute like this as notable unless there is a third party WP:RS -- authored by someone neutral, not an op-ed by someone with a horse in the race -- describing this as a notable controversy. We do not have that here; what we have is extremely biased sources attacking Cole and Cole defending himself.

However, if this material is to be included, I would insist on three things: (1) that material from FrontpageMagazine and Middle East Forum -- two sources with extremely partisan biases -- be removed, (2) That material which shows Cole's actual statements about antisemitism be included here (including his explicit statements about antisemitic conspiracy theories), and (3) that Cole's explicit response to the claims by Karsh be included. I had agreed to live with a version of the page that included Cole's response to Karsh but Armon removed that response, citing BLP issues. I felt that was phony, considering he had no problem with violations of BLP as they affect Cole -- Armon seems to want quotes attacking Cole included even when Cole's opponents fight freestyle, but he seems to want any quotes from Cole defending himself removed. I also found his actions disruptive and in poor faith as he removed this material after I requested mediation on this page. I protested his removal on the talk page and I urged him to show good faith by restoring the material, but he refused to do so. I am not asking for a judgement on his faith - I am willing to stipulate good faith in spite of the evidence here - but I am asking that Cole's response be included if we are going to have libelous charges of racism published on Wikipedia like this.

(3) I think there should be a clear statement about what should and shouldn't be included in this BLP. I do not think that it is notable every time a right wing blogger publishes a note attacking Cole's latest blog post. I would prefer this article stuck only to stuff published in newspapers and academic sources, but I recognize that some of Cole's notability comes from the fact that his blog is very popular and well-regarded. However, his blog is well-regarded (and controversial in some quarters) because he is a prominent and established academic, not the other way around. I think it's reasonable to include some information about controversies stirred up by the blog, but I don't think such controversies need to dominate the page (and I don't think every one should be included). A lot of material existed on a page Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole that was deleted because it was a POV fork of this page that had been created to circumvent WP:BLP. I do not feel that we should be merging that stuff into Juan Cole; the material has the same problems that it had on the fork page. A key question here is, how much "criticism and controversy" is appropriate in a WP:BLP of an academic?

Again I'd prefer to see a rule of thumb that if a controversy is not considered notable by a neutral third party publishing in a reliable source, that it really isn't a useful controversy to mention on a WP:BLP. Even when it is slightly notable, I feel there should be some sense of propriety and proportionality at work -- Christopher Hitchens pontificating about a private email Cole wrote to colleagues is really not more notable than Cole's history of refereed publications, for example.

Isarig[edit]

Statement by Isarig here

Cole's profession as an academic entitles him to the same protections afforded by WP:BLP to any other living person - no more, no less. On WP, there isn't currently, nor should there be, one set of standards for academics, and a different set of standards for say, CEOs or plumbers. If anything, Cole's high profile blog and numerous TV appearances places him in the ranks of Public Figures, where libel law tolerates much more criticism. So this isn't really about "how much criticism" should we allow in the biography of an academic, but about what sort of criticisms are appropriate on a biography of a living Public Figure, and about the notability of certain events.

With regards to the Yale issue, its notability has been established beyond doubt, through numerous articles published in reliable sources about the controversy, much of which, incidentally, was stirred up by Cole's supporters. I believe even csloat does not claim this incident is not notable. I am not taking a position on how much space should be given to this notable controversy, nor do I think there can (or should) be a hard and fast rule on WP with regards to this, along the lines of "6 lines is enough, 7 is too much". There should be enough space allocated to cover the main aspects of the controversy. If it ends up taking up 4 paragraphs, so be it. If the main issues can be covered in 2 sentences - that's fine, too. The issue of "how much space" a specific item should be given on WP is not a suitable topic for mediation, in my opinion.

A final note on Yale: Commodore Sloat makes much of the fact that Cole did not apply for the job. This is of course irrelevant to the notability of the incident (which is measured by public coverage, not by Cole's opinions of it). Additionally, while it is true that Cole did not apply for the job, and did not initiate the Yale process, it is false that he did not seek it once he was being considered for it. If he was not interested, he could have told Yale he was not interested and saved them much time and effort. If he was not interested, he would not have wasted his time interviewing for the position.

The second issue, the accusations that Cole as a "new antisemite" is comprised of 4 different, though related, topics: The notability of the accusations, their suitability for inclusion in a biography, the sources used to support the accusation, and Cole's response to them. The notability I believe has been established quite well: the accusation was carried by multiple media sources, including mainstream publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and widely circulated magazines such as The New Republic. Furthermore, the people making the accusation are notable academics and journalists in their own right - the head of Middle Eastern studies at King's College, a well known historian and anthropologist, and a well-known journalist who writes for the National Review Online, The Washington Times, & The New York Post - are the ones named in the article. On to the question of suitability: Commodore Sloat alleges that the material is unsuitable, because it is libelous, and because it requires speculation as to what Cole thinks. That is false. The accusation does not at all require us to speculate as to Cole's thoughts. As quoted in the article, the accusation is an opinion of a scholar on the nature of the material Cole writes - and that opinion is that that material contains themes that are common to those found in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This material, as opinion, can't be considered libel, and as discussed above, for it to be libel against a public figure such as Cole, it must not only be false (which it is not), it must be made with malice, that is, known to be false to the person making that claim, which is again not the case. And finally, that statement was made in a well known publication, years ago, and has never been challenged as "libel" by Cole or any of his supporters, but rather accepted as a fair comment on a matter of public interest. As WP:BLP tells us, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:BLP further uses an example of how to apply this policy: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source". Here we have a nearly identical case: A well known public figure (Cole) is alleged be a new antisemite. He denies it, but The New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is public controversy. Using the above example, the allegation may belong in the biography, citing TNR as the source. Which brings us to the third issue, the sources used in the article. I agree with csloat that blogs should not be used as sources. However, none of the allegations in the current version of the article use blogs as sources. The specific quote which irks csloat, from Efraim Karsh, appears in The New Republic, which is a reliable source by WP standards. The 2 sources he objects to, Frontpage Magazine and Middle East Quarterly are not cut from the same cloth, and should be treated quite differently. Frontpage magazine is indeed a partisan source, explicitly so. While WP:RS does not preclude us from using such sources, albeit with caution, I personally am not a fan of using it, nor its equivalents from the other side of the political spectrum , such as Counterpunch, or Z magazine, or The Nation. (As a side note, Csloat exhibits an interesting double standard here. While demanding that Frontpage not be used as a source in the biography of Cole because it is partisan, he is quite happy to use an equally partisan (though of the opposite political ideology) source such as The Nation on other articles subject to WP:BLP which he has edited extensively, such as the Plame affair). MEQ, however, is quite a different beast. It is a scholarly magazine, with an editorial board comprised of academics who are known as experts in their respective fields, who come from a broad range of backgrounds and opinions. The contributors are similarly academics who are experts in their fields. The argument against it is that because it is published by the Middle East Forum, a think tank that seeks to promote "American interests", it is partisan. That is a very weak claim of partisanship, which is not even the editorial line of the magazine, but of a different (though affiliated) entity. And as noted above, WP:RS does not preclude the use of partisan sources. I see no grounds for questioning the reliability of MEQ or its suitability as a source. The final question is Cole's response. I have no problem with allowing Cole to respond, providing that the response is more than just name-calling. The article currently has Cole's response (it says Cole claims that those who accuse him of antisemitism do so in an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy), sourced to an article of his. If csloat insists on an actual verbatim quote from Cole, saying the same thing, I would not object to it.

Elizmr[edit]

I have read Armon and Isarig's well written and well-reasoned statements above and concur with all of the points they both made. I could not possibly do a better or more cogent job of summarizing the issues.

Cole is an academic who has thrust himself into the public dialog on some very controversial issues by virtue of his blog and political commentary. Criticism arising from his participation in these controversies is an important part of who Cole is and should be part of a three-dimensional, NPOV, and informative biography on Wikipedia. The discussion should be well written, neutrally stated, and should encompass relevant viewpoints. As editors on Wikipedia, we should apply Wikipedia guidelines in an even handed manner to all subjects. The "ends" (ie--achieving an article devoid of criticism of a subect) do NOT justify the "means" (ie--failing to apply guidelines regarding sources evenhandedly).

(SIDENOTE: In terms of setting behavioral groundrules for this discussion and the discussion around it, I would ask that it be established in advance that all followers of this mediation refrain from attacking and discrediting participants here as being members of powerful Jewish conspiracy bent on domination of Wikipedia. (To be crystal clear, Sloat has NEVER done this kind of thing, but other editors holding with Sloat on the points we are discussing---such as will314159---and editors who have already joined the discussion on this mediation page above have made this sort of attack). It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this kind of nonsense. Could we look at the content under discussion in a dispassionate and rational manner, and refrain from ideologically-based personal attacks? ) Elizmr 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion subsection 1 (New antisemitism)[edit]

Taking what appears to be one of the most argued issue here - the alleged "new-antisemitism" of Cole (issue 3 on the request page), it's my understanding that the parties would be satisfied with a RS repor tof Cole's response to the claims (correct me if I'm wrong). Kudos go to Armon for finding this while recently blocked. The report there is certainly extensive and appears neutral (though I have no deep knowledge of the suject matter), and provides us with a quote from Cole, which can probably be factored into the article to demonstrate his feelings, and keep the article NPOV. The report itself is based on the Yale controversy, but there's a quote which does appear to be a backlash against the antisemitism claims:

“These articles,” said Cole, “attempted to make my critiques of the Likud, on both sides of the Atlantic, look like an attack on American Jewry in general, which is manifestly not the case. For these people, Likud equals Israel equals Jews, so all criticism of revisionist Zionism and Greater Israel expansionism is anti-Semitic.”

Before we move on to working out how exactly the source should be used in the article (to make sure it's balanced), I'd like to make sure that this would be an acceptable compromise for csloat, regarding your second point where you say that no defence of Cole is made in the article. Hopefully having this RS will help to make it more BLP conformant, by including relevant info from both sides of the debate. Now, the issue of "questionable periodicals" remains, though I get the feeling that if Cole made such a statement as above, there must have been other sources. If these are the only sources to be found, and are known to be biased, it might be appropriate to mention the background of the periodicals in the article (not saying "this periodical is biased", rather "caters for ..." or something).

In terms of the additional issue to be mediated in the request page: I don't think that we can mediate on either of those two issues, as they have much greater implactions across wikipedia (I can hear the cries of cabal now), and such a discussion should take place on WT:BLP, linked from the admin noticeboards and village pump. Mart inp23 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with working this response of Cole's into the article. I see nothing questionable about The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Yale Herald or numerous other periodicals that carried this charge against Cole. Isarig 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - if those periodicals carried this charge, then the mediation summary would appear to be only mentioning one or two, so ignore the "quetionable periodicals" bit in my statement above. Mart inp23 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "questionable periodicals" referred to Frontpagemagazine and the Middle East Quarterly. The periodicals Isarig cites are not "questionable" but the articles he refers to in WSJ and NR are each an opinion piece by someone with an extreme view of Cole that borders on character assassination. I'm not sure which Yale Herald piece he's referring to but it is a university paper. csloat 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing questionable about the MEQ, either. Frontpage Maagzine has already been removed from the article, though given your recent advocacy to include equally partisan and questionable sources such as antiwar.com, I find your position to be a wee bit hypocritical. Isarig 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEQ is a partisan journal that is associated with Campus Watch, an organization whose mission is character assassination of professors who are seen as insufficiently pro-Israel. Some have advocated its removal from the article, so it is at least debatable (personally I am ok with keeping it as long as all references to it are clearly identified). As for front page, you are wrong: [3] Antiwar is also partisan but it is not so narrowly focused on character assassination as the two magazines in question here. But in any case, this dispute is not about antiwar.com or about whether you find me hypocritical Isarig -- let's try to stick to the issues. csloat 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (my link didn't seem to work right but its the footnote numbered 24 that has frontpage in it).[reply]

MEQ is neither partisan nor associated with Campus Watch. It is an academic journal with broad participation of academics who are experts in their field. Your smear-by-association technique of describing (your alleged) mission of Campus-Watch as MEQ's msssion is something that could only be described as scurrilous propaganda. You are correct about FrontPage - it has been restored after being removed. You are welcome to the POV of the antiwar.com is not so "narrowly focused on character assassination", but this opinion has little basis in fact. If you believe that partisan sources should not be used - I am happy to remove Frontpage from this article, and antiwar.com from the MEMRI article. But if you insist that antiwar.com is good enough for WP as a source, then I submit that so is FrontPage. You can't have it both ways. Isarig 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEQ is extremely partisan. It is founded by the founder of Campus Watch, and it is produced by the Middle East Forum, again, a partisan organization whose goal is to attack those in Middle East Studies considered insufficiently pro-israel. As for anti-war.com, you are totally wrong and you produce not a shred of evidence to support your claim but it is totally irrelevant as that is not the periodical we are discussing here. Front page and antiwar.com are not in the same league, as you should be well aware. But it doesn't matter -- this discussion is about the Juan cole page, not the memri page. csloat 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEQ is far from partisan, and is not affilated with C-W, other than through the fact that both were started by the same person. They are "affilated" in the same way that Microsoft is affiliated with Gates Millennium Scholars, or with the Seattle Seahawks. You are welcome to your personal view of it, but it is not founded in reality nor in what the MEQ says about itself. This discussion is about, among other things, what sources are suitable for use in WP articles. If it is your contention that a partisan website like antiwar.com, which is partisan by its own description, and is 'devoted to the cause of non-interventionism' as well - as 'represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate' is suitable as a source, I reealy see no grounds for your objections to Frontpage, and even less so for MEQ. Isarig 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the story was covered in WSY (et al),then I'm sure we can agree that there is no question of its notability. WP:RS commands caution when dealing with partisan or religious sources, which is what is up for debate here, now. I think we need to bring links in at this point - csloat, saying that there's a correlation between the founders doens't tell us whether a source is truly partisan, though it may guide us. Isarig, I make the same point about antiwar.com (though the point is weakened, somewhat). It would be nice for you to provde links, Isarig, demonstrating that MEQ is not partisan, and for you to provide the opposite, csloat. Ideally, I'd like to see neutral 3rd party references, and hopefully we can decide from that. However, can we not avoid the issue of using the debateable sources by just using WSY (or others), which don't present a sticking point in WP:RS (even if they were authored by partisan reporters, I'd expect the WSY not to publish something too controversial, and we can strive for compromise on the issues). Csloat - will you be happy with having WSY/NR as sources for the new anti-semitism debate if the sourced response from Cole is included? Perhaps, if not, you can suggest a more amicable compromise. Thanks, Mart inp23 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "covered" by WSJ -- there was an op ed piece attacking Cole in the opinion section of WSJ. As for MEQ, here's what Cole has to say: "It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job ..." The journal is published by a think tank whose own mission statement outlines its partisanship: "The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America. MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies. Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public." Publisher Daniel Pipes is a well known partisan hack on these issues. Isarig may not like the characterization because he agrees with their politics, but to claim they don't espouse a politics is a feeble distortion. As to your question, I would be happy with a neutral third party commenting that a controversy exists in a WP:RS. If we are talking about the Yale controversy, such sources exist (the Jewish Weekly cited by Armon), but then we need to include the position that it is not really a controversy (I've been advocating that all along). If we are talking about the Karsh attack, I have yet to see a neutral third party WP:RS commenting that the Karsh-Cole dispute is worth noting. I also feel that even if there existed such a source, we need to be careful about WP:BLP. Publishing fringe attacks on an academic in Wikipedia just to make the academic look bad is really ridiculous. I proposed a test a long time ago that Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr have never addressed -- does the addition improve the article in any way? The only argument they've made in favor of this antisemitism stuff is that it is not expressly prohibited by BLP. That, even if it were true, is hardly a ringing endorsement of the addition. Finally, *if* the jew-baiting stuff is to be included, Cole's explicit responses must be included. This includes his explicit response to Karsh, if we are quoting Karsh. csloat 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agian with this misdirection and slight of hand? The mission statement you are quoting is that of MEF, not MEQ. The groups are related, but not one and the same. The mission statement and goals of MEQ are stated on its own pages, which I reproduced below, and they are clearly non-partisan. To use what Cole has said about MEQ as the basis for evaluating it is ridicolous. This whole issue started by an article critical of Cole carried by MEQ, to which he responded on his blog in his typical hysterical fashion. If we use Cole's judgement as a way to evaluate MEQ, we could equally use MEQ as a way to evaluate Cole! Publisher Pipes is, according to his WP entry, an "American neoconservative columnist, author, counter-terrorism analyst, and scholar of Middle Eastern history". csloat is welcome to his opinion of Pipes, but other than the ad hominem nature of this attack, it is meaningless. The publication has an editorial board, which does not include the publisher. No doubt Pipes, like any other living person, espouses certain politics. But if we are to conclude that it follows that any publication of his must, by definition, espouse the same politics, we will quickly realize that there are no non-partisan publications in existance. Finaly, a warnign to clsoat: last time I used the term "jew-baiting" to describe something, I got blocked, and rightly so. I suggest you strike out your description of Karsh's comment as "Jew baiting", or face similar consequences. Isarig 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige. For starters, take a look at MEQ's editorial statement:

Since its founding in 1994, the Middle East Quarterly has become America's most authoritative journal of Middle Eastern affairs. Policymakers, opinion-makers, academics, and journalists turn first to the Quarterly, for in-depth analysis of the rapidly-changing landscape of the world's most volatile region. The Quarterly publishes groundbreaking studies, exclusive interviews, insightful commentary, and hard-hitting reviews that tackle the entire range of contemporary concerns – from politics to economics to culture, across a region that stretches from Morocco to Afghanistan. The Quarterly, founded by Daniel Pipes and edited by Michael Rubin, appears in a print edition, and is available in full-text (except the current issue) on this website. The Quarterly welcomes submissions of original articles, and will consider pre-publication of chapters from forthcoming books. The Quarterly specializes in timely and expeditious publication of articles that impact on today's critical issues. For more information on submitting a manuscript

[4].

There is not even a hint of partisanship in there, and WP policy is to describe sources as they describe themsleves. Contrast that with antiwar.com, which is explictly partisan, one would almost say proudly so (my emphasis):

"This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian.

[5].

Turn to what MEQ says about its goals:

"The editors have three main goals for the Quarterly: to educate Americans about a particularly volatile and dangerous region; to construct a framework for U.S. policy in the Middle East; and to guide American policy. The Middle East Quarterly is neither strictly academic nor popular but attempts to bridge these two worlds. This implies a tension: articles need to be cutting edge (to interest the specialist) and accessible (to attract the general reader). They should be both scholarly and opinionated. In addition, they should address the concerns of a primarily American audience. To achieve all these goals, the editors especially prize articles with new information and generally shy away from statements of opinion. Articles should contain full references; complex arguments are welcome. At the same time, the text should be lucid enough to reach a general readership. We also ask authors to write in such a way so that even readers who disagree with their conclusions will read their work; that is, do not hit the reader on the head with your views, but let them emerge from the information.

[6]

But equally as important as what the journal says about itself, are the actual contents. Taking a look at the current issue, we find a balanced discussion about the status of Kirkuk - should it be a Kurdish or Turkish area, with one side presented by Kurdish professor of law, who is also an historian[7], and the other side presented by the first counselor at the Turkish Embassy in Washington[8]. Both articles are full of copious footnotes, sourced to reputable, peer-reviwed academic journals, authoratative books and original documents. They are the equivalent of any article one would find in an academic, peer reviewed journal. Looking at the issue before that[9], we find articles by the head of the department of Middle Eastern and African history and senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University; by a professor of contemporary Middle Eastern history and political science and director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel at Emory University; by a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University ; by a Ph.D. in Persian studies from the University of Cambridge who's currently the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University; by a lecturer in the defense studies department at King's College, London. etc... There is nothing that even remotely resembles the charges of "character assassination of professors who are seen as insufficiently pro-Israel" . As I've written before, this publication has an editorial board comprised of more than a dozen experts in their fields - academics and historians, reasearchers and ex-diplomats, Arabs, Turks and Israelis. To put this in the same category as a self-described partisan rag such as antiwar.com, which dedicates a "special section" to conspiracy theories and self-acknowledged speculation about Israel's forknowledge of 9/11 is beyond the pale. To insist that the latter is a good source, but the former is questionable is not only hypocritical, but ludicrous on its face. Isarig 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In additiopn to that, let me add some neutral 3rd party views of MEQ. here's the description of MEQ from UPenn's 'SERIAL ARCHIVE LISTINGS': "Middle East Quarterly is a journal of Middle Eastern affairs, published by the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, PA.". Now, let's look at the criteria for inclusion in these listings (agian, my emphasis): "The serial must be significant. Serials listed must be carried and cataloged by a major library in order to qualify for listing. (Hence, most amateur 'zines do not qualify for listing here.) As I start listing serials, I may also give priority to serials I consider especially important. " Needless to say, "antiwar.com" does not meet these criteria, and is not listed. Isarig 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to summarise, but I'll just say that there is a deadlock now, and if all parties would like to resolve the dispute, some compromises must be made. I'll go on at the bottom of this discussion section - please put any new comments there (being concise). Mart inp23 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voluntarily am taking a break from all of this based on the heated argument between Isarig and I in WP/ANI. I'm hoping a couple days off will lead to cooler editing and I hope others can take a cue from this. But I was asked to comment here so I will. First, I think this new antisemitism stuff does not belong here at all. If it does, I am happy with the quote from Cole above, and I think the Jewish Week piece has some other valuable bits of information -- for example, the fact that the "yale controversy" is mostly the result of a letter-writing campaign from Joel Mowbray. Second, if the specific "protocol-reminiscing" quote from Karsh is included in the section for attacks on Cole, then Cole's specific response must be included. All of the hair-splitting about whether Cole adequately supports his argument that Karsh's claim is outrageous and propagandistic is beside the point. It is not for Wikipedia to determine which arguments are well supported and which are poorly supported. The fact is, Cole specifically indicated that he found Karsh's arguments "beneath contempt" and that Karsh used "propaganda techniques" -- we should not hide this response from readers. I agree with CSTAR's analysis of that issue. csloat 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've factored the response re: Karsh into a new section below. Mart inp23 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources: I completely endorse Isarig's discssion above on the MEQ as a completely acceptable source.
Regarding the remainder of the discussion, I am having trouble following it. Could we specify more clearly exactly what content we are discussing here? Elizmr 10:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - this section is about whether the anti semitism claims can be included in the article, and that we can factor in Cole's response to them.

Subsection a[edit]

As mentioned above, we're at a deadlock here, and compromises have to be made if this mediation is to suceed. I'm going to suggest one now: the claims are included, sourced to MEQ and WSY (or a more mutually acceptable source if possible), and Cole's response is also foactored in to the paragraph. I realise that this goes against your feelings about MEQ, csloat, but I hope that you'll be willing to allow it, based on the neutral context that the source has been placed in by Isarig. It would seem from the evidence that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, and I hope all parties can agree on that, if nothing. Please keep responses to this section as short is possible (below 100 words) for now. Mart inp23 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this suggestion - including the claims of antisemitism from MEQ and WSJ, with Cole's response (sans the inflammatory adjectives). Isarig 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK (more opinions, anyone?) Mart inp23 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for csloat's response because of the 4 of us, he's the only one opposed to their inclusion. We could claim a 75% majority, however think that would be misleading because I can think of 2 other editors, Lee Hunter and CSTAR, who have been involved in this debate for a long time and have tended towards csloat's position. I think they agree that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, even though they violently disagree with the charges, but I think it would be well worth getting clarification from them. <<-armon->> 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue of what can only be termed "external involved parties" is a little difficult here - would it be possible for them to raise thier specific objections here though csloat (as a "spokesperson")? Would te parties agree to this? We really have to work towards a fully acceptable compromise, becuase, as a mediator, I cannot enforce a consensus on the page - that is for ArbCom. Mart inp23 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has been "violent." I've been taking a break from this all and will continue to do so for a couple of days, but I'm responding here since it seems to be solicited. I oppose the charges being included for BLP reasons as outlined above. Fringe views, even when published by reliable sources, do not automatically get included here, and as has been demonstrated, nobody has shown how this would improve the page. If they are to be included, the response must be included, and they must not be put in as "facts" in any way. csloat 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection (b)[edit]

OK - please see my comment above, too. Csloat, would you be willing to propose a sentence/paragraph which could go into the article about this issue, so we can get a sense of what you'd be happy to have? This can be something vague, or precise, but please use sources (the 100 word limit is waived for this). Thanks, Mart inp23 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't understand. You're asking me to do research and write a paragraph about something I don't believe belongs here, and to make it a paragraph I would be "happy to have"? I'm not sure that's possible, even if I were willing to do research for my opponents, which I'm not sure why I should be. Why not ask them to do their own research? Am I misunderstanding something? csloat 09:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. This is crux of the problem and why this mediation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. <<-armon->> 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon does put his finger on what I was suggesting - I have got the inference from some of your posts that you'll be willing to have the attacks included only if they are presented in a germane form, and because I'm unsure of the best proposition I can make. As mediator, there's no way I can enfore any consensus brought about here, as we need to get a mutually acceptable compromise. It is my job to help the parties work towards such a compromise, by introducing ideas and catalysing the discussion, hence my request to you. There are sources already provided on the issue should you wish to use them, and some of the excellent points raised by the external parties may help (you may decide not to be specific about the charges, but wikilink to an article which provides more background). Please try - I can feel your opposition to the idea, but I hope that it will help us to work towards a compromise. Mart inp23 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also - any ideas for sentences to use from the other parties are perfectly welcome (as well as from the external parties) Mart inp23 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. How's this for a first stab at it?

Juan Cole was attacked as "anti-Semitic" in the Middle East Quarterly for his claim that neoconservative U.S. officials with close ties to Israel's Likud party hold dual loyalties.[10] Cole has argued that these allegations of antisemitism are an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policy[11] Cole has specifically criticized the Middle East Quarterly: "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director. They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job."[12]

Of course, this leaves out the Karsh nonsense, which is appropriate. If we are to include that, I am OK with the proposal from Isarig that quotes most of Cole's response (excluding the "beneath contempt" phrase). I still don't like the above - it gives notability to an extreme view, as is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP, but it is my attempt to "write for the enemy."csloat 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with csloat's proposed sentence, though maybe the counterquote about the MEQ could be trimmed or summarized. My position on the "Karsh nonsense" is that it can be included if and only if Cole's response is included, without any daintiness about adjectives. What we cannot do is quote a marginal, fringey and potentially libellous criticism of Cole, and then omit Cole's response because we find it a touch intemperate for our taste. If we decide to include the material, here's how I think it should read: "In an article for the New Republic, Professor Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, cited Cole's criticisms of neoconservatism and AIPAC and argued that 'Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings.' Cole dismissed the piece as 'outrageous,' suggested that the attack was actively solicited by the New Republic's publisher, and criticized Karsh for having 'put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism.'"--G-Dett 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we should be able to work from these (or use other sources). Could all of the other parties try the same excercise please? Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Cole's blog post is "intemperate" or not, is not the point of my objection to it as a source. If what I wrote under "Discussion subsection 2 (Karsh)" is unclear, I'll be happy to clarify, however the substantive points I've made have yet to be addressed. <<-armon->> 05:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance Armon, but would I be correct in saying that your sources below (and though email) can also apply in this matter (which is certainly implicitly related)? Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed procedural wrangling || G-Dett, your submission is welcomed, but please channel any further discussion of the matter through my talk page or CSloat (to avoid confusing the matter). Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your recommendation, I think that's reasonable. I would be ok with some the following: "Professor Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, cited Cole's criticisms of neoconservatism and AIPAC and argued that 'Cole may express offense at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but their obsession with the supposed international influence of "world Zionism" resonates powerfully in his own writings.' Cole suggested that the attack was actively solicited by the New Republic's publisher, and criticized Karsh for having 'put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism.'" Isarig 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Working towards a compromise - keep it up everyone, and we could get somewhere soon Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Good. You forgot, however, the most important part: "Cole dismissed the piece as 'outrageous'."--G-Dett 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not forget it, I left it out. I would no more find this acceptable in an encyclopedia than I would see fit to include a response that said "Cole said the piece is the SUCKS'. They both have the same value form a content or argument perspective, namely - nothing at all Isarig 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't be the arbiters of the quality of Cole's arguements Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. "Outrageous" has a definite meaning in this context; it is relevant and in this case accurate. csloat 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And what would be that meaning, that is so different form just saying "it sucks"? Isarig 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting truly tedious - you're arguing over one word :)! How about if we paraphrase "outrageous" as a compromise?

Also, Isarig, it would be best to quit moving your goalposts. This is what you wrote on 1/5/07 at 03:29: "I'm ok with this compromise, with just a slight tweak: We keep the Cole quote from his blog (here's the link, we drop the "beneath contempt" part, and write 'Cole said Karsh used "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." When I said I would be ok with your suggestion before, this is the suggestion I meant. csloat 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving the goalposts- I am being flexible and willing to consider multiple, alternative formulations. I am ok with the previous suggestion and alternatively, I am also ok with the more recent suggestion by G-Dett, as modified by me.. Isarig 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some uinhelpful phrases Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

And I was accepting your earlier formulation; that is also known as working toward a compromise (if not outright capitulation). If you are still ok with that formulation, we just need to persuade Armon to accept it. csloat 05:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing useless comments... || Csloat - can you clarify on this? Do you accept Isarig's earlier suggestion exactly how it was given? If not, how? Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The problem with both sloat's and G-Dett's formulations is that they in no way met the suggestion and/or challenge to explain "another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, similar to devil's advocate. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that perspective that you understand their claims and arguments." There's no explanation, just simple tendentious apologia. Not even close to acceptable. <<-armon->> 05:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that we can (civilly) work up from these suggestions to something better for everyone Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit your response to the issues; there is no need to take up space insulting other users or complaining about them. In fact, we shouldn't be replying to each other at all - Martinp23, would you please step in at this point? I have much to say in response to Armon but I will hold my tongue for now. I understand his objections, but I object to them - I feel he is flat wrong, but I will wait for your intervention before explaining why. Thanks. csloat 05:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Armon's comment - please don't argue like this (and you've already made the same point above) Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the rule about leaving a grace period before replying really got ignored here... When I've got a keyboard with a working spacebar, I'll leave a message here, but for now, please hold fire! Mart inp23 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now commented in on most of the sub disputes - it would help if you would continue the conversation in a new part of the page (like below this post) though I realise the impracticalities of this - feel free to copy and paste posts to make it read properly (and use horizontal rules ---- if you want). I have liberally removed comments which have gone against the whole philosophy of mediation - you must have good faith to take part, and a severe lack of it his be demonstrated by those involved. I'm going to warn you all that I really don't want to see this happen again. Thanks, Mart inp23 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote from Cole that I would like to see in the response to Karsh. I have backed off on the "beneath contempt" part even though I agree with Martin that it is not up to us to judge the validity of Cole's arguments. The quote: "Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." Isarig's formulation was exactly like this except he dropped the word "scurrilous," I believe. I see no reason to drop that adjective. csloat 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? Please take a look at the sources noted by Armon in the section below, which may apply here. (This and this). Mart inp23 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - my above comment was about the karsh quote specifically. The Jewish week article is a good source of info on the yale non-controversy. The hnn article is only tangentially relevant to this dispute insofar as it mentions antisemitism; but in general it is about another issue entirely. csloat 23:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks (we'll be abel to wrk from them in future). Mart inp23 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Martin's question from my talk page which seems appropriate discuss here...

The sources I pointed to are better because this focus on Karsh (or MEQ, or any other single source of criticism) is objectively wrong and misleading. There are multiple sources for the criticisms in the vein of Cole's anti-Isreali/Zionist/Neocon polemics having LaRouchie or anti-semitic themes. We have none describing it as a dispute between Karsh and Cole.

Aside from the problematic nature of his blog as a source (see comments here and here) we have a response to his critics (plural) who charge AS here, and an essay detailing why he feels such charges are invalid here. These better address the issue we are reporting. The fact that they also relate to other issues (such as Yale) is beside the point because they are interrelated anyway (i.e. one view is that he was rejected at Yale because of the AS accusations). <<-armon->> 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Because the accusations of AS came from more than just Karsh, it is appropriate to include a more general response to all of these critis, using the sources which Armon has provided. Could the parties review the sources provided by Armon, and give their views please? Because I don't want to slow the mediation too much by being in a different time-zone, I'm hppy to extend the one reply rule to two replies (and then stop). Thanks, Mart inp23 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with using Armon's sources for a general response to the critics and the chareg of AS. Isarig 23:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we include the accusation from Karsh of "protocol-reminiscentism" or whatever, then Cole's specific reply to Karsh must be included. It's that simple. If Armon believes this is not about Karsh vs. Cole, that's fine, let's exclude the Karsh quote and be done with it.

No, it's far from being "that simple". The broad accusation against Cole is that his charges of dual loyalties amount to new-AS. This charge has been made by multiple critics, so it's not just about Karsh vs. Cole, and we can't have each and every specific Cole response to each critic in the article - we can have his response to the charge of NAS. The Karsh quote is used as one example, and as I've written before, if you prefer to have a quote that directly accuses Cole of anti-Semitism (e.g, Michael Oren's description of Cole's statements as "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy.") I'd be ok with that - and again, we'd have one Cole resposne, not a specifc one from Cole that attacks Oren personally. Isarig 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you agreeing to leave the Karsh quote out? Again, if it is in, Cole's response should be in -- it actually is "that simple." I'm not sure Cole specifically replied to Oren (where is that quote from?); if he did, his specific reply should be in -- otherwise, a more generic reply might be appropriate. But you cannot have one writer make charges against a BLP and then leave out the subject's response! It's absurd. csloat 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written, numerous times, that I am not "married" to the Karsh quote, and offered similar quotes, such as the Oren one, as a substitute. And no, we don't have to include a specific Cole response to Oren, just like his specific reply to Karsh is a non-issue. We only have to include the Cole response to the criticism of anti-Semitism, not his ad hominum attacks on the critics. Isarig 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with citing the Jewish Week article, though its focus is the yale controversy and that's the context it should be put in. However, the HNN article that Armon keeps waving around is about a different dispute entirely. I don't have a problem with it being quoted, but pretending that is the entirety of Cole's response to the likes of Karsh is ludicrous.

Finally, neither Isarig nor Armon has dealt with the BLP issues that make it impossible to include this entire nonsense to begin with. They want to represent a fringe opinion as if it were mainstream, and that is specifically enjoined by WP:BLP as I have stated over and over again. Frankly, until that is dealt with, this conversation about sourcing is entirely academic. csloat 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed you concerns regarding BLP at least twice. Here it is again: WP:BLP does not prevent us from including charges, unpleasant though they may be to the target, if they were previously carried by a WP:RS. WP:BLP says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.", and provides an example: 'Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source' - we have an exact analogue here: An academic is alleged to include themes from The Protocols in his writings. He denies it, but the New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New Republic as the source' . Far from being a "fringe opinion", the accusation of NAS was made by notable academic critics (such as Karsh and Oren), and carried by notable, mainstream, reliable sources from the Wall Street Journal to The New Republic, and by academic publications such as MEQ. You have inded stated aover and over agin that this is 'specifically enjoined by WP:BLP' - but that is simply and very clearly false. Please drop this meritless line of argument. Isarig 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are fringe voices, whether or not they managed to get their fringe opinion published in the New Republic or wherever. We do not have a section of the Bush biography taking seriously the question of whether Bush is the devil, even though Hugo Chavez's claim that he is was well published by reliable sources. Your claim that there is a "public scandal" over whether Cole's writing is reminiscent of the protocols of zion is absolutely laughable. The only place that particular claim has become a public scandal is on wikipedia. Please drop this ludicrous line of argument. csloat 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this line of attack, one which claims Cole's critics are "fringe", is that it isn't supported by the facts. Cole may like to make claims like that, but it's rhetoric, not reality. <<-armon->> 02:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The head of ME studies at a prestigious UK university is not a fringe voice. A respected historian who is also a best-selling author and a visiting professor at Yale & Harvard is not a fringe voice. A well-known Wall Street Journal journalist with a mainstream opinion column is not a fringe voice. The only one who is claiming this is a fringe opinion, without any sources to back this up and in the face of bountiful evidence to the contrary, is you. The public scandal over the claims of Cole's antisemitism is self evident - witness the numerous mainstream sources that carried the charge, the respectable critics making it, and Cole's hysterical response to it, on his blog, in Salon and elsewhere. And, contrary to your assertion, the fact that mainstream publications carried this charge without labeling them as fringe opinion is by definition demonstration that they are not fringe opinion. Isarig 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) - Well, I did say two replies... Moving on from this - csloat, there certainly seems to be a strong consensus, backed up by policy, that the accusations are allowable under BLP, and it was my understanding that we'd previously got over that hurdle in the past, and moved on to the discussion about phrasing and sourcing. To sum up - Isarig is willing to use Armon's quotes, and drop the Karsh quote in place of another, or a more general, sourced accusation (if this is incorrect Isarig, please tell me!). csloat feels that Armon's sources don't provide a specific enough address to the issue levelled by Karsh (et al). Now, I'm thinking that even if (as it seems) a lot of those who alleged that Cole was a new-antisemite had strong ideological beliefs, the wide reporting of these issues do merit their inclusion in a biography, as long as we abide by WP:BLP. G-Dett has left a note on my user talk page on the issue of Karsh and AS, and he makes many valid points - please look through it, and absord it (please don't reply to it though, here or on his or my talk pages - just read :)). Now, would the parties agree to dropping the Karsh quote, and including a general (but sourced) accusation, with a general (but sourced) response? This way we can avoid wrangling about why we can't say "outrageous" or "beneath contempt" in a quote.

"Criticisms that Cole is a new anti-semite have been levelled against him [source], as a result of his comments to ... Cole has responded to these comments saying that they are [possibly an unoffensive quote here, or paraphrase an opinion of his] [source]"

OK - that sketchy outline is rubbish, but it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about, and the parts I've not filled in are what I feel we'd need to discuss. What are your takes on this idea - as long as it's well sourced (per WP:RS, but that doesn't (by the word and spirit of policy) exclude Cole's blog)? Mart inp23 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with this in principle. I'd have to see the exact phrasing and quotes used, both for the accusation and the Cole response, of course. Isarig 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - as a true skeleton idea, how would the other parties feel (external parties, feel free to weigh in on my talk page)? Mart inp23 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to see the phrasing and quotes too, and the BLP issues need to be resolved. See below (Antisemitism section) for another take on this - I'd like to see the mediators' summary and the other parties' responses. Thanks. csloat 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my relative inactivity - things have been getting rather busy in real life, though that's no excuse. I apologise, and will get on top of the mounting pile soon! Mart inp23 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exact karsh quote you are proposing for removal, Martin, could you be more specific? Elizmr 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Also, Sloat said above, "this leaves out the Karsh nonsense". Quite honestly, a few of us here feel that Karsh's statements are NOT nonsense. Could we ask Sloat to please use less inflammatory language when discussing this stuff for the sake of keeping the discussion calm and less contentious? Elizmr 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The karsh quote to be removed is the one discussing the "protocols of zion." The word "nonsense" is not inflammatory, it is descriptive; quite honestly, there is a valid dispute over whether or not the statement is nonsense; my opinion is as valid as yours and should not be censored due to false concerns about "inflammation." If you want to find an example of inflammatory statement on this page, look for knee-jerk charges of sockpuppetry (or read Armon's opening statement). In all seriousness, this would all be more civil if we focused on the arguments and not the person making them. If you don't think a statement is nonsense, explain why, rather than complaining about another editor's behavior. csloat 07:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we use the quote verbatim or paraphrase it, we're going to report what the criticism is. Arguing about whether it's "nonsense" is for Usenet, not here. <<-armon->> 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no; we are only going to report criticisms that are recognized as notable and significant (or "encyclopedic"). Criticisms that are pure nonsense don't belong here. Just as we would not have a section on the George Bush biography taking seriously Chavez's claim (which we can all agree is "nonsense") that Bush is the devil. csloat 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument's over. Time to move on, or inform Martin that this mediation has failed. Your choice. <<-armon->> 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument is not over; it has never even been addressed. As for mediation, I'm sure Martin will let us know if he thinks it has failed. csloat 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been addressed, over and over again, and the mediator has already had his say on this: "It would seem from the evidence that the issue is notable enough for inclusion, and I hope all parties can agree on that, if nothing." Your stubborn refusal to give on anything, even on something that has been explicitly addressed by the mediator, not only dooms this mediation to failure, but will likely feature prominently in an ArbCom case against you and your behavior. Isarig 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator's job is to mediate, not arbitrate. This has nothing to do with my "behavior." It has to do with the issues explained in BLP. This particular issue has not been addressed. Simply stating that it has does not make it so. This mediation is in no way doomed as long as the editors involved address the issues rather than making it about picking on each other. csloat 08:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the mediator says about the notability issue that "It would seem from the evidence that the issue is notable enough for inclusion", it is beyond silly for you to keep repeating that the issue of notability has not been addressed. The mediator is not an arbitrator, but the eventual arbitration against you will make note of this intransigence. Isarig 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was said to be a priori "notable enough for inclusion" was the allegation that Cole is antisemitic (raised by opinion pieces in MEQ and WSJ), not the allegation that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion resonate powerfully in his writing, which is the gist of the so-called "Karsh nonsense" (printed in the New Republic and echoed nowhere). Anyway, don't we have an agreeable compromise edit on the table from Isarig? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're correct on both counts, G-Dett; I'm not sure why Isarig is misinterpreting this nor why he is making ridiculous threats against me. If you want to bring me to arbcom, Isarig, do it; but please stop threatening it -- your threats are totally disruptive and uncivil. I'm not going to discuss any more of this until we hear from the mediator. csloat 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism section[edit]

I won't respond directly to the most recent comments by Isarig and Armon because I think it's time for the mediator to summarize what he thinks is going on at this point. I believe we are at an impasse but perhaps there is another way out. Without addressing the most recent comments directly -- some of which are demonstrably false and blatantly misleading -- let me summarize what appears to me to be the position of Isarig and Armon: people have called Cole an antisemite, and that opinion is notable, but Cole's direct response to these people is "hysterical" and non-notable, so instead we should quote an article by Cole about Larry Summers (who is not part of the alleged controversy at all) on the grounds that some vague statements about the misuse of antisemitism in that article can cross-apply to the name-calling by Karsh and company. Can we not use the same reasoning to quote Cole directly on anti-semitism, which he has vocally opposed? on the "protocols"-style conspiracy theory that Jews run American foreign policy and started the war in Iraq, which he has vocally criticized? It seems that Armon and Isarig want to be able to call Cole an antisemite and refuse to let Cole defend himself. The charge of antisemitism is not based in anything Cole actually says about Jews, since he is not actually antisemitic and has thus never said actually anything negative about Jews as a group -- rather, the charge is based on what certain fringe voices (and we will have the debate about whether Karsh and friends are on the fringe after the mediator replies) believe that Cole is really thinking when he says certain things. When you look at what Cole actually says about Jews as a group when such conspiracy theories are considered, he is very vocally opposed to the protocols of zion, to the charge that Jews run America, etc. He vocally criticized the movement to boycott Israeli academics. When Mel Gibson got wasted and mouthed off to a cop his own hate-filled invective against Jews, Cole spoke out against Gibson's words and stated plainly -- in a passage that Armon removed from the Juan Cole page a while ago on specious grounds -- "'Jews' did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided."[13] If you read the rest of that link it includes cole's discussion of Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ. Anyone who reads it with an honestly open mind can see plainly that the charge of antisemitism against Cole is in fact "beneath contempt." In one of Cole's specific responses to the Campus-Watch crowd that has organized this campaign against him, he explains how his accusers are twisting the meaning of "antisemitism" completely. This is why I think the whole line of argument is offensive and is an affront to WP:BLP, but if we must pursue it, let us have an honest discussion of it, and include Cole's vocal statements that are obviously against antisemitism. csloat 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion subsection 2 (Karsh)[edit]

Should the article include an attack by another academic (Efraim Karsh) on Cole's expertise along with Cole's response? 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Csloat is happy for the quote from Karsh to be included, as long as Cole's response is included. So, that's one issue of the way, but now we need to come to a compromise over what parts of the quote to include. The Wiki (or its posters) can't be help responsible for BLP issues if we jst quote Cole's response from an RS - as long as it's attributed to him, it's his opinion, not ours. For this reason, I think it's important to use a direct quote, to make clear that these are Cole's words, and would suggest that the parts of the quote which are perhaps less relevant to the issue are trimmed (anyone can look the quote up anyway, through the sources). Realistically, as csloat says, we are not the judges of Cole's utterances, and how well the respond to a certain issue. We can only do our best by included what is relevant from them. What are everyone's thoughts on this proposal, and any alternatives to it? Mart inp23 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear -- I am not "happy" for the quote to be included. I think it should be excluded on three grounds: (1) WP:BLP, (2) it is a scurrilous attack with no substance, and (3) it adds nothing to the article. If those who think the quote adds something to the article can respond adequately to those three problems, then I would accept the quote as long as Cole's specific response to the quote is also included. If that is the case, then I agree with you that Cole should be quoted directly rather than paraphrased. csloat 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - that was just the inference that I got from your post above, though you have now set the record straight. Mart inp23 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about quoting Cole from a RS, but the problem is that his blog, where the quote comes from, is not a RS. If WP repeats libellous quotes posted on a blog it most certainly can be held responsible for them. I am willing to compromise on this, though. I think there is agreement that the "beneath contempt" part is empty name callign and shoudl be removed. CSTAR has convinced me that there is some merit to the argument that by calling the Karsh attack a "propaganda technique" Cole was making an argument of sorts, so I'm ok with keeping that in, though I'd rather see it paraphrased. Isarig 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising: Isarig feels that the blog, where the quote would come from, is not a reliable source. Perhaps this is debateable based on the quote being from Cole, and Cole reporting directly to the blog. He also prefers paraphrasing though this does afford us greater protection wrt libel. (italics are my feelings, based on other expressed opinions). Mart inp23 00:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(A procedural question - do you want me to wait for you to respond to isarig before I reply to his stuff below, since he is now replying directly to me?) Blogs are not always disallowed, and Isarig knows it. In this case the entire controversy surrounds comments Cole made in his blog, so Isarig's point is both disingenuous and hypocritical -- he wants to include a scurrilous attack on Cole's blog but then wants to censor Cole from defending himself on the grounds that the information comes from Cole's blog. This sort of argument is exactly why my conversations with this editor get so heated, and this is symptomatic of the problems that caused me to file a WP/ANI report against him. But let's stick to the substantive issue -- it's clear his position that the blog is a priori disallowed is ludicrous. The second issue, whether it should be quoted or paraphrased -- I think the answer is obvious. First, as you stated, direct quotation is best as it protects us from any libel issues. Second, it is more accurate and it allows the readers to judge for themselves the merits of the arguments quoted. Third, allowing a vehemently anti-Cole editor such as Isarig to paraphrase Cole is really stacking the deck. I'm sure isarig will say the same about allowing me to do the paraphrasing -- I am not particularly "pro-Cole" but it's obvious he perceives me that way. Finally, isarig is dead wrong that "there is agreement that the 'beneath contempt' part is empty name-calling and should be removed. Frankly, it's an accurate statement, and it is part of the Cole response to Karsh. If isarig thinks it is empty that's his right, but I don't see any reason to exclude it from Cole's response to Karsh. csloat 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Procedural response: yes please) Csloat feels that as the section if focusing on the blog, it is right to use said blog as a source. surely the best source for a quote from someone is their own writings - in this case the blog. Csloat agrees that the section be quoted, and feels that Isarig's claim that "beneath contempt" is name calling and there is agreement on this is false, and feels that it is relevant from the opinions presented to me thus far, there is a consensus for the beneath contempt bit to be dropped - hopefully this can be a compromise (see below). Italics mine - Mart inp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:BLP does not prevent us from including charges, unpleasant though they may be to the target, if they were previously carried by a WP:RS. WP:BLP says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.", and provides an example: 'Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source' - we have an exact analogue here: An academic is alleged to include themes from The Protocols in his writings. He denies it, but the New Republic publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New Republic as the source'

(2) You may find it "scurrilous", but it is not without substance. The substance of the argument is this: Cole alleges that a pro-Zionist Cabal, made up of Jewish Americans in the Bush gov't is the one "really" running things in Washington, to Israel's benfit rather than the US's. This is a theme common to the one in The Protocols, which alleges a behind-the-scenes Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. You may think this charge is false, but it is a charge with substance.

(3) What it adds to the article is important information about why Cole is considered a controversial figure, and by whom. It explains what some critics find objectionable about his positions. Isarig 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to csloat's comments above - not much to summarise, and I want to make a different comment anyway :) Mart inp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to present another possible compromise here? I realise that we can thrash this issue out for much longer, but hopefully we can clean it up quickly. The compromise it that we drop the "beneath contempt" part, leaving it open to review much later on, outside of mediation, and allow the quote from the blog. A quote is a primary source, and I feel that by quoting Cole's opinion from the blog, we're going be as accurate as possible. I also do feel that WP:RS will allow for this, with it being the most reliable source possible for this kind of quote. On a side note, can I have a link to blog post? Thanks, Mart inp23 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with this compromise, with just a slight tweak: We keep the Cole quote from his blog (here's the link, we drop the "beneath contempt" part, and write 'Cole said Karsh used "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." This retains the actual argument Cole is making (that comparing what he views as criticisms of Neoconservatives to the PotEoZ is propaganda), and drops most of the inflammatory name calling and adjectives. Mind you, this is not just between me and csloat, there are other parties to this mediation.Isarig 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Isarig's statements numbered (1), (2), and (3) above. Elizmr I have a few comments on use of Cole's blog reply to points rasised about him in Karsh's NR Online article. In prefacing my comments, I want to be clear that I was NOT a party to removing any of Cole's reply from his blogpost to Karsh's NR article on the Cole page, and I am NOT addressing the merit or lack of merit in any points Cole makes in his reply. That being said, I find the use of this post in the article quite problematic for two reasons: 1. Karsh's article appeared in the NR Online. A Cole response directly to the NR Online in the form of a letter would have allowed the author of the original piece (Karsh) to reply in the form of an author's reply to the letter. Cole, however, moved the venue of his reply to his own blog, where he has complete editorial control and where Karsh cannot further clarfiy or respond. 2. The post of Cole's that we are proposing to include is entitled "Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole". In the first sentence of this blog post Cole writes, "The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me", and then goes on to respond to Karsh. We then take Cole's reply and put it in the Wikipedia article. By doing this, aren't we allowing Cole to indirectly edit his own Wikipedia entry? Elizmr 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cut n paste mostly from discussion below w/CSTAR) I do have a problem with using this particular blog post of Cole's.

Karsh, being published in a RS, was in effect, forced to present some kind of evidence for his beliefs otherwise he'd bring the publication into legal jeopardy. Cole on the other hand, has no such constraints on his blog. This is the problem I see with BLP as applied to Karsh. The fact that we remove a "beneath contempt", or not, in the main text doesn't alter the fact that we're using a poor source which is potentially libelous. We can't say "well the magazine's lawyers vetted it -sue them". I don't see how using the source, but sanitizing what he wrote, really makes a difference.

The other big problem I have with using this source, is that it seems to be the result of Will's trolling on Cole's blog about his WP article and an attempt to directly provide "balancing" content. If Cole had come here to WP to comment on his page, and had made the same comments on talk, it wouldn't be source for the article. There's an even lower level of editorial oversight on his blog than here, where he could get blocked. This seems to me to set a very bad precedent for the project because it allows self-published bloggers to, in effect, write their bios and lash out at their critics offsite and have it incorporated here. I believe that even if there is a case for using them, we should dispense with self-published sources once it becomes this obvious that they are self-serving. To put not-too-fine a point on it, this will allow even more partisan POV to be injected into this article, and WP in general. In that case, I suppose that anyone subject to criticism had better get a blog.

I also think that focusing this into a narrow Cole/Karsh dispute (for which we don't seem to have any RSs making note of it as such) is extremely inaccurate, and insisting that he get a "hit in", is not actually improving the article because it should be a survey of the issues -not a blog war. Karsh is one of Cole's critics on the topic of conspiracy theory veering towards AS. I believe the quote we have from Karsh is a statement they would probably all agree with, but some have gone further.

However, I want to stress I do think that a) Cole has a right to respond to his critics, and b) the article would be poorer without it, and c) to that end I've not removed any source without providing an alternative source for his response -at the moment we have the two I've suggested and there may be more. <<-armon->> 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment/clarification I've raised an objection to the blog post as source, not to having a response. Aside from the other issues I raised, I honestly believe that this and especially The Misuse of Anti-Semitism this form a better "defense" of Cole's position, and better explains it, than a short, rather intemperate blog post. <<-armon->> 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion subsection 3 (Yale)[edit]

Should there be four long paragraphs of discussion about an appointment to Yale that Cole never received? 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be adequate coverage of what was a major controversy over Yale declining to offer him the position. I don't think it's particularly overlong at the moment but I'm open to tightening it up and making sure it's accurate and NPOV. <<-armon->> 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think the Yale thing should be included in the article at all. Despite the notability, it is a bit of a low blow for a biographical page. Elizmr 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Elizmr. If it is to be discussed at all, four paragraphs is way too much. A sentence or two is plenty, as discussed in talk ad nauseum. csloat 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, although I believe that we should not cover the topic at all, I believe that if the Yale stuff is in there, it needs a reaonably full discussion but tightened up and with an NPOV treatment. I'm not sure what sloat would have in mind as far as the two sentences go. I'm not sure that that would be enough. Elizmr 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural suggestion[edit]

I don't know how the mediation process in WP works; perhaps it would be best if

We allow the mediator to respond to (or at least paraphrase) any comment before replying.
If this suggestion is too onerous on the mediator, maybe we could allow a "cooling off" (say several hours) period between comments.

Is this useful or practical? --CSTAR 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent ideas. I think we can go for the first one, at least for now. So, notice to all parties - please don't respond to a comment until I've left a note about it. Mart inp23 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Isarig 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Elizmr 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. <<-armon->> 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Unfortunately, it looks like this issue is going to be brought to arbitration by Durova, based on issues spreading over several pages, involving other users and outside the scope of this mediation (and of the ability of mediation to solve disputes). Regretfully, when the arbitration commences, mediation will have to stop, which is slightly annoying as we appear to be starting to make some headway in the issue. I'm mentioning this now so that we're aware of what's coming, and to invite the parties to express their opinions on continuing mediation now, on this narrow issue, or leaving the whole broad issue of the behavoir of several users to the ArbCom. Basically, wht I'm asking is whether all parties are happy for mediation to continue now, or if you would like to wait until we get to ArbCom? Mart inp23 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just had a look at that discussion in the Adminstrator's/incidents page, I think it is profoundly unwise "to lump everything" into one dispute. I personally have had several serious disagreements with Isarig, but I also have a great deal of respect for his intelligence and arguing style. I'm prepared to deal with him on disagreements on an individual basis, in generally civil discussions. What you are proposing is that this limited disagreement be settled in a "world war" with lots of other potentially acrimonious disagreements involving a wide swath of articles. Looking at some of the issues, this would mean in addition that in some instances I might be in ~~some unpleasant company~~ the company of some unpleasant issues.

Please reconsider. What you are proposing really will destroy Wikipedia. I think ~~Jumbo~~ Jimbo should put a stop to this immediately.--CSTAR 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, if you are referring to this post, it reads as if this mediation is expected to continue while the arbitration case is put together. We ought to, with all that has been assembled here already. Abbenm 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbenm, yes, I was referring to that. My position is that I would like this mediation to go on for a long as possible (until we can sort out the issues), though the case will have to stop when/if the matter gets to ArbComm. My post above was to inform the parties of this, and to check, as mediator, that they would all be happy to proceed with mediation in good faith. CSTAR, some of the behavoiral issues here go far beyond the scope of mediation, across many articles, and will probably need ArbCom actions to rectify them. Mart inp23 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this mediation continue, as I think we're making good progress, much due to your efforts. If/when there is arbitration around the recent issues brought up at WP:ANI, the issues will be of a more general nature (hostile editing environments) and/or personal issues related to specific editors, and I don't see why that should cause this mediation to stop. Isarig 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I agree with Isarig -- I see no reason for this mediation to stop, though I don't know the details of what happens when arbcom gets ahold of an issue -- is everybody blocked for a while or something? csloat 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on hold for now, but I'm happy to continue as well. <<-armon->>

Outside parties[edit]

Please keep comments here short and to the point, and remeber that your views may not neccesarily be taken into account - please don't take offence if this happens.

Comment by CSTAR

Of the issues in the dispute, I am only concerned about the question of how to suitaby present the charges of antisemitism arising from Coles dual loyalties allegation and the responses by Cole. For this reason I decided not to list myself as officially involved in the dispute. Consequently, I was somewhat taken aback by your comment your views may not neccesarily be taken into account.

From WP:BLP "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

There is not a unique way to report the facts of the matter here, the existence of a dispute involving Cole and other Scholars. The facts are roughly that some writers have accused Cole of antisemitism based on his dual loyalty charge and that Cole has denied those charges.

I have nothing against stating that "some critics, such as Karsh have claimed parallels between 'new antisemitism' and anti-semitic tracts such as the Protocols." However, to include Karsh's quote without providing an account of Cole's response, either quoted in full, paraphrased or some mixture thereof fails the neutrality test in my view and is perilously close to advocacy journalism.

What is in the article currently is not a paraphrase of Cole's response as suggested by Isarig here. I had said that in the context of an argument, Cole is making a point, specifically that Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" The paraphrase makes no mention of the real problem with the Karsh quote and its inclusion here, that is to say the association of Cole's writing with the "Protocols". According to Isarig, "That's not an argument, that's name calling [14]. It's no better, as far as content, than saying "karsh sucks"." He further added in a subsequent reply "It does not respond to anything Karsh says, it does not defend Cole's position in any way - it is merely saying "it sucks"."

To be clear I'm happy to remove the "beneath contempt" comment which in my opinion adds nothing, but everything else is fair to include.

It is also not in dispute that "Karsh sucks" is not an argument. In saying that "Karsh uses "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.", Cole clearly tries to show something specific: that to associate his criticisms of the Neoconservative clique to a belief in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (or even more ambiguosly that it "resonates powerfully) is unwarranted; moreover its is the kind of unwarranted conclusion used by propagandists.

Let me quote a noted academic Doug Walton (Informal Logic, A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 1989)

In every reasonable dialogue, each participant should have a clearly designated thesis or conclusion the he is obliged toprove in the argument. This means that he is under a burden of proof to establish this particular conclusion. Hence if there is justifiable reason to think he may be straying off this burden of proof, his argument is open to a charge of ignoratio elenchi (Irrelevance).

To justify Cole's use of "propaganda" here to describe (what admittedly Cole claims is) Karsh's pseudo-argument, let me first quote the WIkipedia article on Propaganda

Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, appealing, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view.

Let me further quote Karl Popper (Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition) to illustrate that propaganda is a legitimate charge in the domain of argumentation.

Even more precious is the tradition that works against the misuse of language which consists in pseudo-arguments and propaganda. This is the tradition of and discipline of clear speaking and clear thinking; it is the critical tradition, the tradition of reason.

To illustrate my point, suppose Karsh used a different argument, for example some fallacious statistical argument (or even an invalid use of a syllogism) to infer that Cole has some property X. Does Cole have to prove that he does not have property X; wouldn't it be sufficient for Cole to point out that Karsh uses statistical fallacies to infer X? Wouldn't that be a valid response?

The fact that Cole assigns a name to the type of argument ("propaganda technique") is not "name calling" any more than would characterizing an argument as "slippery slope" or a "statistical fallacy." Moreover Cole doesn't merely assign a descriptive name to the Karsh statement. In addition, he says how it attempts "to insinuate [that] criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" It directly addresses the association that Karsh makes to 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

In conclusion, any paraphrase or quote from Cole which does not specifically refer to that association, would be incomplete.--CSTAR 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except Cole's accusation was simply that, an accusation. The "argument" Cole supposedly made is mythical. The charge of "propaganda" is so close to what his critics charges that he engages in as to be the equivalent of a schoolyard taunt of "I Know You Are But What Am I?" -nothing but simple Proof by assertion coupled with a circumstantial ad hominem. Unlike Karsh, who presented evidence for his assertions (even if you think it's flawed) Cole presented none -this is likely why it was dismissed as name calling.

However, the fact that it's an invalid argument would be beside the point if it were in a RS. Karsh, being published in a RS, was in effect forced to present some kind of evidence for his beliefs otherwise he'd bring the publication into legal jeopardy. Cole on the other hand, has no such constraints on his blog. This is the problem I see with BLP as applied to Karsh. The fact that we remove a "beneath contempt", or not, in the main text doesn't alter the fact that we're using a poor source which is potentially libelous. We can't say "well the magazine's lawyers vetted it -sue them".

The other big problem I have with using this blog post in particular, is that it seems to be the result of Will's trolling on Cole's blog about his WP article and an attempt to directly provide "balancing" content. If Cole had come here to WP to comment on his page, and had made the same comments on talk, it wouldn't be source for the article -or would it? There's an even lower level of editorial oversight on his blog than here, where he could get blocked. This seems to me to set a very bad precedent for the project. <<-armon->> 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the RS issue (to say nothing of others), Cole's response can be included. We've already covered this issue and the only responses I received were in agreement. Abbenm 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Proof by assertion. Cole does not have the burden to prove anything. Karsh does. aIt's valid for Cole to say that a conclusion is unwarranted.

It is the responsability of WP to present issues in a fair, accurate way as per WP:BLP. Your argument says that because of potential litigation, WP can only present half the story. Then WP is becoming advocacy journalism.

The will incident is a red herring; we are not talking about management of Cole's blog, we are talking about a WP article.--CSTAR 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proof by assertion -he does have the burden if he makes counterclaims, and he did. Your argument only works if you truncate what he said.

I agree, which is why I looked for alternatives.

I don't see how it is, the incident and management of Cole's blog is directly related to whether it's a good source to use for a WP article, esp when it's making claims about people other than the subject of the article. <<-armon->> 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Name-calling" presumably means ad hominem. The terms "outrageous" and "propaganda technique" refer to the attacks not the attackers; by definition they are not ad hominem. I would have thought this obvious.

2. Karsh's opinion that Cole's writing "resonates powerfully" with the argument of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion represents a tiny and marginal opinion. It's been echoed by no one anywhere. We need to be careful about how we present it, as per WP:Undue weight.

3. The "alternative" Cole response is not an alternative; it's original research. It is something Cole said about a speech by Larry Summers; he doesn't even mention Karsh or the Karsh quote. The horsetrading rationale is ill-conceived. It makes no sense to try to compensate for a violation of WP:NPOV by turning around and violating WP:OR. We have the choice to violate neither, which is what we should do.--G-Dett 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of Article vs. Notability

Between the Talk:Juan Cole page and this one, it has been repeatedly asked how this Karsh inclusion improves or adds insight to the entry on Juan Cole (1 2 3 4 5 6 7).

In link #5 I ask if the substance of the Karsh insertion does anything besides imply anti-semitism, because that suggestion alone would be factually invalid, and not biographical.

In (the only) response Isarig said that Karsh makes a worthy point of some sort within his original article, but that it "does not come out in the current quote". And perhaps hypothetically Karsh makes dozens of great points about Cole in his original article. That doesn't help this encyclopedic entry. As it stands, I see nothing biographical about implying that Juan Cole is an anti-semite and I do not see how or where the present quote does anything besides this. If nothing else, it should be agreed that this section has to be changed in some way from its present form.

This is infinitely easier for me to accept if it can adequately be considered a controversy and solely that, but not as a factually valid or objectively insightful addition. A lot of time has been spent arguing the latter (or a mixture of each) in relation to both Karsh's statement and Cole's response. If we consider it a controversy, I think tensions and objections relating to POV edits or name calling or scurrilous attacks and RS issues ought to be much less intrusive and constraining for each side. All this, assuming notability is established. Abbenm 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Armon. Re: "-he does have the burden if he makes counterclaims, and he did. Your argument only works if you truncate what he said."

It doesn't seem surprising Cole will make counterclaims. Political discourse cannot be expected to suddenly come to a grinding halt. But are these counterclaims an issue? I thought my proposal was essentially truncating what he said.

But it does seem that you and I have arrived at an impasse in the discussion of this particular issue, in the sense that further back and forth will rehash what we have just said. Do you agree? Fortunately, there are some general principles on which we do agree, such as the need to include a suitable response from Cole.

Perhaps the mediator sees a way further, I don't yet see it.

--CSTAR 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is descending into chaos, I'm afraid. Third parties can now address concise comments here or (preferably) on my talk page, but please avoid drawing yourselves into the conflict by arguing - you're not parties to the mediation, so you're not bound by some of the mediation "rules", so I'm expecting good faith here. Similiarly, could parties avoid responing to issues here, unless I've opened the comment up for discussion. I'm here to foster discussion - and I really don't want to have to restrict 3rd parties in order to do so. Mart inp23 23:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third parties have raised some good points above - it would be helpful to produce a list of them and incorporate them into the discussion. csloat 09:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do - I'll try to get this done at some point, but I've taken the points raised here on board. Mart inp23 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that we concentrate on the issues originally raised by the original parties to the mediation rather than moving the bar at this point. Elizmr 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such a thing as "moving the bar" has occurred or possibly could, I would be opposed to that. But hopefully we are all thinking of the same "bar": creating an acceptable, even good, article for Wikipedia. Abbenm 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but who are you and where did you come from? You are editing with a new account, but you seem to know your way around Wikipedia and seem to have a very vested interest in this particular page. Could you tell us what other name you have edited under before? Elizmr 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Elizmr, you are being rude. WP:BITE. csloat 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE isn't meant to "protect" sockpuppets. <<-armon->> 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was the checkuser filed against this user? Has a formal complaint been lodged with WP:ANI? If none of this has been done, the accusation is outrageous. Accusing a newbie of sockpuppetry without any evidence other than that they oppose your edits is certainly "biting the newcomers," and it's the second person Elizmr has "bitten" on this page. csloat 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off track a bit but it looks like I should clarify. If this was directed to me, I can assure you that I'm no one else's puppet. This is the first and only user name I've registered and if you were looking for my puppeteer you'd also be looking for someone with a "vested" interest in Post-metal. I'm sure I'll have interests in other pages too, once I find them. Abbenm 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Abbenm, It seems quite unusual to me that a new user would come to Wikipedia and immediately start editing on a mediation page as one of his first few edits (his demonstrated interest in heavy metal notwithstanding). I certainly apologize if he is a brand new editor, and it is certainly not my habit to bite newcomers, but it seemed unlikely to me that the user of this account is new to wikipedia. Elizmr 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, it might be best just to come out and say it: whose sockpuppet do you believe Abbenm to be, and why? It seems unfair to keep throwing up these clouds of suspicion around his posts, especially when the insinuations are unfalsifiable. Is it so odd for someone's first edits to be in the context of a heated dispute or a mediation page? Aren't there people who read around Wikipedia, get savvy about the talk pages out of curiosity or passion or whatever, and eventually find themselves roused enough to feel compelled to jump in? I'm pretty sure that's how it was with me. Some people are here to write articles from scratch about subjects they have expertise in; some people, and G-d bless them, are here to mollify frayed nerves and massage pitched battles into some form of cooperation; some people are here to fix commas; and others are here for the dialectic and for the editorial process itself, believe it or not. All of the above are serious contributors. --G-Dett 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern G-Dett, I do appreciate it, but it's really not necessary. I noticed the same things in Elizmir's statement that you did, but beating a co-editor into submission when they've essentially apologized probably isn't necessary. Abbenm 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't realize that Elizmr had apologized. My turn to apologize – to both of you. Cheers,--G-Dett 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me a point of clarification G-Dett while I also thank you for retracting. For the record, yes, I do find for an editor to participate in a mediation page so early in a "career" on Wikipedia [15]. His first contribution to the Juan Cole talk page mentioned Wikipedia policy (BLP); this certainly seems sophisticated in terms of knowledge of Wikipedia for someone who has been on Wikipedia for less than ten days and has made one edit only in the main article space. Given that this is a mediation page between four individuals, I don't think it was unreasonable of me to have raised such a concern about an editor who has chosen to come and voice outside opinions. I would not have done so on an article talk page, but this particlar page is a bit different in nature than an article talk page. This user, Abbenm, is participating in a civil way, and I certainly apologize if I've raised the concern in an uncivil way. I don't, however, think I was wrong to raise the concern. Elizmr 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to the behavior of editors like User:Will314159 and User:Deodar/BenHouston who's apparently back as numerous IPs, as well as Cole's soliciting meatpuppets on his blog and attacking WP editors, it's perhaps unsurprising that suspicions are raised. But then, that just might be the "far rightwing activist" view -heh. <<-armon->> 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When "suspicions are raised" but no accusation is made, the result is innuendo and it poisons the atmosphere of trust. Armon, your last post begets a veritable virus of guilt-by-association; if you're going to sneeze in here please cover your mouth.--G-Dett 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to avert your gaze, fine, but spare me the righteous indignation until you've actually read the evidence and the months of archives here and here. Ultimately I don't care that much if he was a sock because Abbenm's been civil and constructive, even if I disagree with him on some points, whereas you seem to have shown up spoiling for a fight. <<-armon->> 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go back to Isarig's compromise? It was a good one, and I believe you're mistaken in saying that csloat has rejected it.--G-Dett 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree to this compromise, I have a problem with using Cole's blogged response to a Wikipedia entry in Cole's own Wikipedia entry. Sorry to repeat myself and repeat myself and repeat myself. I've put this everywhere God-ette has brought this upElizmr 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for context[edit]

Quick comments on my belief that the solution is to deal with the context of the dual loyalties/Likudnik/new anti-Semitism disputes:

There are many others in respective and influence positions in media that use the term "Likudnik" to refer to "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration. For example, Tony Karon (Senior editor for Time magazine), in his blog today wrote "Elliot Abrams, the last of the Likudniks in senior Bush Administration positions, has spoken openly of the need for the U.S. to fund, arm and train Fatah activists to launch a 'hard coup' against the elected Hamas government." [16] Tony Karon has written a large number of Time cover stories in the past two years.
There is coverage of the general concept/accusation of dual loyalty in the following articles: Dual loyalty, Diaspora politics in the United States, and Ethnic interest groups. One should deal with this in context as a service to our readers. Critics have also written about specific US-based think tanks as not distinguishing between US and Israeli interests -- see JINSA#Criticism. Additionally, others have made claims about a document known as A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm#United_States_foreign_policy. Such issues could be dealt with in a more coherent and integrated way in order for both sides to be accurately represented. The number of respectful commentators on both sides of the issue is large -- to single out Cole's words outside of proper context is unfair and only leads to issues.

Thus the solution would be to create an article about this specific topic which presents both sides of the issue in full context so that the reader can judge the issues properly. This moves it away from being a simple matter of which specific sources to include, and towards a full debate on the issues. --70.48.71.143 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. csloat 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do tend towards this opinion - it is a far reaching concept, and needs proper discussion. Mart inp23 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-issue. Please see discussion at Criticisms as part of larger socio-political conflict. There is no disagreement about providing context. <<-armon->> 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully agree with Armon. Also, a comment left by an anon editor on this very Wikipedia specific mediation page discussion is strange. Anon--why not identify yourself if you want to join this discssion? Elizmr 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any issues brought up by external parties are theirs, and being external parties it would be improper for this mediation to focus on them. Mart inp23 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is an issue that could help resolve the subsection a issue above. If a party to the mediation (me) agrees with a point made by an external party, when does it become acceptable to consider it? In this case there is a valid point being made (with no counter-argument, I might add) that the "dual loyalty" issue is part of a larger question and that using that larger question to focus on Cole is an improper use of a WP:BLP.csloat 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - the whole point of me allowing the external parties to be involved is so that we can get ideas like this. By "issues", I mean that I would refuse to begin to mediate if an external party said "I wanted to add this link to the lead section, but was reverted. We need to resolve this". So, I do welcome suggestions from the external parties. Mart inp23 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced coverage thoughts[edit]

I've still been following the discussion here, it is interesting. Another thought is that the current discussion focuses on one issue which received some media coverage in specialized publications to the exclusion of a related issue that received significantly more media coverage in more mainstream publications. Namely the accusations of anti-Semitism didn't receive much play from mainstream publications, but the Yale non-appointment controversy, arguably related to concerns of some about Juan Cole's stances (some of which triggered round-about accusations of anti-Semitism) and the added legitimacy that could be lent to those stances by a Yale appointment. Here are some of the mainstream coverage of that controversy:

NEWS: Blackballed at Yale, Scott Jaschik, June 4 2006
Free Speech, Israel, and Jewish Illiberalism, Alan Wolfe, November 17 2006
Burning Cole, The Nation, Philip Weiss
Search for scholar spotlights politics in classroom, Yale Herald
When free speech costs a career, Yale Herald
OP-ED: Cole Fire, John Fund, Wall Street Journal
Yale's Next Tenured Radical?, The NY Sun
No Tenure for Juan Cole, Michael Rubin

The issue is a long running battle between neoconservatives supporters and Juan Cole which goes back to 2003 and earlier as evidenced by these columns:

To simply cover in isolation two accusations and a limited response from Cole is to ignore the full context of the issues at hand. --70.51.232.12 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's Compromise[edit]

I think Isarig's suggestion here on how to phrase the Cole response is agreeable, or perhaps even a very good one. I think that the RS issue of an Op-Ed column still needs to be visited but, should the quote have to be included at all, Isarig's suggestion is the most agreeable anyone has offered. It's not for me to mediate, but I'm puzzled as to why this worthwhile suggestion of his has been left unanswered for over a week now when it looks like something many would agree to. Abbenm 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed to it (with an extremely minor adjustment), and then Isarig apparently moved the goalpost. However it is not clear to me what he is arguing; perhaps the mediator will help. In his most recent posts he said he doesn't want any "ad hominems" and he then called Cole's response to charges of anti-semitism "hysterical." I'm not going to respond to him until the mediator enters the discussion again as he is clearly baiting me. csloat 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like he was suggesting an equal and alternative solution. That is how I viewed his position. Could the disputes over his second suggestion be left alone if you are ok with the first? Acknowledged that you are nonetheless waiting for the mediators input. Abbenm 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's willing to go with the first, with my minor modification, certainly -- I've been saying that all along.csloat 10:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened with this? Isn't this the light at the end of the tunnel?--G-Dett 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. As Isarig's compromise was unacceptable to sloat, there was no point in discussing it. <<-armon->> 08:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, where? It seems to me that Sloat explicitly said right in this space that, with a minor modification, Isarig's idea was fine for him. Don't forget there were two suggestions (linked above), only the second of which Sloat disagreed with. Abbenm 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Csloat, can you come in here? We may have everything in place to put this to rest and move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by G-Dett (talk • contribs)

The compromise works for me; I've gone ahead and highlighted my words so there is no mistake -- that has been my position on this issue from the beginning. Armon is mischaracterizing my words again - accidentally I'm sure. csloat 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's compromise is agreeable to me, though some of the broader issues (not having to do with this article in particular, but rather with the use of direct quotes) were not touched upon.--CSTAR 17:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually CSTAR, I don't remember hearing your position on the direct quote issue, AFAIK you've only said it may be. Could you expand on that? I'd be interested to hear your take on it. Maybe we should be addressing it. <<-armon->> 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Armon:

I haven't addressed it here in this mediation page, but I did bring it up several times in the various discussions on Juan Cole/Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole.

I'm not arguing that reliably sourced quotes shouldn't be used as supporting evidence for claims made in an article; however, in my opinion quotes (a) can very fragile statements that don't relocate well outside their original context (b) May not be the best way to comprehensibly (and in many cases neutrally) convey an idea. As far as the didactic suitability of quotes (e.g. the comprehensibility aspect) this is particularly valid in anything having to do with technical or scientific exposition (and I have had numerous discussions in other articles about this), but is also true in "political" articles such as this one. As far as neutrality, let me just suggest that there would be less discussion here if we had summarized the comments of leading critics to Cole's view of duial loyalties (with quotes relegated to footnotes). This approach has been knocked down, invalidly in my view by the claim that it is "original research." I agree that producing such paraphrases is a kind of research, but only of the most basic kind that is necessary to produce any worthwhile encyclopedia article; certainly it is not original research.--CSTAR 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see your point strongly here. My objection was to summarizing critics, then having Cole soapbox with direct quotes from his blog, as non-neutral. <<-armon->> 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aBENum, sorry, I don't agree to the compromise, see below. Elizmr 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on the table[edit]

Here's the suggestion from Isarig that everyone seems OK with:

We keep the Cole quote from his blog (here's the link, we drop the "beneath contempt" part, and write 'Cole said Karsh used "propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neoconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment."

Csloat, can you remind me what your minor modification was? If it's fresh in everyone else's mind, I apologize.--G-Dett 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote above:

Here is the quote from Cole that I would like to see in the response to Karsh. I have backed off on the "beneath contempt" part even though I agree with Martin that it is not up to us to judge the validity of Cole's arguments. The quote: "Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment." Isarig's formulation was exactly like this except he dropped the word "scurrilous," I believe. I see no reason to drop that adjective. csloat 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

csloat 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God-ette, with all due respect, I know you are trying to help, but your summary that "everyone is ok with this" is incorrect. I am one of the four actual parties to this mediation, and I have written that I have a lot of problems with using this as a source. At the top of my list of the problems are the fact that Cole has used his blog to respond DIRECTLY to a Wikipedia entry which quoted Karsh rather than replying to Karsh in the proper setting, which would have been the New Republic Online letters section. If we quote Cole's response we are in effect allowing him to write his own entry here. I believe that according to the rules of Wikipedia, this is not kosher. People are not supposed to write their own bioentries. So far no one, not Sloat, not our mediator, nor any of the many outside opiners has responded to this (IMO) crucial point. Elizmr 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. Subjects of BLPs will read their entries in Wikipedia and sometimes write things afterward that are worth citing in Wikipedia. Cole is neither editing his own entry nor are we suggesting quoting him about Wikipedia - we are suggesting quoting him about Karsh. If we quote Karsh, it is both dishonest and POV to censor Cole's direct response to Karsh. csloat 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want Cole's reply, we NEED Coles's reply, I agree 100%. We just need it from a RS, not his blog. I am not censoring anything or being dishonest, so please considering retracting your bad faith comments. And, BTW, I apologize if I am being rude here. I have learned and benefited a lot from participating in the Wikipedia project and have made connections with folks with very different POVs and backgrounds than mine through participating in articles together. I feel the project is important. I feel very strongly about stuff that would undermine it. I feel that Cole's interaction with his own entry via his blog is something falling into this category. Elizmr 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how accepting a proposal which is has been modified to suit one's own position constituents a "compromise". In any case, as Elizmr points out above, this doesn't address the concerns about Cole's blog as a source either. <<-armon->> 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterizing the compromise is not helpful Armon. There are no concerns about Cole's blog as a source -- the Karsh quote is about Cole's blog, as you know. Finally if this compromise is unacceptable to you there is another possible compromise -- eliminate the Karsh nonsense altogether, as I have proposed. You can still take your ridiculous little jew-baiting pot-shots as long as you can source them to reliable third party sources and so long as you stop censoring Cole's responses. I don't like it, I think it violates BLP, but if we can find a reliable third party commentator to address the alleged controversy I have stated before that I won't stand in the way of it. We have two different compromises that I have agreed to, Armon, both of which preserve this name-calling nonsense. Can you please explain who is the one holding up mediation now? csloat 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your claim; I believe it is a red herring, and that pretending Cole didn't reply directly to Karsh when we know very well he did is dishonest. Please consider retracting your uncivil accusation of bad faith. Thanks! csloat 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, I seem to have overlooked your objection to Isarig's proposal, and for that I apologize. Now, to your objection. As you know, I think Csloat's point about Wikipedia not existing in a vacuum is decisively relevant here. Are you familiar with the little scandal Microsoft recently caused by paying someone to edit Wikipedia articles on Open XML that Microsoft believed to be inaccurate?[17] According to the Washington Post, Jimbo Wales expressed strong disapproval, and said that if Microsoft wished to influence Wikipedia content "the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a 'white paper' on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums. 'It seems like a much better, transparent, straightforward way,' Wales said." Note that Wales does not say it was inappropriate for those in the real world with vested interests in the content of Wikipedia articles to try to influence them, or "interact" with them, or solicit others to "directly provide balancing content," or whatever phrase one chooses. So I believe you are mistaken in your belief that "according to the rules of Wikipedia, this is not kosher." Wales' judgment about the Microsoft case establishes a crystal-clear and decisive precedent for the present dispute: the important thing in cases like this is transparency and straightforwardness, not some imaginary firewall between Wikipedia and the world. Cole's actions are not only acceptable; they represent "the proper course" for someone with a vested interest in disputing Wikipedia content.

Can we agree now that the RS objection is a dead letter?

I don't think the MS situation is the same, and I think you're extending the analogy into a way which would hurt the project. People with agendas will edit articles, but that's all the more reason to insist on good sources over poor ones. <<-armon->> 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon completely ignores the substance of the argument above. I think the evidence of Wales' preference on a very similar issue is decisive here. I'm ready for the mediator to step in and let us know what he thinks is going on. csloat 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I second Csloat's opinion that "scurrilous" is acceptable language, and that no good grounds have been offered for bleeping it out. I'm not wedded to its inclusion per se, but I object strongly to the attempt to weed out adjectives Wikipedia editors find disagreeable. Cole's choice of words has a very important rhetorical and argumentative purpose; he is stressing that the attack on him represents not merely a faulty critique but a piece of bad-faith demagoguery and attempted character assassination. It's a valid view. I don't want Cole's phrasing altered or cropped in a way that suppresses what I believe to be his centrally relevant point.--G-Dett 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. Elizmr 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I don't have time to address this rightnow, but I do not feel that one can use Jimbo's response to the microsoft case to support what Cole has done here. BUT Maybe we should wait for the mediator to weigh in now, actually, before taking this further. With all due respect, ok? Elizmr 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you don't have time to address this, you really can't insist on your way carrying the day. I agree that it's time for the mediator to weigh in -- he has said he is having computer troubles, so we should expect to hear from him when those are resolved. We can all stand to be patient here. csloat 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the objection is not about "scurrilous" -it's that it's a self-published attempt to "write his own article" -to provide content he otherwise would not have gotten published, and have it put in by proxy. <<-armon->> 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we strip away the tendentious rhetoric, what Cole did is exactly parallel to what Wales suggested Microsoft ought to have done, no? If not, please be specific. "The proper course" would have been to write or commission a white paper (translated into your rhetoric, "write his own article"), post it to an outside Web site (i.e. "provide content he otherwise would not have gotten published," etc.), and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums (i.e. "have it put in by proxy"). Armon, can you be specific about what is unacceptable in Wales' suggestion, or why you reject the precedent it establishes?--G-Dett 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS is a big enough fish that if it puts out a white page there will be numerous outside RSs reporting and commenting on it. A personal blog-post which consists of ad homs is nothing the same. Why do you insist on this where other sources make his case? <<-armon->> 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been dealt with above. csloat 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So for consistency, blogged criticism like this is OK as well? <<-armon->> 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If Cole publishes an article attacking Kramer and Kramer writes about it in his blog, however, it would be entirely reasonable to quote Kramer's blog responding to Cole (on the Martin Kramer page, of course). csloat 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kramer post could (conceivably) be appropriate in the entry on Martin Kramer. Kramer's lively blog focuses as obsessively on Cole as Norman Finkelstein's does on Alan Dershowitz, so a case could be made to include this or that statement from it in the article on Kramer. But no, blogged remarks about a subject don't belong in the subject's entry; that should be obvious enough. No one here is saying Cole's remarks about Karsh should be inserted into Karsh's entry.--G-Dett 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that coming. Double standard. Either the blog(s) are RSs or they're not. I think we'll have a better article if they're not. <<-armon->> 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a double standard. Not all blog entries are equal, as you know. Read WP:RS if you have questions. csloat 01:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's true -all blogs aren't considered equal. However, in the case of an example like Kramer's, it's a much of a muchness. <<-armon->> 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, read the text of WP:RS. It explicitly contradicts your position that "either the blog(s) are RSs or they're not." And will you please explain what you mean by a double standard? I think Kramer's blog cannot (excepting special circumstances) be quoted in Cole's entry. I think Cole's blog cannot (excepting special circumstances) be quoted in Kramer's entry. I think Kramer's blog can however be quoted in Kramer's entry, all the more so if the context is a debate about things said in Kramer's blog. The same goes for Cole. All of the above applies to every public figure covered by Wikipedia. Assuming you understand what is meant by a double standard, one can only conclude you're throwing the charge around for purely rhetorical effect.--G-Dett 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, responding to your points (two posts above) in order: 1) Wales says nothing about linking to RS's reporting and commenting on the white paper; he talks about linking to the white paper. 2)Informed Comment is one of the most widely read and cited blogs in the world; and no one has proposed quoting any ad hominem statements from it. 3) Cole "makes his case" on other subjects in other sources, but he addresses the Karsh allegation only in the post on Informed Comment. This is appropriate enough, given how fringey, bizarre, and anomalous Karsh's charge is.

I should be clear that I think you're mistaken that Cole posted on the subject in an effort "to directly provide balancing content." I think you're right that he was trying to "interact" with Wikipedia, but my reading of it is that he wanted the Karsh stuff deleted as "beneath contempt," not his own phrase "beneath contempt" added in. But either way, the Microsoft precedent is pretty clearly decisive.--G-Dett 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "fringey" argument holds no water when there are numerous sources and they've been published in mainstream RSs. I think you're simply letting your POV get the better of you here. <<-armon->> 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the MS analogy is that the issue was "factual errors" which are falsifiable. Opinions like Karsh and Cole's aren't. For example, how do you propose "proving" that I am a "far-right wing activist"? <<-armon->> 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, I don't mean to let my POV get the better of me – can you direct me to mainstream sources that echo Karsh's argument about the powerful resonance of The Protocols in Cole's work? Or any sources at all?

Check the cites -the issue is Cole's "conspiracy theories". <<-armon->> 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for this objection to the MS analogy, you appear to be dramatically shifting criteria. For a month now, your objection has been unequivocally about Cole trying directly to influence Wikipedia content. This was categorically "not kosher" for you, until the Microsoft precedent was introduced. Now you're saying it hinges on the nature of Cole's objections? That the material he hoped to influence and/or counter wasn't falsifiable? 'Moving the goalposts' doesn't quite cover it; you're building a new stadium. (For the record, I'm assuming your last question was rhetorical. I have no interest in proving that you're one thing or another; I'm not even interested in saying it.)--G-Dett 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explaining why the MS issue is not the same as this. As I've repeatedly stated, the AS/conspiracy theory critique is NOT simply a Cole/Karsh fight, and it's a misrepresentation to present it as such. It's a means of presenting POV because it presupposes that it's "just this one guy" who says "these outrageous things". <<-armon->> 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, I know you're "explaining" that precedent doesn't apply; it's just that your explanation has been refuted and you have nothing new. The AS allegation is distinct from the Protocols allegation; if it weren't, there'd be no need to specifically quote the Karsh essay, and you wouldn't be pressing to do so. You need to either clarify what principle(s) you're defending, or yield to the momentum of reason.--G-Dett 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The Protocols was a fiction which purported an AS conspiracy theory. I'm sorry I don't see what hair you're splitting. Anyway, here's another cite for you to look at which isn't in the article. <<-armon->> 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm not actually married to the Karsh quote, however, I haven't seen a good argument to delete it and frankly, I'd rather just leave it than have to bicker over paraphrasing the critiques. See the ongoing argument with sloat over Hitchens' critique of Cole's interpretation of the "wipe off the map" speech. Sloat refused to present what H's criticism actually was.

Also, thanks, but I think I'll "yield to the momentum of reason" when there's reason to. Please don't attempt to both play and umpire -it's irritating. <<-armon->> 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a detailed case on Martin's user page that the difference you dismiss is a serious and fundamental one; read it if you haven't already:

Karsh's argument is much more specific – different in both degree and kind – from the general charge of antisemitism. The "Protocols" represent antisemitism at its most vicious and paranoid; they were a notorious hoax calculated to create mass delusion and hysteria, and to alchemize this delusion and hysteria into violent bigotry and even pogrums. To say that the work of a prominent scholar of the Middle East "resonates powerfully" with the obsessions of this hoax is a far more serious charge than saying that this or that line of argument entails antisemitism. Cole's commentary on a speech by Larry Summers is in no way a proper substitute for his response to the attack by Karsh; to use it as such is, moreover, to engage in OR. Summers was talking about antisemitism "in effect if not intent," i.e. the most benign kind (if any kind of AS can be called benign), at the absolute opposite end of the antisemitism spectrum from the violent and hateful paranoias of the Protocols. The only thing beyond the Protocols on the virulent end of the AS spectrum would be Mein Kampf. Karsh is the only person anywhere to liken Cole's work to the Protocols, and it is self-evident that if we include such an unusual, extreme, and incendiary charge then we must include Cole's response to it, and not his take on very different, more general charges levelled by people other than Karsh against people other than Cole on other occasions.

On the other hand, if you insist that the difference between the argument that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion resonate powerfully in Cole's political writings and the general charge of antisemitism is a hairsplitting one, then you should have no objection to dropping the specific Karsh quote. We can drop it, and simply note that he echoes the charge of antisemitism made by Oren et al. That would be fine with me. Let me know which position you're committing to. Is Karsh's argument unique or general? I trust you'll concede that it isn't coherent to maintain that Karsh's argument is so unique that we must quote it specifically; yet so general that a remark from Cole about Larry Summers will suffice as a rebuttal.

In the meantime, I'd like you to clarify something. Are we agreed that the Microsoft case establishes clear precedent, and decisively answers the objection you've raised repeatedly – that it isn't "kosher" for Wikipedia to quote something that Cole wrote in an attempt to influence the content of Wikipedia? If not, will you outline your refutation of this precedent, without shifting the terms of your objection? --G-Dett 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, G-dette, I feel you are bullying the process and ask you, as someone who is not a mediator or an official party to the mediation, to take a time out. I am happy to proceed with this discussion but not until our mediator gets back from whatever computer trouble is he having. OK? Elizmr 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think G-dett is bullying at all, and her points are both relevant and worth discussion here. Complaints that she is not an "official" party to the mediation appear to be attempts to avoid the valid issues she raises, most of which I (an "official" party) endorse. csloat 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat, your remarks assume bad faith on my part. We have worked together for awhile now, and you should know that I am always willing to discuss things. What I said is that I would like to wait for the mediator to get back before going around and around with this point. G-dette, to use one of your old expressions, has a "dog in the fight." She is also taking the tone of mediator when trying to push agreement from myself and Armon on something I think we both feel is a very important matter. This is what I meant when I said I felt she was, "bulling the process." Please consider leaving this one until Martin is back, OK? I am not sure why you and GDette feel we should have resolution on this in his absence. Just so you know, I am not going to post again here until the mediation resumes, and my silence does not imply agreement with anything further. Elizmr 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, I'm not pressing for agreement; I'm pressing for a clarification of differences, in the interest of mediation and eventual consensus. We have a compromise edit on the table which is agreeable to most here; you and Armon object on the grounds that we can't quote Cole when Cole appears to be trying to influence Wikipedia content. I've cited a very recent case which appears to directly address and resolve this issue. Both you and Armon say that precedent doesn't apply, but you won't say why. I want you to say why, so we can proceed. I don't think we are going around and around. I think I am putting a single question to you, which you are not answering.--G-Dett 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I did. I disagree that what you are calling a "precedent" is in fact one. Jimbo gave an opinion on what he thought would have been a better way for MS to proceed than hiring someone to edit. We can just ask him, but I highly doubt he meant to somehow trump the editing process, or to suddenly turn self-published sources into RSs in one fell swoop. And I really doubt that he was guaranteeing Microsoft's marketing puffery a "spot" in WP articles. A white paper is nothing like a blog-post.

Instead on thumping your fist on the table and demanding that I answer your questions, please, stop, and re-read what I've actually written. Did I not just say today that "I'm not married to the Karsh" quote? I'll point out that the paragraph has already been truncated into near incoherence which is likely why your argument about Karsh's "protocols quote" was based on an accusation Karsh didn't make. If you have a better way of fairly presenting the critics arguments which sloat will accept, then let hear it.

However, I've just found Cole's blog post "reprinted" on the History News Network. HNN is a safe WP:RS so I'm dropping my objection to using it -we can cite it from there. <<-armon->> 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you for taking the time to find a source that settles the matter in your eyes. I'd be interested to hear what Elizmr thinks now. Is Isarig's compromise looking more acceptable?

For the record, you've misunderstood my understanding of the Microsoft precedent. I haven't suggested and wouldn't suggest that it changes anything about the status of self-published sources under WP:RS, or that Wales intended to "somehow trump the editing process" (whatever could possibly be meant by that phrase). These are red herrings. WP:RS clearly recommends wariness about self-published sources such as blogs, but it also indicates exceptions to this guideline – which the present case clearly fits. The question of whether Juan Cole's blog can be cited as a reliable source for Cole's response to criticism of that same blog has been settled clearly far, far up on this mediation page, and the Microsoft precedent has no bearing on it whatsoever.

The Microsoft case establishes precedent for a different RS objection you raised: that material published in an apparent attempt to influence Wikipedia content is automatically disqualified. Specifically, that since Cole was (allegedly) trying to "interact" with his own Wikipedia entry, it would be "not kosher" to quote him. It's this objection that is decisively addressed by the Microsoft precedent.

Sorry to be pedantic, but as I imagine the Microsoft precedent will become an important one, I would prefer not to be misquoted. It does not, in my understanding at least, alter the status of self-published sources. It will be significant in situations where an imaginary firewall between Wikipedia and the world is invoked.--G-Dett 15:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no reason to think GDETTE is not working from good intent, I reiterate that I find it inappropriate for someone who has a "dog in the fight" (sloat's expression) to take on the role of mediator here and press repeatedly for resolution on specific points; this is why I did not want to discuss until Martin's technical issues are resolved. I don't want to be rude, but I think I am within my rights to want the mediator to be invovled in this mediation. To press this point any further is the same as accusing me of bad faith. Elizmr 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, I'm with you in looking forward eagerly to Martin's return. Bear in mind that for well over a month now, the entry on Cole has included a)the Karsh slur (in a prominent subsection of its own); b)ten words of puffery for Karsh's academic position, but no mention of the name of the publication that printed the slur, so the reader is invited to misconstrue the slur for an academic argument; and c) no response from Cole. In other words, the section we're discussing is frozen in about the worst state imaginable right now; the public is reading rank propaganda in an encyclopedia entry we're responsible for, and meanwhile we filibuster in back rooms. Forgive me for wishing to speed things along.

On another note, thanks for the Plaut link Armon.[18] It convinces me of what I had already begun to think, that we should link this section to its broader contexts, that of "New Antisemitism" on the one hand, and the coordinated attack on Middle East Studies in the wake of 9-11 on the other. There are entries on Campus Watch, Middle East Quarterly, the David Horowitz Freedom Center and so on, but no umbrella article along the lines of New Antisemitism to cover the coordinated attack. There is certainly no shortage of strong RS material on the phenomenon. I was surprised, even shocked to note that there's no article on HR 3077 and the push for so-called "Title VI reform." The smear campaign against Cole is only instance of a much larger phenomenon; once this mediation has run its course, there's a lot of work to be done.--G-Dett 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points G-Dett. It may be that you have spelled out the exact reason why some would prefer to filibuster than actually resolve these issues. I too await the mediator's return, and I think he will be pleased to see that we apparently have one more editor accepting the compromise solution that includes Cole's response to Karsh. Elizmr claims she will have objections upon Martin's return, so we will deal with those next, but I believe we are moving closer to getting back to work. As you point out, there is a lot of work to be done on the larger issue of 3077 and the coordinated assault on academia by the likes of Horowitz, Kramer, Pipes, et al., and the slurs against Cole's blog are just a small part of that. csloat 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all far too much. There's no need for this much detail on Karsh. He is not an expert on Cole or on antisemitism, just some guy who doesn't like Cole. We can note that he made a similar criticism to the others, but I don't see any need at all to repeat the smear in our article. It's of no real significance to Cole or his life or work. This is typical of how some people approach biographies of people who do not share their ideology. They scour the web trying to find mud to sling at them, and then fight to keep it when those who want something more balanced try to remove it. We end up with articles that make mountains out of relatively insignificant molehills, which tends to over-weight the bad stuff, because instead of simply being repeated, which is bad enough, it is now something we have written an essay about (while remaining very minor in the bigger picture). We don't need to include Cole's response because we can simply give Karsh the (minimal) weight he deserves. Read the policy on NPOV; particularly the section on "undue weight". Grace Note 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, Grace Note. The problem is as much one of style as ideology; we end up with articles that are quote farms, pitched battles of the blurbs. When the minor issue being mediated here (if and how to quote Karsh, if and how to quote Cole's reponse to Karsh) is settled, I think we should change the section heading from "'Dual Loyalties'" to "Allegations of Antisemitism and the debate about Middle East Studies." That will gesture to the substantive contexts of these rhetorical skirmishes, and will avoid the problem you've aptly pointed out about making mountains out of molehills.--G-Dett 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Grace Note; if we eliminate Karsh's words there is no need for Cole's direct response to Karsh (or for an extended debate over including Karsh's qualifications as if they had anything to do with any of this). For me there are two possible compromises to the Karsh issue -- leave it out entirely or include the Karsh quote along with Cole's reply. And as I've said before this has already taken up far more of my time than it's worth so I am inclined to be flexible about this. Unfortunately the others are not so flexible here. csloat 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration?[edit]

Comment: The process seems deadlocked, at least in regard to the Karsh quote, and WP:arbitration seems to be the way only out. In my opinion, the issue taken to arbitration should center around this one point (the dispute about the Yale controversy only confusing matters.)--CSTAR 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if it goes to arbitration, it should be limited to the Karsh dispute. But there may yet be a way out. Armon has found an HNN "reprint" of the Cole blogpost, and appears now satisfied as regards the RS objection. Elizmr has yet to comment on that here, but has written this on his or her user talk page:

that's Cole's position, and that deserves to be in the article (and Cole would have made it easier for us if he had written a letter to the New Republic so we'd have had a RS on this). But it shouldn't be the ONLY positon expressed in the article. The other possibility is that Karsh has read Cole's blog and is making a reasonable analysis based on his own background and expertise. That deserves to be in the article too. Both should be neutrally stated. The reader should be able to read and understand both POVS through the experience of reading.

Which makes it sound as if Elizmr is also amenable to quoting Cole directly. Despite the lingering rhetorical tensions and recriminations, in other words, we may have the necessary materials in place for an acceptable compromise.--G-Dett 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An arbcom limited to the Karsh quote would be a waste of time IMHO. I think we'll find a solution to that particular issue via a rewrite. There are other major substantive issues such as editor behaviour, BLP, and RS to sort out -and for my own edification I might add. Going back to square one immediately afterwards would simply draw this out even further -ugh! The problem with the outside editors "forcing the issue" is that we haven't heard from Martin yet -and neither have we heard from Isarig who's actually a party to this mediation. I suggest we all, myself included, just chill. <<-armon->> 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've said all I need to say about my position. I don't intend to respond to every quibble by editors who are not party to the mediation. I agree that arbitration limited to the Karsh quote is a waste of time, since just about everybody has explcitly said they are not attached to this particular quote (while noting that no convincing reasons for excluding it have been provided). I've offered several alternatives to the current Karsh statement and response, alternatives that include either keeping variants of the Karsh quote and Cole response or using alternative quotes and responses. At least one of the intrasigent editors who opposes my POV has declined every one of these suggestions. If there is to be arbitration, it should center on that editor's disruptive behaviour. Isarig 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know who that editor is and what the behavior in question is. I know that Isarig and I have agreed on at least two possible compromises. csloat 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dense sloat. Anyway, if we're already arguing about the basis for an arbcom, if it does go there, we should probably get Martin to compose the request. <<-armon->> 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly retract your uncivil comment. Thanks. csloat 07:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just called him a liar, described him as mendacious and deceptive, but are demanding that he remove a mildly unkind figure of speech? How about taking care of the beam in your eye before

concerning yourself with others' motes? Isarig

That was on a different page, and those comments were accurate. That you have anything to say about incivility is interesting. csloat 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so if it was on another page it makes it alright? Thanks for making that clear to us. Isarig 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, man, can you cut the snark? Some of us are trying to work out the issues on this page. csloat 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, man, are you trying to defend yourself from a charge of uncivility by pointing out that this gross uncivility was on another page? If you seriously believe that's a defense, you should not be editing wikipedia. And if you don't, my snarky comment was right on the money. For once in your WP editing career, admit you did something wrong, and apologizxe for it. Isarig 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not trying to defend myself from that charge by pointing out it was on another page; I was trying to encourage you to keep the bickering on that page from polluting other pages. As you know I was actually correct about that claim, but Armon has explained himself on my talk page and I have accepted his explanation -- end of discussion (and it really never was a discussion that had anything to do with you). csloat 00:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice from Juan Cole Talk Page[edit]

As I have posted on the Juan Cole Talk Page, the attacks cited against Juan Cole are baseless, are not based upon anything Cole has said or written, and are known to be blatantly false by all those who have read any of Coles work and to the thousands of University of Michigan students who have taken his courses. There are plenty of right-wing attack dogs on the internet who love to go in for personal attacks against anyone writing from even a mildly left-wing perspective - the comments quoted in the Juan Cole article are of this nature. Further, they are only there because of some Wikipedia editors' dislike of Cole's views on Israel, and more specifically his views on the Likhud Party, which they grossly conflate with his views on Jews. They make the ad hominem attack that anyone opposed to Israeli policies is antisemitic, disregard everything Cole has ever written against antisemitism or antisemitic conspiracy theories, in an effort to villify Cole. We can argue the question of what constitutes a Reliable Source 'till kingdom come, but we are just throwing up legalistic screens that obfuscate the issue: the disgusting charges of antisemitism against Cole are dishonest character assassination by those who dislike his political views, and do not belong in an encyclopaedia entry on Cole. If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section. Thucydides411 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your personal opinions, but as you can see, they are hotly contested and this issue is currently in mediation. Please don't edit the contorversial sections on theJuan Cole page while this mediation is in progress. Isarig 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, there is no need to belittle the comments of everyone you disagree with by stating "you are welcome to your personal opinions." His opinions are no less valid than your own, and in fact they are well backed up by the evidence presented on this page. Thucydides' contribution to this mediation process should be welcomed, not shot down. csloat 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His "contribution" consists of an ultimatum, and a threat to unilaterly force the outcome of the mediation is a certain way. This is not only unwelcome, but a violation of numerous WP policies. He may contribute to the mediation as an outside party, as similar outsiode parties have done, but ultimatums along the lines of "If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section" have no place on Wikipedia, and certainly no place on a mediation page. Isarig 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to pounce on every editor you disagree with for alleged violations of wikipedia policy. His post looks to me like an invitation to discussion and an offer to help unilaterally if nobody else is interested in pursuing the discussion. It's not only newbies whom you shouldn't WP:BITE. csloat 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone writes "If there is no reply to this post in a few days, I will edit out the aforementioned charges in the Controversies section" that looks like an ultimatum to me. I did not pounce on him, I asked him politely not to unilateraly force the outcome of mediation in a certain direction. He can add his contributions to the discussions here, like any outside party. Isarig 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think calling someone's contribution an "ultimatum" and warning them of violations of "numerous WP policies" is "polite," but YMMV. csloat 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone posts an ultimatum it is not only polite to call that spade a spade, it is required. I did not warn him of any violations - I posted that as a response to your pompous and inappropriate butting into something that does not concern you. Isarig 02:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"pompous and inappropriate butting in" -- also impolite. It may help to re-familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. csloat 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet Kettle. Isarig 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute seems to have dragged on for a long time, and the lines of demarcation are much as they were when mediation began. Meanwhile, this scurrilous attack on Cole remains in the article. Isarig, if there is one thing you and I agree upon, it is that Juan Cole is not an antisemite and does not hold antisemitic views, and that furthermore those who accuse him of antisemitism do so dishonestly, so as to undercut his criticisms of Israeli policy. When I state that we agree, I am of course assuming that you have at least skimmed over Cole's blog and some of his articles in Salon.com, which I am sure you have taken the time to do some time in the last two months. In researching Cole, I am sure that you have also found that there is a lively body of pundits on the web who must dedicate a significant amount of their time to writing very personal attacks on Cole (questioning his ability to speak Arabic [19], for example, even though he has lived for six years in Arabic-speaking countries and regularly translates Arabic articles into English). But these ad hominem attacks do not deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. -Thucydides411 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has been taking a long time to resolve - that's true, but that is all the more reason why you should not unilaterally force an outcome in a way desirable to you, as it is evidence of strong opposition to that outcome by numerous editors. I don't necessarily share your opinions of Cole - but that is wholly beside the point. Your personal opinions of Cole's alleged antisemitism have no place in the article, and neither do mine. If a WP:RS published the opinions of notable critics - we may reproduce them in the article. Isarig 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you may believe Cole to be an antisemite? And let's stop talking of "opinions" here, because you're conflating two types of opinion - one grounded in reality (all documentation establishes that Cole is decidedly not antisemitic), and one held in denial of the facts of the case. Are you pushing for the latter type to be given voice in the article simply because it has been published before, or because you want readers to draw from the article that Cole may brook antisemitic beliefs? -Thucydides411 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that my personal opinions are of no significance here, as are yours. I assure you that in every dispute, each side believes his opinions are the "right" kind - i.e, "grounded in reality", and that the other side's opinions are "held in denial of the facts" - so that line of argumentation is not going to convince anyone. Feel free to add your comments here, in the section set aside for outside parties, but please don't unilateraly edit the actual Juan Cole page while this is being mediated. Isarig 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shedding Some Light on the Subject of this Debate[edit]

Isarig, I'll call your spade a spade: you write that your personal opinion does not matter here, but the fact is that this entire controversy is based solely on your negative opinion of Cole. I say this because I am fairly certain that you have not read, or at least not paid attention to, any of Cole's writings. It is your unfounded conviction that Cole is somehow anti-semitic that is keeping this whole issue going. For your benefit, and for the benefit of this mediation, here are some texts relating to Cole's views on Israel:

A Guest Editorial on Cole's Blog by Elik Elhanan of "Combatants for Peace" from 29 January 2007:

"Both societies, the Palestinian and the Israeli, seem to be locking themselves in a violent nationalistic mindset where the needs of the other simply do not exist.

How should one deal with such a situation? The simplest answer would be to play along. The other answer is to confront these false notions, to insist on telling truth to power, to work and expose the contradictions that exist in any black-and-white vision of reality.

Our organization, Combatants for Peace, is trying to do just that. Through our dialogue group, where Israeli and Palestinian former combatants meet regularly, we try to touch the hearts and minds of both societies. We try to help our communities become more aware of the reality of the other side, so that nobody can say "I didn’t know." We want Israelis to comprehend the full scale of the oppression inherent to the Israeli occupation, and we want the Palestinians to know that behind the occupation there are humans, who are also suffering. We want both sides to understand the price of violence. Our message is simple: Peace is possible. The only way to reach peace is through dialogue and negotiations, and the only solution is a two state solution -- an end the occupation, in keeping with UN resolutions.

People frequently respond to us as if we were detached from reality, yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Our Palestinian members were all active in violent opposition to the occupation, serving long prison terms for their activities; the Israelis among us all served many years as combat soldiers on the conflict's front lines. We know the lay of the land, and we know the reality. We know the price we’ll have to pay for peace, and we’ve learned with our very flesh that the price of war is a hundred times greater. We live among our peoples and we see and suffer the consequences of this conflict.

...

We don't contest the right of Israel to exist in security and prosperity; nor do we contest the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation and achieve their own state. We question only the methods that have been employed to achieve these goals in the past. These methods were not only ineffective, they were wrong.. Israel is not safe, Palestine is not free, and only the cemeteries are flourishing. Let us try another way.

It is very easy not to believe in peace. The chances of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the near future seem slimmer than ever. The mistaken perception that Israel has “no partner” and that “we gave everything and got nothing” is still widely held. The radical elements currently in play in both political systems, Hamas on one hand and right-wing Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman on the other, combined with the violence between Israel and the Palestinians, between the Palestinian factions, and between Israel and its neighbors can make the search for peace seem at the very least misguided."

Cole on the Proposed Boycott of Israeli Academics, from his Blog on 15 May 2006:

"Yet another attempt is being made to institute an academic boycott in Europe of Israeli professors. Academics, please sign this petition and stand up. Israeli academics as a class have not done anything wrong and it is not right to subject them to a blanket ban."

The petition that Cole was urging academics to sign contained the following argument: "Academic boycott actions are antithetical not only to the principles of academic freedom, but also to the quest for peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Academics often have the knowledge and skills specifically needed for conflict resolution, and can work with colleagues and policy makers from opposing sides on developing equitable solutions to complex problems. Boycotting would deprive the world of the potential contributions of Israeli scholars in these and other humanitarian efforts and would confer no benefit to the Palestinian people."

Juan Cole: From "The Misuses of Anti-Semitism," 30 September 2002 [20]:

" Harvard President Lawrence Summers has equated favoring university divestment from Israeli stocks with anti-Semitism. Summers has for some time misunderstood the duties of his office to include bullying professors, and in this recent equation he is profoundly wrong. He and others who are taking this tack are also pursuing an extremely dangerous and troubling course with dire implications for civil liberties.

In twentieth century American history, Jews were excluded from admission to some private universities, denied the right to rent or buy certain houses, and suffered from false stereotypes. Prominent Americans like Henry Ford spewed vile slanders about them. These bigoted exclusions were profoundly wrong, as were those visited on African-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Prejudice and discrimination against Jews is iconic of ethnic hatred because of the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust makes the dangers of a pervasive hatred of a particular people palpable, and for that reason it is a deeply human event, in the sense that it affects all humankind. The cry of "Never again" is a key support in the struggles of all civil libertarians and human rights workers.

But some use "Never again" in a far more disturbing way, as a warrant for imprisoning, crushing or dispersing the Palestinian people. The state of Israel is a project of Jewish nationalism that is as legitimate as any other national project. But Israel as a state is not perfect and cannot be above criticism in democratic societies, including practical criticism.

The Israeli state is in violation the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (which forbids the mistreatment of civilian populations under military occupation), and of too many Security Council resolutions to list. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems intent on seizing more Palestinian land. Over a fifth of Palestinian children under Israeli occupation are acutely or chronically malnourished, according to US AID and the United Nations.

Ariel Sharon's arrogant trampling on the basic human rights of Palestinians is often justified by reference to the horrible incidents of terrorism suffered by Israel in the past two years. These suicide bombings are unspeakable. A sober estimation of their impact, however, would reveal that about 300 Israelis have died in them per year. More innocent Palestinian civilians, including women and children, have been killed in Israeli military action against the terrorists than have Israeli civilians in the terrorist attacks. The terrorists have amounted to a few dozen individuals, whereas almost all the 3.2 million Palestinians in the occupied territories have been peaceful.

Israel's current harsh lockdown of the entire West Bank would not be countenanced in other similar international situations. Would the United Kingdom have been justified in militarily occupying all of Ireland and keeping all Irish under strict curfew in their houses because of the terrorist attacks of the Irish Republican Army? In the 1970s, after all, the Northern Irish death toll was similar to what Israel has suffered in the past two years. It is hard not to conclude that a certain amount of racism toward west Asians like the Palestinians allows the world to turn a blind eye to such collective punishment."

Again, Cole in his blog: "Why We Should Not Boycott Israeli Academics," originally published 16 July 2002:

"Israeli academics tend to be left of center, and finding one who expresses something other than deep distaste for Sharon is no easy task. It seems especially inappropriate to punish academics for the actions of a government they largely oppose. Many Israeli academics have been involved in the peace movement, which, although badly damaged by the suicide bombings, struggles on.

It is surely that movement which, however dark its prospects now seem, holds the greatest hope for a better future. Kimmerling says that an increasingly chauvinistic Israeli public militates against the independence of journalists, whereas tenured faculty retain the ability to speak out on human-rights abuses.

...

As for the recent sacking of Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University from the editorial boards of the British journals The Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, respectively, here individuals are being sanctioned for the policies of their government, and that is wrong. Ironically, Shlesinger is a prominent Amnesty International activist who has been highly critical of Israeli government policies in the West Bank. In contrast, I could support the divestment campaign at some American campuses, aimed at university investments in Israeli firms, because the business elite in Israel is both more powerful and more entangled in government policy than the academics.

I am not unaware, of course, that in some circles such a position would immediately raise the question of anti-Semitism. For those of us actually involved in the Middle East, that reaction is simply unhelpful. Israel is a state -- just as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan are -- and it is not exempt from censure for illegal or unethical behavior because it is Jewish. I would argue that treating the Sharon government with kid gloves in order to tiptoe around the issue of anti-Semitism would itself be a form of anti-Semitism, a way of cordoning off all Jews as somehow unlike other human beings. In any case, this non-issue was irrelevant to my own thinking, which was more pragmatic. An academic boycott is a political act with a political goal, and if it is unsuited to the purpose then it is bad politics.

I recently appointed an Israeli academic at Hebrew University to the editorial board of the journal I edit. At the Istanbul conference I attended with my Israeli academic colleagues, they promptly led others in working up a petition to protest the policies of the Sharon government in the West Bank and Gaza. I signed it in solidarity with them. Refusing to meet and talk with a concerned party to an epochal set of political and cultural negotiations is the farthest thing from a progressive act."

It is also important to note that Cole does not obsess over the Arab-Israeli conflict, but spends a great deal more time discussing Iraq, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern issues in his Blog and in his published articles.

I hope that Isarig and others involved in this mediation read through this material and then come to a decision on whether to include Karsh's accusations of anti-semitism against Cole in the article. The passages above demonstrate clearly, I believe, that Cole looks at Israel, and the broader Mideast, from an academic rather than racist perspective. After reading even a bit of what Cole has written on Israel, Karsh's insinuation smacks of libel. Defamation is not necessary in this article about Cole. And yes, Isarig, I am calling for speedy resolution of this issue - I'm glad you recognized the spade. -Thucydides411 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the debate here is not at all based on my negative opinion of Cole - my opinion is entirely irrelevant. The debate here is based on Karsh's negative opinion of Cole, and Oren's, and Joffe's, and Harris's, and Kramer's, and many others'. These are all notable critics, who have voiced their criticism of Cole in reliable sources, and have alleged that he is an antisemite or that his writings contain antisemitic ideas. On Wikipedia, our task is not to debate these allegations or attempt to prove them false - it is to present them in a NPOV way, alongside Cole's responses to them. Isarig 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe the allegations against Cole to be defamation? -Thucydides411 06:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are also not merely talking about Karsh's "negative opinion" of Cole, but about his accusation of anti-semitism specifically. -Thucydides411 06:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Isarig 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is obvious why you think his accusations are noteworthy. You yourself agree with them. I can only postulate as to what has brought you to this conclusion, but that has little bearing here. The question is whether desultory attacks that are patently false and made only by dogged political opponents of Cole should be included. If they should be included, then at least Cole's equally strong words in his defense must be included. -Thucydides411 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that those who believe the accusations are noteworthy refuse to acknowledge evidence from the real world (e.g. Cole's actual comments and articles about Israel, Jews, the war, etc.) Instead, the only evidence that appears to "count" for them is the statements of his political opponents. Lacking any actual textual evidence for such charges, these commentators invariably rely on speculation about what Cole is actually thinking when he writes -- the comment that the Protocols "resound powerfully" in Cole's writings is just silly. Either Karsh can point to textual evidence to support that claim or he can't -- and it is clear that he can't (or, at least, won't). Tangential textual evidence is pointed to by other critics (e.g. Cole's comments about Admin officials with close ties to the Likud party) -- this "evidence" requires logical contortions to support the point, and such evidence would only be persuasive if there was no other textual evidence to refute it. However, Cole's explicit comments about Jews, Israel, etc. are diametrically opposed to this view -- he states clearly that Jews are not behind the war, that Israeli scholars should be supported regardless of their government's actions. He even points out that he would have an equal problem with American govt officials with close ties to the Syrian Baath party. The textual evidence on this issue is absolutely conclusive, but it is waved away by those who insist that Karsh's view is equally valid because he has an endowed position somewhere. I tried to raise these issues above (see "Antisemitism section") and I'm hoping the mediator will eventually come back to them, but so far they have been ignored. csloat 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the issue of whether or not Karsh's claims are 'patently false' (the standard on Wp in verifiability and notabilit, not truth)- the noteworthiness of Karsh's criticisms have nothing to do with my belief that he's correct. I also happen to believe that my sister is correct when she says Cole is a blowhard, but that does not make it notable. What Makes Karsh's criticism notbale is that (a) he is a notable critic, as head of ME studies at a respected university, (b) his opinion was published by a mainstream reliable source, and (c) it caused controversy - as evidenced by Cole's shrill response to it. I also happen to believe that Karsh is correct, but that is wholly beside the point, and my opinion does not matter one bit with regards to the notability of this issue. Isarig 04:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, I don't understand why you're interested in editing the Wikipedia page on a man whose work you've never read, and of whom you clearly know next to nothing. Given the utter lack of knowledge you've displayed about Cole, you should recuse yourself from editing his page. You have a political grievance against Cole - that he is critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and you would therefore like to edit his page to cite accusations of anti-semitism, while not even including his response to that slander. Of course, I don't have to tell you this, as you know it yourself. -Thucydides411 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've crossed the line in this last post between opinionated POV-pushing into personal attacks on me and lack of civility. I suggest you review the relevant Wikipedia policies. I have read plenty of Cole, as even a cursory examination of my contributions on his page shows. I am done interacting with you. Isarig 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I stand by what I've written. -Thucydides411 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Apparently, Juan Cole did not even respond to Karsh's charge until he saw it on Wikipedia. Doesn't it suggest that the charge is not noteworthy if the subject only comments in response to the Wikipedia article? We're creating a closed loop here, where a charge gains notoriety and a response because it is featured in this Wikipedia article. Because the charge has elicited a response, it is now deemed noteworthy. -Thucydides411 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly the goal of those who insist so vehemently on including this charge on the page -- to use wikipedia as a vehicle to give the character assassination a veneer of notability. Wikipedia should not be used for such purposes. The bizarre thing is that those same editors are using that as a reason to censor Cole's explicit response to the charge. csloat 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:AGF. Isarig 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. csloat 06:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Isarig would comment on the above, rather than simply referring back to "Assume Good Faith." The notablilty of the "Dual Loyalties" section is, or should be, the greatest concern in this mediation. We cannnot continue this mediation indefinitely if people refuse or decline to discuss the issues raised. -Thucydides411 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - we do need our mediator to come back and help out, but I think it would help if we actually tried to work the issues out in his absence rather than trying to wikilawyer this debate. csloat 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, I am done interacting with you. You are not a party to this mediation, you are uncivil, and resort to personal attacks against those who disagree with you. On top of that, you are trying to force the outcome of this mediation by editing the page to reflect your POV. Our interaction will be through WP:ANI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

I'll go ahead and edit as if there were no mediation then, as there apparently is none. -Thucydides411 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The mediation is ongoing until we are otherwise informed. <<-armon->> 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Martinp23 updated his user page yesterday, and said he will be absent for another week, and perhaps longer. Abbenm 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line on Karsh[edit]

1. Karsh's charge is trivially notable for inclusion. He is a distinguished professor, and the charge comes in an article written in The New Republic, a major magazine. Verifiability, not truth, is the policy here, people. WP:BLP speaks against poorly-sourced charges, which this isn't, and undue weight - and one sentence in an article of this size is not undue weight, especially given that similar charges are made by the two other cited reliable sources in the paragraph - Middle East Quarterly and Front Page Magazine.

2. Juan Cole's response is also notable for inclusion. WP:V states that "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." His blog obviously applies. It is not relevant that he responded "because" he saw the charge on Wikipedia. Who cares how he came to know of the charge? What policy allows us to remove material simply because it may have been produced in response to other material found in Wikipedia? Meatpuppetry does not apply here because the response is notable in its own right, given the subject is well-known, he's responding to an attack upon himself, and his blog is well-known. - Merzbow 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue in that these sources are not third-party, which is a requirement of BLP -- third party would be someone neutral such as the New York Times writing a piece that notes that there have been some charges, which is clearly not the case here. Also Front Page Magazine is not considered a reliable source in and of itself. Additionally, the author of the article in the Middle East Quarterly is a pro-Israel lobbyist, not an academic. The lack of third party sources indicates to me that this is more of a minor spat between partisan ideological camps than a truly notable event. --70.51.231.13 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what "third-party" means. There is no requirement that the originator of the charges cannot be the author of the article cited as the source of the charges - the requirement is that the article be PUBLISHED by a reliable third-party - which is, in this case, The New Republic. I disagree that FPM is not a reliable source - it is not AS reliable as other sources, but reliability is not the black-and-white issue you seem to think it is, which is why WP:RS is a guideline and not policy. And whatever your opinion is of the author of the MEQ piece, if MEQ is reliable as a source, which is also so, then so is everything that it publishes. - Merzbow 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with MEQ? It is published by Middle East Forum, which also runs the pro-Israel Campus Watch program. The pro-Israel lobbyist, Jonathan Calt Harris, that wrote the piece in MEQ gives his credentials as being affiliated with the Campus Watch program. The problem with MEQ is that it blurs the lines between political advocacy and scholarly research, and in this particular case, it is engaging in straight forward political advocacy. Campus Watch criticized Juan Cole, Juan Cole responded, MEQ publishes a piece by a Campus Watch person attacking Juan Cole. Yes, things aren't simple in this area and thus I recommend ArbCom. --70.51.231.13 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sequence of events is quite correct, anon, and I think the article would be much improved by describing this as a political dispute between Cole and his Campus Watch enemies rather than as a legitimate controversy over whether Cole is actually racist, which is just absurd. The current state of the page basically makes Wikipedia a participant in this political battle. That shouldn't be Wikipedia's role. csloat 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the most accurate portrayal of reality. --70.48.68.62 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me one thing - is or is not Karsh a distinguished history professor in this field? You can take all the potshots at "Campus Watch" you want, but there's no way you're going to be able to avoid the fact that this criticism is being directly echoed by an absolutely impeccable source. - Merzbow 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon is not taking pot-shots at Campus Watch. It's a McCarthyite organization that encourages students to report teachers critical of Israel, and which keeps lists of such professors. The very name, "Campus Watch," is in itself menacing enough. I don't think any serious academic should involve themselves with such an organization. The editorials written by Karsh that I've read are written in anything but a scholarly tone - the one at the center of this debate, regarding Cole, is a good example. I'd say that just Karsh's association with Campus Watch should discredit him. In any case, his association with Campus Watch at least makes it clear that this is a politically-motivated charge. Given what Cole has actually written about anti-semitism, about Israel, etc., the charge is rather pathetic. -Thucydides411 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's playing McCarthyism? Because he has any association at all with a group that you dislike, he is entirely discredited? Wow. Can I now go through every article on Wikipedia and remove every cite from any professor associated with any left-wing organization that I dislike? - Merzbow 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, I am not against inclusion of Karsh from TNR in the article with context and full response from Juan Cole. I was mostly pointing out that MEQ is not reliable source as you had just claimed, it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge that. Also, as I have pointed out before, the question of dual loyalties comes up often and it would be best to treat it in context rather than as a one off deal. For example, see Diaspora politics in the United States and Ethnic interest groups and A Clean Break and another article from TNR (reg req) and even dual loyalties, right now we don't link to any other accounts and artificially present this as an isolated incident devoid of context. The current way we are handling this is misleading. Your inclusion of Juan Cole's full response was better than prior versions, but it would be best to treat this in context. --70.48.68.62 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not acknowledging that MEQ is not a "reliable source", because there is no black-and-white divide between reliable and non-reliable, it depends on context. This comes back to the reason why WP:RS is a guideline and not policy. Cole is a hybrid scholarly/political figure, therefore criticism of him is going to be found primarily from hybrid scholarly/political sources. The fact that they are echoed by a noted professor in a noted magazine is further evidence this is not undue weight. Anyways, we can disagree on this point but still agree on the inclusion of Cole's response. Believe me, I am going to continue to work hard to make sure that response gets in there. - Merzbow 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Merzbow: I agree with the premise of your previous remarks: Cole is a hybrid scholarly/political figure, therefore criticism of him is going to be found primarily from hybrid scholarly/political sources. But I think we should be very careful of how we choose quotes to support a claim made by critics (in this instance the charge of anti-semitism). The charge made by most of these critics is antisemitism, not belief in the protocols. Why are we using this particular quote, which brings up the protocols (which we all agree is an odious hoax), to support the claim, has been one issue in the current mediation and in discussions spanning nearly a year; this alongside other claims that Cole's response is name-calling, does not originate in a reliable source etc. --CSTAR 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, pointing out that someone belongs to an organization that would like to silence professors through intimidation is not McCarthyism. What I was trying to point out is that Karsh would like to silence Cole's criticism of Likud and neoconservatives, or at least discredit Cole through assertions of anti-semitism. That is why I do not think Karsh is a reliable source here; he's using the charge of anti-semitism as a tactic to discredit Cole, and not because Cole has actually written or said anything anti-semitic. The dual loyalties charge is something which has been widely asserted. Cole views himself as a pragmatist when it comes to foreign policy, and thinks that people who claim that Israel's interests are automatically American interests are not necessarily representing the interests of America. For example, some think that unconditional support for Israel has been harmful to American relations with Arab states. But rather than respond to these concerns, which are based on Cole's views on American interests, Karsh claims that they come from hatred of Jews. Doesn't that sound a bit dishonest? Especially since Karsh presumably should know better, it sounds to me like he's using a ploy to undermine Cole's credibility. -Thucydides411 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I think it misses the point to say Karsh is "trying to silence" anybody. Karsh's criticism is political and polemical. Karsh is a reliable source; the right question to ask, I think is "for what claim is he a reliable source?" And to use his writing as a reliable source is not the same as using a polemical quote in the body of the text (as opposed to a footnote).--CSTAR 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Karsh article is long and meaty, and he expounds at great length upon the particular charge of Cole's obsession with Jewish power. What if, instead of quoting Karsh and Cole's response, we summarize them without repeating the most objectionable parts of either (Protocols comparison, etc.), while keeping the substance intact? This technique has worked successfully in other articles. - Merzbow 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we did this in the past, after the Karsh article came out. Elizmr 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Also, I disagree with a remark made above, Karsh doesn't say that Cole "hates the Jews" that would be a ridiculous and libelous comment for him or anyone to make. That kind of statement doesn't belong on Wikipedia even on a talkpage. What Karsh says are that themes of the antisemeitc conspiracy theory resonate in Cole's blog. Cole does often write as though there is some rich and powerful conspiracy bent on power for Israel in play when he writes about stuff concerning Israel. Cases in point: his thoughts on "the lobby", his remarks on MEMRI, and his remarks on dual loyalties of a few people in government. Karsh is making an observation concerning this stuff. He makes it in a good source and he is notable in the area he is writing about. There is absolutely NO basis, except for POV pushing, for relegating his comment out of the article or into a footnote. And regarding the statement about that Karsh is adopting a POV he doen't really believe to discredit Cole, if you believe he is calling "antisemitism" in order to discredit, then maybe you believe tht Karsh is also part of some Jewish conspiracy! Come on folks, let's get real. Cole has a lot going for him in terms of his comments on Iraq, etc, but this observation of Karsh's is not without basis. Elizmr 23:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cole certainly does not "write as though there is some rich and powerful conspiracy" at work here, and in fact, he has quite explicitly stated on several occasions that there is not such a conspiracy (case in point, his statements about the war in Iraq, and about Mel GTibson's comments, and about Jews in general). Stating that there is a pro-Israel lobby is not a conspiracy theory; it is a well known and open fact. There is plenty of debate in the public arena - among Jews and non-Jews alike - about whether that lobby's influence is exaggerated, but the fact that such a lobby exists is an undeniable fact. That is no surprise, of course; in a representative democracy, there are all kinds of lobbies that promote certain interests. To equate the existence of such lobbies with conspiracy theory is more than a bit hysterical. As for Cole's statements on MEMRI, the very idea that these comments have anything in common with the Protocols of Zion is absolutely ridiculous - I don't even know where to begin addressing such a charge. The dual loyalties issue is one we have debated to death, so I'll not continue it here; suffice to say that Cole has explicitly rejected the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in the US government with regard to the war in Iraq. So, again, to equate a concern with dual loyalties (a valid concern if, say, there were individuals in the US government with close identifiable ties to the Syrian Baath Party) to a "Jewish conspiracy" is a ridiculous stretch. csloat 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Elizmr Re: There is absolutely NO basis, except for POV pushing, for relegating his comment out of the article or into a footnote. In fact, there is a case to be made, as is evinced by the fact that I and others here have tried to make such a case. You could have legimately made the claim that that the arguments we used to make our case, are wrong or the premises on which they are based are incorrect. But I don't see what evidence you have to attribute to myself and others a hidden motive for making a case to exclude it.--CSTAR 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY to CSTAR Please do not try to paint me as intransigent. I apologize if I have not made my point well enough, but you should know by now that I am always willing to discuss and am usually quite reaonable. You said (I think) that Karsh is notable but not to make the particular point he is making, is that fair? Karsh is a recognized expert in mod middle eastern affairs. He has made an observation about Coles blog. The subject of Cole's blog is in keeping with the area of expertise that Karsh has. Right so far? OK. That part I didn't address above, but only beasue others have done so. The part I did address was that Karsh's point is a reasonable observation fo Cole's work. I would ask that editors allow this POV to come through, as well as the POV that it is a spurious charge, politically motivated, or whatever. That's another take on it. I'm not asking you and Sloat to agree with me, I don't want to convince either of you of anything, and I don't expect you to convince me of anything. We can all disagree. It doesn't matter. I just want all sides to be aired in the article, as they should be in ANY Wikipedia article. Elizmr 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Elizmr Thanks for your reply. I don't think I was trying to paint you as intransigeant or anything else; nor did I suggest you weren't reasonable. I thought was simply noting a fact about the argument you made in your comment, which countered evidence on this page.

Concerning the Karsh quote, I have said that there are many combinations of quotes and paraphrases from critics AND quotes and paraphrases from Cole that are acceptable, in my view. I don't reject outright the inclusion of Karsh's quote in the text, as I clearly said at the beginning of the mediation (it should be still on this page somewhere). But there are also legitimate arguments to exclude the quotes, while still retaining the sense of the paragraph, which is that Cole has been accused of antisemitism. --CSTAR 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize what I think are the two key points here, one by Elizmr and the other by Csloat. I agree with Elizmr that both views should be represented, that Karsh has expertise in Cole's area and can be quoted along with Cole's response. It should be stated in-line that the charge was published in the New Republic, taking care with the phrasing so there's no whiff of well-poisoning. Csloat writes that this represents "a political dispute between Cole and his Campus Watch enemies rather than as a legitimate controversy over whether Cole is actually racist." He's right. Framing is more important than phrasing in this case. The feud between Cole and a handful of figures associated with Campus Watch has been bitter and continuous since 9-11, covering many themes. It has only once or twice surfaced in the mainstream media; this is one of those times, and the charge du jour happens to be antisemitism. But the context here is not a mainstream debate about Cole's antisemitism; there is no such debate. The context is the clash between (so-called) liberal academia and its critics after 9-11. We need a good article on post-9-11 proposals for reform of American universities (comprising Campus Watch, the David Project, H.R. 3077/509 and "Title VI reform," David Horowitz's state initiatives, etc.), that we could then link to from passages like this.--G-Dett 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with you starting a new article about the clash between liberal academia and its critics after 9-11, and perhaps some of this stuff deserves a mention there, as well. However to frame this controversy as "a feud between Cole and a handful of figures associated with Campus Watch" which did not get into the mainstream media is a gross mischaracterization of the events. The charge that Cole is an antisemite has appeared in numerous mainstream media outlets, as has been shown, with cites, on this page, again and again. And the association of Cole's critics with Campus Watch exists almost exclusively in Cole's head, and in the minds of his supporters. Michale Oren is associated with Capus Watch? How? John Fund? Isarig 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig, of course you're right that Oren and Fund aren't associated with Campus Watch. And I do not mean to suggest that anyone who is should therefore be discounted (as someone here has pointed out, that would itself be an instance of McCarthy-esque guilt-by-association). My point is that insofar as there's any notable controversy about Cole, it's rooted in the clash between liberal academia and its would-be reformers after 9-11. This isn't a fantasy of Cole's. If you read Martin Kramer's work (both his various blogs and his 2002 book Ivory Towers on Sand), he is obsessed with Cole because Cole is for him emblematic of what's wrong with the institutional culture and mechanisms of peer review within Middle East Studies. That feud with Cole is part of a general feud with what Kramer calls the "higher education lobby," which began in 2001 and has continued unabated up to the present. Kramer still blogs about it every time he so much as thinks he's caught Cole in error. But this feud has only surfaced in the mainstream media once, in two sources so far as I know, one mention apiece – so "numerous mainstream media outlets" is very misleading. The little flap about "dual loyalties" provided the occasion. The Wall Street Journal and the New Republic may be mainstream in many respects, but their Middle-East-related commentary is generally thought to be hawkish verging on extreme in its "support for Israel" (I never use these question-begging phrases outside of inverted commas). Their charge of antisemitism has simply had no legs with Cole. No one's taken that baton and run with it, as they did with Carter or Walt and Mearsheimer, for example – not even Andrew Sullivan, who is a hawk himself, very "pro-Israel," and quite thick with the honchos at the New Republic, his alma mater after all. Sullivan continued and continues to link respectfully to Cole. The main news media just ignored the charges against Cole completely, perhaps rightly smelling a campaign of character assassination, who knows. His blog has continued to be highly popular, and he continues to be consulted for his expertise by a range of mainstream media organs. I have no objection to including the Karsh quote and other criticisms, in context, with Cole's response. What would be very objectionable, however, is if we were to use Wikipedia to inflate the notability of criticisms that appear to have had zero influence, and were indeed almost dead on arrival. Two op-eds in two highly partisan sources does not a controversy make. There should not be a bolded section on "Dual Loyalties," for G-d's sake. --G-Dett 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There is even more on this. Look at Hitchens' piece in Slate here to see his dismantling of Cole's irreponsible mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's (the holocaust denier) invocation to "destroy" Israel. Slate is a very-well known web magazine and I'd say it merits inclusion in the article. Comparing Cole to Carter is ridiculous; Carter is a former president, Cole is a professor of middling talent at a middling university; the fact Cole has gotten this much press given his position is notable. - Merzbow 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Merzbrow: I'm sorry to say that's an unwarranted attack. Among other things, to claim Michigan is a middling university is utterly ridiculous (IMHO). --CSTAR 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CSTAR. Merzbow, your brief post is silly in so many ways it's difficult to know where to begin. Whether your comment reflected snobbery or ignorance or a delicate hybrid of the two, the fact remains that Michigan is in the top tier of research institutions in the country. Cole may not be as prominent as Carter but he's far more so than Walt and Mearsheimer, so nice try on that front. Now then, I like Hitchens as much as anybody, and he's certainly a much better writer and livelier debater than Cole. Note however that the column in question says nothing about antisemitism; it's about apologetics for Islamism through the prism of a translation debate. If you think a quibble about Farsi translation from a magazine columnist who doesn't speak the language belongs in a Wikipedia article about a professor who does, please explain why. And while you gather your thoughts on the subject, do note that Hitchens' piece is a mere variation on a theme from Martin Kramer, who, as I mentioned, is a connoisseur of supposed errata like this from Cole, which he lovingly and wittily and bloggily curates under the heading "Cole-slaw." Google all day for ephemeral insults made about Cole, and you'll find that most roads if not all do indeed lead back to Kramer, Campus Watch, and the boys. That, as I've said, is the context here, not any debate about antisemitism, which – despite the dogged efforts of a few – never gained the hoped-for traction. The debate we're having here is about whether Wikipedia should give those accusations a prominence they never earned in what is fondly called "the marketplace of ideas." You know my feelings on the matter. More relevant, however, is Wikipedia policy – namely WP:Undue Weight. --G-Dett 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing from the mediation[edit]

It seems that we have now started editing the contnetious issues that have been debated on this page for weeks, without any acknowledgement of the arguments being made by the particpants to the mediation. This makes the "mediation" process an irrelvant side show, and I have no intention of participating in this side show. I am wthdrawing from the "mediation" process. Isarig 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to close the mediation based on this, as I'm sure the parties are aware. I regret that my absence has probably contributed in no small part to the failure of this mediation - unfortunately, the internet and phone line problems are out of my hands, and still prevent me from editing from home - my usual location. I have to say, looking through the page now, that I am shocked that so many external parties have waded in and have made the mediation process into a sea of (from the point of view of the mediation request) unrelated opinions. In my absence, this page has simply turned into an extended Talk:Juan Cole, and hence everything has broken down. If another mediation request is to be filed, I would encourage a more substantial list of parties, to avoid al of these external parties who do seem to have a vested interest in the article. MedCab remains a viable option, as does further input from BLP specialists in the community. I would only expect this issue to be accepted as a case for arbitration if there were substantial behavoir issues across mulitple articles amongst the parties - it is important to remeber not to threat mediation as a loop to jump through to get to arbitration, as it is rare that the ArbComm accepts a case which is purely based on content. Although tried already, ANI is a viable place to ask for input. I hope that the dispute can be amicably resolved soon, and would be happy to see another mediation request in future. Mart inp23 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I would like to thank the parties for, on the whole, being highly mature and flexible in their requests, helping to find a compromise. We were getting there - don't forget that - and please take what we have found here and use it to form compromisies between yourselves or in another mediation case. This page can be deleted if the parties request it - get in touch if you want this. Mart inp23 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

^ Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - Darling by Jonathan Calt Harris, Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2004
^ Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006 13(1)
^ Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic
^ Juan Cole, The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, The History News Network, September 30 2006; see also Juan Cole, "Criticize Israel? How dare they!" Chicago Sun-Times (23 April 2006) p. B2.

[1] Juan Cole, Media - and MESA - Darling by Jonathan Calt Harris, Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2004

[DeclineOfMES-2] Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies Alexander H. Joffe, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006 13(1)

[Karsh-3] Juan Cole's Bad blog, by Efraim Karsh in the The New Republic

[4] Juan Cole, The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, The History News Network, September 30 2006; see also Juan Cole, "Criticize Israel? How dare they!" Chicago Sun-Times (23 April 2006) p. B2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]