Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 1 May 2007

Welcome to community enforceable mediation. This is the comment page. If you are not a named party to this mediation, please post comments, evidence, and suggestions here. The mediator Durova may move or refactor statements as necessary.

Suggestion 1 from TheronJ

• I don't immediately see any comunity enforceable solutions to this problem. That doesn't mean we can't help you, but unless there is an edit warring problem or something, I don't see how agreeing to 1RR or agreeing to a one month mutual break on editing Cole's page would help much with this specific problem.
• Is it possible that CSloat and Armon could agree to take the sentence back to its bare facts? Something like:

"Prior to _date_, Cole was best known for his academic scholarship regarding _subject_, and for his role in the Middle Eastern Studies Association. After _date_, Cole has became increasingly well known for his weblog, Informed Comment, and for his appearances as a commentator on Middle Eastern issues."

• That compromise leaves the issue of what role Cole's blogging activities played in his media appearances up to the reader, and produces a nicely encyclopedic discussion of Cole's work and public appearances.

Thanks, TheronJ 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants to CEM don't actually have to agree to remedies. If they work out a handshake deal, so much the better. Durova 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor

I read the article as it currently exists:

Public interest in Cole's blog led to attention from other media sources. From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East.

I also read a previous version:

Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002. Since 2002, when he began publishing his weblog, his status as a public intellectual was enhanced.

I suggest that the word "numerous" is something of a weasel word (it is too indefinite and vague), and when you see a weasel word, it almost always comes out of a problem with NPOV according to the policy.

If I understand the issue correctly (and I may not), it appears that the timing of his status is in question. Any cite that gives a clear date and a clear statement that his popularity started at that time, would significantly support that view. I believe Armon came pretty close to that. On the other hand, csloat does not want his former status to be ignored -- and indeed csloat presents cites showing that he had a presence of some sort before the time of his blog. But csloat's cites do not give an indication of just how popular he was. Only that he was, from time to time, quoted. Armon's does allude to the timing much more directly.

But the paragraph as it currently stands, entirely ignores the prior interest in Cole. Even if he was not as popular, he was a source and this is not represented at all.

I have a suggested alternative to either of the solutions shown above:

Cole has been quoted or used as a source by periodicals since at least 1990 . However, with the publication of his weblog in 2002, demand for his views (or notice of them) by other media increased.

I think that gets rid of weasel words and it was created NPOV because I have no pov on this issue because I know nothing about it and do not care. It also preserves references offered by both individuals. If this version does not work, what are the problems with it?--Blue Tie 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tighten up the wording a bit but I do not object to this idea in general. If we preserve the pre-2002 citations I think this would be alright. I also think the Chronicle quotation is useful. I don't think this is a POV issue at all, though I understand your point about the word "numerous." The citations do make it clear he is being cited as a middle east expert. I was not claiming or trying to claim that he was "popular" as a result of these citations. I think this discussion belongs on this page, btw, but I appreciate the suggestions. csloat 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not think you were trying to make a point bout him being popular, but I thought that the other editor might read it that way. I figured you wanted it known that he was not a "new" element on the scene. I figure that your other editor wants to demonstrate the power of his blog. I think that these two concepts are accommodated. I do not take any ownership of the text I put up, so if it is roughly close to what you think you could accept and if he also thinks it is close to what he can accept, maybe you can refine it to an agreeable position. If not, maybe something else will come up. I am starting to think that the key is to think positively of the other person and do your best to give them their point while retaining yours as well. --Blue Tie 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the reply by theronj. I see it as approximately in the same vein as my suggestion though perhaps stripped a bit more bare. --Blue Tie 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with those suggestions is that they are still OR. It's a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position -that of Cole being some sort of a media commentator previous to his blog. The actual content of the citations are not used, simply their existence is used to advance this point. This is also predicated on an extremely dubious reading of the original passage that "we not pretend that Cole never was considered an expert until his blog got 200,000 visitors, as Armon's edit implies." This is frankly nonsense, both in terms of it being "my" edit, and what it supposedly implies about his "expertise". The article makes very clear what his expertise is in Background, education, appointments and awards and Academic interests before the reader even gets to the Commentator on Middle Eastern affairs section. Again, I will appeal to the citations, they clearly state that:

1. "Because of his presence on the Internet, journalists, for the first time, began to take notice and turned to him and his Web page as a resource."
2. "With the debut of his Web log, Informed Comment, four years ago, Juan R.I. Cole became arguably the most visible commentator writing on the Middle East today."
3. "Cole’s online weblog, “Informed Comment,” has made him a minor celebrity and a controversial figure for his outspoken leftist opinions."
4. "Cole started his blog, which he called Informed Comment and subtitled Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion, in April 2002. It quickly established itself as a popular source of information on the Middle East, attracting a reported 200,000 page-views per month. Informed Comment also caught the eye of journalists, earning Cole dozens of mentions in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies, an hour-long appearance on NPR's "Fresh Air," and 14 appearances on the "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer. The Village Voice advised its readers, "If you're not already visiting Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog (juancole.com) on a daily basis, now's the time to get in the habit," while L.A. Weekly called Cole's blog "a must-read for anyone seriously interested in Iraq." In 2003, Informed Comment won the 2003 Koufax Award for best expert blog, and, last year, Cole was even asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the fissures within Iraqi society and his ideas for creating a stable Iraqi government." reprinted here

As you can see, the issue of "causality" is easily settled by the citations. There is no "chicken and the egg" problem, and the fact that Cole wasn't a media commentator of any note before his blog says absolutely nothing concerning his expertise. There is also no justification for pointing to a status pre-blog, that he clearly did not have. <<-armon->> 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The causality that I see is that the blog made him exceptionally popular. That is all I can see from these citations. They do not speak to his expertise but to his popularity and only after the blog started. However, none of them say that he was not an expert and none of them say that he was not known before the blog. The only one that might possibly say THAT is the first one where it says journalists began to take notice. And I saw that as not having to be read as strictly literal. --Blue Tie 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I've added in links to the cites. Should have done that in the fist place -sorry. What I find particularly silly about this is that Cole himself attributes his status as a media commentator to his blog. See the full page here:

"Like the history that he teaches, Juan Cole’s emergence as a 21st century media phenomenon is the product of convergence. Geopolitics and technology and professional pursuits have combined to transform a once-obscure university professor into an analyst hundreds of thousands of people are turning to as an alternative source of information regarding the war in Iraq.

There was a time not long ago when the opinion pieces Cole submitted to magazines and newspapers would go unpublished. No one had much interest in the insights being offered by this University of Michigan history professor who made study of the Middle East and its religions his specialty....

...Cole relates his trajectory in a matter-of-fact way, with no trace of a braggart in his tone.

As Cole points out, e-mails, by nature, are “ephemeral. You send them and they are gone.” And they have a relatively narrow audience.

By the winter of 2001-02, however, blogging as a phenomenon was beginning to take off, and Cole, who describes himself as “very wired,” was there at the start, ready to ride that technological wave as it began to form.

It was, at that point, a “relatively minor sort of thing,” he explains, nothing more than a hobby. The Iraq war came in the spring of 2003, and he began focusing attention on that. Still, his blog remained relatively obscure. That all changed the following year when, following the capture of Saddam, a “huge pilgrimage from Baghdad to the holy city of Karbala took place. There were thousands and thousands of people flagellating themselves and chanting, and the American media and the American public suddenly said, ‘Who are these people?’”

With one of his specialties being the modern history of Shiite Islam, Cole could answer those questions. Because of his presence on the Internet, journalists, for the first time, began to take notice and turned to him and his Web page as a resource.

A flurry of media appearances occurred, and his blog began gaining wider notice. The site, which would get just a few hundred hits each month when first begun, steadily attracted more readers...

...Other Web blogs were taking notice and posting links to Informed Comment. And suddenly, instead of having submissions rejected, editors were calling, asking him to write opinion pieces.

“I found out that it is much better when they ask you to write something,” he laughs."

(emphasis mine) Maybe sloat just didn't read the cites I gave him? I don't know. <<-armon->> 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, Armon. I could just as easily ask whether you've read the arguments I typed here on this page, since you seem to be ignoring them. The issue, to be clear, is not whether Cole's blog led to an increase in his media presence -- on that we agree. The issue is whether that relationship is causal or more complicated (e.g., his media presence, to repeat myself, also led to an increase in his blog's popularity) and, more importantly, whether we should be summarily deleting evidence of his media presence prior to 2002. csloat 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was some content of note in those cites I have no objection to using them appropriately, however, the use you propose, isn't. This is because a) he had no notable media presence before blogging, and b) there's no question that it was his blogging which changed this, and c) the evidence and the interpretation that you've advanced for an alternative view is OR. If you have a cite which supports your view, let's see it. <<-armon->> 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to include the content of those cites, but that is not the point here. The point is that he was cited as an expert by the media at those times, and the cites back it up. If you would like the relevant quotations cited too, I'm certain we can do that. csloat 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon's own citations dispute his claim. That he wants to hide sources from before 2002 on the dubious grounds that he can "prove" causality by quoting more recent sources is, in my mind, extremely problematic. First, I see no reason for WP to impute causality, even if we can cite ten sources that do so. Cite the sources and attribute the claims appropriately. Second, Armon's sources themselves dispute this claim. They do not all claim causality; they claim that Cole became a celebrity after his blog appeared. This is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In at least one case - which I quoted on the project page - the quotation actually cuts both ways, indicating that his blog popularity was driven in part by his media commentary. In the above, Armon cites a source (though without giving us a link, unfortunately) that indicates that Cole's blog was mentioned "in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies..." That's exactly my point -- the mass media commentary became an advertisement for Cole's blog, so causality, again, is more complex than Armon would like to make it. Third, he is deleting a factual statement that is well backed up with five sources (and could easily be backed up with double that), based on his assertion that "he clearly did not have" a "pre-blog" status. The factual statement that he deletes, however, does not claim that -- it says that he was cited in several sources prior to 2002. That is a factually accurate and notable claim. csloat 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Armon makes a good case that the blog helped him become more popular. I can see where you are saying it goes both ways, and that is true, but simplistically (and that is best) the blog supported him and was the source of popularity per those quotes.

But I do not quite understand. Let me ask a few questions:

Is there an issue about whether he is an expert or not?

Is there an issue about whether he was a commentator before his blog?

Is there an issue about how popular he was before his blog?

Is there an issue about what made him popular?

--Blue Tie 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't deny that the blog made him more popular. My suggested version of the page said exactly that, in words that did not create the sense of a strict one-way causality. My version accurately reports that after his blog was published, he was sought after more. Armon and I both agree on that point. Armon, however, would like to go beyond this point, and censor all mention of his expertise being cited prior to April 2002. That is one issue. The other issue is that Armon wants WP to say that the only reason Cole was cited was because of his blog. To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why he wants to do this. To answer your questions directly -- #1 - I don't think there is an issue; surely Armon agrees he is an expert. #2 -- That seems to be the issue; Armon wants the citations from pre-blog days censored. #3 -- I don't think that's a question; both armon and I would agree he was more popular after his blog. #4 may be an issue, as Armon would like to claim, in an example of post hoc reasoning, that his blog was the sole reason for Cole's popularity. Hope this makes sense. csloat 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to OR. If it's post hoc reasoning, you'll need to take it up with Cole himself.

"It so happens that as a result of my Web log, the Middle East Journal had invited me to contribute for the fall 2003 issue. When the Senate staff of the Foreign Relations Committee did a literature search on Muqtada al-Sadr and his movement, mine was the only article that came up. Senate staff and some of the senators, themselves, read it and were eager to have my views on the situation."

<<-armon->> 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You, not Cole, are the one insisting on post hoc reasoning. If you want to quote Cole to that effect I have no objection. I do object to Misplaced Pages stating something that is manifestly untrue just because you can find a quote by Cole that backs up a tangential point. The quote above does nnot state that Cole did not have media appearances prior to 2002. All it states is that the Senate found his article in the Middle East Journal and read it. So his blog led to a MEJ article which led to Senate testimony. I'm willing to accept that but it really doesn't have anything to do with the controversy here. csloat 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this may surprise you but in a way, you might be the one doing the OR. This quote says that as a result of the blog, he was invited to do certain things. It does not speak to his past nor does it even speak to his popularity. So be careful about how hard you want to push the OR thing.

But let me ask you to respond to the same four questions I asked of csloat. --Blue Tie 11:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if I might be the one doing the OR, but there's little chance of that given the evidence.

To address your questions:

Is there an issue about whether he is an expert or not?

His expertise on some of topics he covers on his blog has been challenged, but the issue of his expertise is only relevant in the sense that journalists went to Cole, rather than some other blogger without Cole's bona fides.

Is there an issue about whether he was a commentator before his blog?

No. There's no evidence that he was a commentator of any note. There are no cites stating this. Cole himself said he couldn't get his opinions published.

Is there an issue about how popular he was before his blog?

No. He's described as "a once-obscure university professor" who "enjoyed anonymity outside his professional circle."

Is there an issue about what made him popular?

No. It's clear that it was his blog which attracted the attention of journalists, journals, and led to an appearance before the US congress. <<-armon->> 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear enough. I meant "is there an issue between you and csloat" on those questions. But judging from you answers I can see there is one big one. So tell me this: Why is it so important that we recognize his obscurity prior to the blog? --Blue Tie 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:A What do the sources say concerning his fame prior to his blog? <<-armon->> 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, but since nobody is arguing that he had "fame prior to his blog," it really isn't an issue, now is it? To respond to your responses to the questions -- #1 is kind of silly, since nobody has raised any legitimate challenge to his expertise; he is certainly credentialed and has a position and is almost universally referred to as an "expert" on these issues. #2 - Armon is just wrong, and the only way he can justify his position is by continually deleting relevant citations from before 2002. He says Cole couldn't get his opinions published, but in fact they were published, though of course not nearly as frequently before 2002. #3 - The "once-obscure" quote may be accurate, but he was not so obscure that his opinion wasn't sought out by the likes of Newsweek as far back as 1990. And #4 - again, causality does not just go one way here, and Armon's statement is a distortion of reality. Sure, his blog attracted attention of journalists, but it only became popular after journalists then published references to his blog.

Of course, armon and I do not have to agree on the answers to these questions; all this can be solved rather simply by not deleting the accurate references from prior to 2002 and by not falsely attributing a clear causality when things are more complicated than that. Armon's insistence that his blog led to his fame is really beside the point -- I'm not questioning that; what I am questioning is the claim that he had no media appearances prior to 2002, a position that is easily shown to be totally false. csloat 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

csloat, on #2, I would point out that Armon's statement was not that he was not a commentator but that he was not a commentator "of note". Do you believe the evidence indicates he was "of note" or do you believe the evidence indicates he was not of note, obscure or some other similar term prior to the blog?

armon, on #3, do you agree that his opinion made its way into magazines such as newsweek, and that the media did quote him on the matters of his expertise prior to his larger popularity? Is the only issue on this matter one of how "notable" he was prior to the blog?

I have one more question but I prefer not to guess at your answers before I ask it. --Blue Tie 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I believe he was a commentator "of note" enough for Newsweek and other reliable sources; that may be entirely consistent with the claim that he was "obscure." I don't think we need to characterize it with any particular adjective; simply noting that he was occasionally cited prior to 2002 is enough. csloat 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe this is the heart of the issue. Let's see what Armon says. --Blue Tie 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The text sloat objected to makes no claim that he was quoted exclusively post-blog. The problem does appear to be that it also makes no claims for his nobility as a "commentator" pre-blog. The problem is that sloats opinion is based on OR and puffs up a status he didn't have. He's entitled to that opinion, however, he's not entitled to bias the article according to it. <<-armon->> 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is a somewhat indirect response to my question. (You seem upset with csloat personally and that might make it harder for you to come to agreement.) As far as I can tell, from your answer, you do NOT seem to agree that his opinion made its way into magazines such as Newsweek or that the media did not quote him on matters of his expertise prior to his larger popularity. Do I have thar right? --Blue Tie 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is going in circles. I'll await comment from the moderator. <<-armon->> 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it was heading right to a point. I was trying to confirm whether the issue was a matter of fact or a matter of opinion. I am sorry you did not feel good about answering directly and have decided to stop communicating. I was trying to help. --Blue Tie 03:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, I'm finding it a bit frustrating because I thought I'd already made my position clear. So, I'll restate it. Even if Cole was quoted at some stage prior to his blog, it had no bearing on his notably as a media commentator. This is not my opinion, I have given multiple sources to that effect. Sloat's cites are offline and I don't know what the precise content of them is, however, he is not quoting their content, he is using their mere existence in order to advance a subjective view which is contradicted by the sources which actually address Cole's rise to fame. <<-armon->> 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to quote the content of any source I have cited. There is no "subjective view" I am trying to "advance" here, nor am I commenting on Cole's "rise to fame." I am not commenting on my opinion about his notability. I am simply citing the fact that he was cited by several sources prior to 2002. That is a fact, not an opinion, and it is easily verified. Like Armon, I agree that the mediator's view would be helpful at this point, but I see no need to shut down the dialogue.csloat 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If your edit, and the cites you use to support it, has no point, then please see WP:NOT#IINFO. If it truly is the case that you aren't advancing a POV on the subject, then there's no reason to continue. You can drop the issue and stop wasting everybody's time. <<-armon->> 06:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment seems to pretend not to understand what I'm saying, but I'll take you at your word and clarify. I am not trying to advance a particular view; I am trying to advance a factual assessment of Cole's status. You are trying to erase evidence that Cole had a minor but noticeable media presence prior to 2002; I am trying to prevent that information from being censored. This is not about "advancing a POV," and your implication that the only information relevant to wikipedia is that which "advances a POV" is something I consider insulting to the project (hence my first response to you, which I just deleted). Your comment that I am "wasting everybody's time" is likewise insulting both to me and to everyone else who takes this seriously. If you still truly don't understand my point, please re-read my opening statement, which can be found here. I think it was pretty clear. csloat 08:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Thanks for your reply, Armon. I have one last question for each of you. Or to clarify, it is two questions that get to one thought, sort of like two sides to a coin. Here it is:

Armon: What is the benefit or purpose of not mentioning his prior interaction with the media? At the same time, what is the harm in mentioning it?

csloat: What is the benefit or purpose of mentioning his prior interaction with the media? At the same time, what is the harm in removing that information?

Thanks. --17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The harm in removing the information is that the wikipedia article paints a false picture of the subject of a WP:BLP. Especially given wording that falsely imputes single causality; it makes it sound like Cole was never cited in the media before his blog became very popular. The fact is, he has been cited about a dozen times going back to 1990, as an expert on Middle east issues. I believe this point was made in my opening statement here. csloat 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to try to restate, to see if I've got it. If we fail to mention that he was cited prior to his blog it gives the sense that he was not a recognized expert prior to the blog. This may make his expertise to be more "flash in the pan" rather than deep. Did I get that right? --Blue Tie 01:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds right. csloat 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think that Armon has decided not to play! --Blue Tie 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how sloat's OR isn't in fact OR. I don't think this is what WP editors should be engaging in, I don't think we should be attempting to "split the difference" between OR and proper sources which address the issue, and I don't think we should be injecting bias via OR in a BLP even if it's meant to be "positive". In any case, his academic expertise is a separate issue to that of his role as a media commentator/pundit/public intellectual -not every academic has this additional role, obviously, and it has no bearing on how much an "expert" they are or aren't. <<-armon->> 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. There is a question on the table though. Could you please answer that question?

And as for csloat's OR, as you describe it, I would point out that you have only declared the OR to exist. You have not showed that it actually exists. And to a degree just looking at it that way sets it up as a binary issue. Someone is right. Someone is wrong. Is it possible to compromise? --Blue Tie 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "harm" is that it's OR. The "harm" is also that it produces bias. I've now pointed out repeatedly that the content of sloat's cites do not address the issue of his role as a media commentator. That is, unless I'm wrong, in which case, I would have expected him to quote the sources by now. <<-armon->> 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I can restate your issue in a way that is acceptable to you and proves that I understand your point. I think you are saying that describing him as a source for the media prior to his blog, makes him appear to be too important and reliable a source prior to his blogging and makes his blog look incidental to some larger expertise. Have I restated it correctly? --Blue Tie 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how it is OR; you've simply split hairs about a claim ("his role as a media commentator") that I don't make. The claim that I make - and that is backed up by the sources, any one of which I am able to quote if you have a specific question - is that Cole was cited in the media several times prior to 2002. Again, I'm not sure why this is contentious at all; the argument that it "produces bias" is quite laughable, in fact, since it is objectively an accurate statement of fact. csloat 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources for your claim that his status as a media commentator predates his blog. <<-armon->> 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are asking for him to provide reliable sources to support a claim he has not made. Isn't that a bit irrelevant to the problem if he has not made that claim?--Blue Tie 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then the issue he raises is an irrelevancy. <<-armon->> 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not check the article citations, but didn't he link to a few instances?--Blue Tie 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained about 5 or 6 times now why this is not OR; my explanation is also in my opening statement. And, as Blue Tie indicates, you have not explained what makes it OR other than asserting it. I have not done any original research to find that Cole was cited in various articles, nor have I synthesized them in any illegitimate way. csloat 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon appears to be saying that you did not provide any cites that he was a media commentator or source prior to his blog. I thought you did, but I did not check. If there are no such sources or cites, then it would be Original Research as he says. If there are such cites, then at least that much is not Original Research. --Blue Tie 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any claim that is not sourced. I provided four instances of media citations from Cole to establish the claim that "Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002." We have discussed problems with the word "numerous," and I am happy to change that to "several" or even to say "Cole was occasionally cited in the mainstream media as a middle east expert"... But there is no OR involved in evidencing that statement with four (or ten) citations from the mainstream media. If you prefer specific quotations we can go there too. But Armon is creating an objection to claims that have not been made.csloat 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do the cites you have make some comment on his status as a media commentator which pre-date his blog? Yes or No?

That's not the issue at all. What you pose is a false dilemma. csloat 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "No". You clearly don't have sources which support your POV, just your OR. <<-armon->> 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Click the link, Armon. You're simply not dealing with the issue here; your self-righteous posturing is completely beside the point. The four sources I've included - and I will happily add more - clearly establish the point that was being made in the sentence above. csloat 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OR is not "fixed" with more OR. <<-armon->> 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem Armon, is that you are claiming that csloat is taking a position that he is not taking. He has said he is not trying to describe his "status". You keep asking for him to support a reference to "status" Csloat is not claiming any status per se, only that he was quoted for commentary prior to the blog. If you do not address exactly what csloat is saying you are not really engaged in the discussion properly. Now, I understand, you will probably consider that "Status" is presumed or implied. But, that does not matter. All that matters is what is actually put in the text. It is ok for users to read and make their own minds up. That is per WP:NPOV. Perhaps your concern is that it gives him too much credit. A solution for that would be to add a bit of text where Cole himself describes his pre-blog reputation as minor, if you can find such a quote. Meanwhile I have come up with this possible solution:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990. However, his popularity as a source of information was modest prior to 2003, when increased public interest in his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

I don't have a problem with this. csloat 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Difference

As I've said before, I object to splitting the difference between OR and properly sourced material -especially when one contradicts the other. Also, sloat has presented no evidence that Cole was "cited by the press as a Middle East expert". If Cole was quoted commenting on the varsity football team, that obviously wouldn't count. <<-armon->> 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The four cites I gave are evidence of that, and I will happily provide more. I would not include any cites of him commenting on the football team or anything like that, as you are well aware. csloat 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, from what I can read, you will not recognize any edits that are not in full agreement with your position. Furthermore, you continue to call things Original Research that are not Original Research. This is a failure to engage constructively. --Blue Tie 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track

The editors here have my thanks for their patience. As noted at my user talk page, my online time this week has been very limited. My intervention has been requested because progress has stalled.

One thing that's unusual here is how most of the discussion has taken place at the outside comment page rather than at the page reserved for the two participants. The original way this had been set up was for primary discussion to take place between the two editors on the main mediation page, for dialog with me to take place at that talk page, and for outside commentary to happen here.

To answer one question I received the other day, if things don't get resolved here you could agree to disagree and go back to editing or you could try arbitration. If problems continue an arbitration case might open anyway at the request of a third party. If that alternative happens, any tentative progress you make here might help the arbitration committee reach its decision about how to handle your differences.

The sticking point appears to be disagreement on the definition of WP:NOR. Am I correct in that understanding? We aren't empowered to determine among ourselves what policy actually is, but we might phrase the difference of opinion into a nutshell form that everybody here agrees is acceptable and ask the community to clarify.

If there are other sticking points please specify them for me and I'll do my best to help solutions. CEM is designed to be simpler and more dignified than full arbitration. I hope this process works for you. Durova 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's disagreement on the definition of OR. I think there is disagreement on whether a certain case falls under that category. In my estimation (and Blue Tie's, apparently), this case does not fall under that category. Armon claims to believe that it does, but in order to make that claim valid, he winds up distorting the case itself (see discussion above). csloat 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an easy test for original research, and it doesn't require agonizing, or lengthy arguments. Put a {{fact}} template beside any claim, and see if if can be verified to a reliable source. So, with the following sentence:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990. However, his popularity as a source of information was modest prior to 2003, when increased public interest in his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

If you can find reliable sources to back up these claims, then you do not have original research. If the "reliable source" for these claims is "a wikipedia editor did some research, and this is what he thought was the case", then you have original research. So, for the first request, you need to find some article that says "Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990." For the second request, you need to find some article that says "His popularity before 2003 was modest". etc. Put a name, source, citation in place of those templates and the problem goes away. Don't, and the claims goes away. It's pretty simple. Jayjg 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What needs to be clarified is this: Does the statement "Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002." needs explicit sourcing, or whether we can draw the conclusion on our own based on seeing the four examples, or is this OR?

If we are allowed to draw that conclusion, the next issue is examining what the cites say. Sloat has presented nothing of the actual content of the cites, except to claim that they support sloat's claim. We don't even have the titles of the articles sloat has referenced.

In any case, it looks to me that the sentence fails Jay's test. <<-armon->> 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten a bit ridiculous. I'm happy to provide the titles and the actual content of any piece you like, but they really don't seem to be at issue here. At issue is the statement "Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990" (Blue Tie's compromise); certainly, the citations show that he was. The so-called "test" here is a bit of a silly exercise in splitting hairs -- if the question is "was Cole cited as an expert between 1990-2002?" it is easily answered by citations between those dates that refer to Cole as an expert or cite his expertise. Saying that you must find an article that says "Cole was cited in an article between 1990 and 2002" appears to me as absurd. csloat 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at its heart, the issue is:

Armon says: It does not matter, if you find sources that show him being cited as an expert prior to 1993. if you do not find a source that explicitly says he was cited as a mideast expert prior to 1993, then you cannot say so because otherwise you are drawing your own conclusion -- which is original research.

Csloat says: I have explicit instances showing where he was cited as a mideast expert prior to 1993. It is not unreasonable to draw the minor conclusion that he was cited as one, when there are sources showing he was so cited, even if we cannot find a source claiming he was so cited.--Blue Tie 09:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, though I am saying a bit more - that it is absurd to have a standard "you must cite a source stating that he was cited." Such a standard, taken to its logical extreme, would exclude any quote or fact from any news source unless there was another news source commenting that the previous news source had actually published that quote or fact. csloat 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is pretty strict, and only allows for the most basic kinds of deductions. Simple arithmetical deductions can be made (for example, percentages), but most other kinds of deductions cannot. If we look at the first claim made in the contentious sectio, the best source is if someone simply states it as a fact in a book somewhere: "By the early 1990s the press cited Cole as a Middle East expert". Then you refer to the book, the page, and mention who made the claim, and you're done. But what if you're aching to make this claim, but don't actually have a source that says it? Well, if you have a 1990 article from the New York Post saying "According to Middle East expert Juan Cole...", then you can say "Cole was cited as a Middle East expert by the New York Post in 1990." If you have several citations referring to Cole as a "Middle East expert" from the early 90s, then you can say "Cole was cited as a Middle East expert by a number of sources in the early 90s". If you have many such citations, referring to him as a Middle East expert, then you can simply say he was recognized as a Middle east expert by the press at that time. However, if all you have is him being quoted in a newspaper, you certainly cannot make the leap to him being described as an "expert". Jayjg 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "expert" is actually used in at least one case; I'll have to re-read to see if there are others. In several cases he is referred to as a Middle East historian. This isn't the same as the argument Armon is making of course. I have no problem with being specific on these things; I do have a problem with phony OR claims about well-sourced material. csloat 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see . It seems very likely that the topic Cole was quoted on pre-blog was in fact Bahá'í -and/or his dispute with the Bahá'í authorities. An expert on Bahá'í is not the same as an expert on the ME. Sloat still hasn't presented anything other than the dates and publications which supposedly make his case. <<-armon->> 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not "seem very likely" that the topic was Bahai. I have told you over and over that he is cited on Middle East and not Bahai, or on football games, or anything like that. You may benefit from reading WP:AGF. Second, I provided quotations above - Cole is referred to as a middle east "expert" in at least one article, and as a "middle east historian" (not a "bahai historian") in several others. I have also already indicated that one of the interviews was about the Gulf War, clearly a middle east topic having nothing to do with Bahai or football. I will happily include titles of articles when we put the material on the page, as I've said before. Are we finally done with this dispute? And, more to the point, are we going to have to go through CEM or similar DR every time I suggest an article for the page? csloat 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What specific sources would you like to use, and what exactly do they say about Cole? Jayjg 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See below, and above. This is getting tedious. csloat 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe my sentence was very clear; what exactly do they say about Cole. Jayjg 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe my answer was clear. They quote him as a "Middle East expert" and a "Middle East historian." The full cites with titles are below. Frankly, your hostility is totally uncalled for here. I have more than satisfied the requirements of WP:NOR, even in your distorted reading of them. We can certainly move to direct quotes from each and every article if you think that is notable, but that is beyond the scope of the CEM here, which focuses on whether this material should be deleted or not. I think we have all come to a consensus that it should not be deleted; nitpicking about what this or that citation actually says can come after you unprotect the article and we restore the material that was deleted. csloat 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We already know he's a historian and that information is fully cited and presented in the article. You are not answering the question and are refusing to provide evidence to support your view. OTOH, I have presented evidence that a) Cole was "obscure" and not a notable media commentator previous to blogging, b) that his blog attracted the interest of journalists who then came to him, and c) Cole himself stating that he couldn't get his opinion pieces published prior to his Internet fame. I don't have a problem with an alternative wording which makes these 3 points clear, but anything else is OR. <<-armon->> 02:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that he is a historian; the point is that he is a historian who was cited in the media before 2002. That is what is at issue here, and your a, b, and c are simply not relevant to this point. I have provided evidence in the form of four citations with quotations. I can provide specific quotes from the sources as well, but we haven't established any need for those at the moment. All that is at issue is whether we can make the claim that Cole was cited in the media prior to 2002. If we have settled that dispute - and it appears we have - then the article can be unlocked and at that point, we can decide which quotes are notable enough to include as well as the citations. csloat 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

full citations

I hope the following puts this ridiculous argument to rest:

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24;
• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8;
• Scott Shane, "Muslim world suffers by actions of terrorists," Baltimore Sun (23 August 1998) p. 1A;
• Bill Schiller, "Locals tied to Al Jihad terror network," Toronto Star (21 October 2001) p. A10.

Again, I find it more than a bit absurd that we should have to go to CEM just to add verifiable citations from reliable sources to this article.csloat 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the sentences from them that you think support your point. In other words, what exactly do they say about Cole. Thanks. Jayjg 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. I'm happy to quote specifics when the article is unlocked, but at this point it isn't necessary to settle the dispute. csloat 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would help a lot to see the full relevant quotes from those sources. Jayjg's requests and suggestions have been right on target. And to Commodore Sloat, please be understanding of our constraints as an open edit site. The no original research policy is rigid because some editors attempt to draw bizarre conclusions from verifiable and reliable sources. Durova 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement just said that he was quoted prior to 2003 and did not address his expertise, would these references be enough?--Blue Tie 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand (and agree with) the OR policy. I agree it should be strict, but I am not trying to extrapolate in any way from the citations. That much is obvious with or without quotations from the cites. The thing here is that the issue of him being an "expert" was not part of the original dispute, and I don't have a problem with discussing different wording (however, as I have said, he is quoted as a "Middle East expert" in the Toronto Star (21 October 2001)). The problem I have is with the wholesale deletion of this information. If the only problem Armon had with the info is a nitpick about the word "expert," then why did he delete all of the citations instead of tinkering with the wording? Had he tinkered with the wording we would have come to a settlement long ago and not had to escalate the dispute to CEM. Frankly I think he is simply moving the goal post here; I note that the dispute about the term "expert" does not appear in either of our opening statements.

I have so far resisted giving further quotations from these sources for two main reasons -- (1) the dispute is not about the content of any particular quotations; the dispute is over whether we should censor the fact that Cole was quoted in the media prior to 2001. I feel the demands that I quote particulars is a distraction from that dispute, and is just a way of prolonging the page protection. If we have resolved the dispute over actually citing the articles, let us unprotect the page and begin tinkering with the wording. (2) the citations are enough to document the statement. If there is a question about it -- like Armon's rather insulting suggestion that it is "likely" that these articles are about bahai (or, earlier, about sports) -- all anyone has to do is look them up. I provided all of the information necessary to look up the articles.

All that said, I'm going to go ahead and provide quotations and comments anyway just so we can move on. To respond to Blue Tie's comment - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he was cited as an expert, but I am opening to other wording. The point is, he is not being approached by reporters as a random person-in-the-street; he is being quoted because he has some expertise on the issues being discussed.

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24

quotes him as "University of Michigan Middle East historian Juan Cole."

• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8

quotes him as "a Mideast professor at the University of Michigan"

While these two don't call him an "expert," they clearly cite him because of his expertise on the Middle East. The first quote discusses Saddam's oil revenues and the various political factions in Iraq; the second explains why Saddam Hussein is referred to as "Saddam" rather than as "Hussein."

• Scott Shane, "Muslim world suffers by actions of terrorists," Baltimore Sun (23 August 1998) p. 1A

quote: "The Sunni tradition of Islam has been marked by a great deal of moderation and compassion," says Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, who spent a decade living in several Muslim countries. "And in history, the Shiites were even quieter than the Sunni. Cole says that no mainstream Islamic clergy, from such centers of Islamic theology as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, justifying attacks against Americans." Clearly refers to his expertise not only as a professor of modern Middle East but also as someone who lived in Muslim countries for 10 years.

• Bill Schiller, "Locals tied to Al Jihad terror network," Toronto Star (21 October 2001) p. A10.

"The 1998 merger between Egyptian Al Jihad and bin Laden's Al Qaeda was a 'transforming' moment," says Prof. Juan Cole, a Middle East expert from the University of Michigan. "It brought Al Qaeda hundreds of dedicated activists with experience in fighting an insurgency, as well as bases of operation in a number of countries." Clearly cites him as "a Middle East expert."

Again, I am open to tinkering with the wording here; my objections as spelled out in my opening statement are not about changing the wording but rather about the wholesale deletion of relevant sourced information. I hope we can move on. csloat 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. Regarding the microproblem of particular wording and designation, I'll agree that it's appropriate to say the press regarded Cole as an expert as far back as the early 1990s. All of these are major publications and the context is clear: a general readership article that quotes a university professor and states that the topic relates to the professor's academic specialty is presenting that professor as an expert.

Moving on to the macroproblem, during the past several months it looks like you've both gotten bogged in a series of finely worded policy debates. Usually it's very tough for an outside editor to determine what's going on, except for when the frustration level rises so high that civility breaks down. How do you envision yourselves breaking out of that cycle? Durova 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we still need to see more of the first two quotations to be able to come to any conclusions regarding how Cole was viewed; was he cited in a very narrow context? In addition, the first three citations describe him as a "historian" or a "professor" or both; were they asking him questions about the history of the Middle East, or the current political situation? Finally, four citations as such over a period of twelve years isn't all that many; are these just a sample of all such citations, or is this the sum total? Jayjg 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above quotations are more than clear; only a bizarre assumption of bad faith would lead someone to speculate that these quotes are other than what they appear. The first two quote Cole's specific opinions on the Gulf War; more specifically, the first quote discusses Saddam's oil revenues and the various political factions in Iraq; the second explains why Saddam Hussein is referred to as "Saddam" rather than as "Hussein." I stated this very clearly above; perhaps you missed it. They are brief quotations in each case. As for the second question "were they asking him questions about the history of the Middle East, or the current political situation?", they were clearly asking about the current situation as it is affected by history. Again, this is very clear in what I wrote above regarding all three citations. Your final claim that this "isn't all that many" is really not something I'm terribly interested in debating - it doesn't matter; I have backed off of the word "numerous" already and suggested "occasionally" as a more accurate term to describe the frequency of the citations. This is about half of what I found when researching it (in a relatively cursory manner; I have no doubt a more determined researcher will find a few more), to answer your question directly, but again, I don't think it makes a difference.

To get to the more important question raised by Durova, I think there is an underlying problem here which is that Armon appears to oppose on principle every edit I make, even one as obviously verifiable as this one. This is compounded by the absurd bias of some Wikipedians towards sources that are available on the internet. Sources from print media are discouraged and even treated with hostility. Imagine the above debate occurring about an article in salon.com - it would be absurd to demand angrily to see larger quotations from an article before even allowing that the article may be cited, since all parties could simply click the link and judge for themselves. However, the fact is, it is the same here - any one of the parties to this mediation could easily go to the library or look at an online database like infotrak in order to verify that the citations are accurate. Complaining that it is too much work to look beyond your computer screen is a bit absurd - we are editing an encyclopedia here, not a blog.

Finally, I think part of the problem is that because of the history between Armon and I, he has a tendency to react with hostility and revert-warring to every change I make to certain articles, no matter how minor and no matter how verifiable. These edit wars are often over ridiculously minor nitpicks like this one -- as I've said over and over, I'm open to talking about the wording, but the wholesale deletion of information is totally unjustified. I'm not sure how to address that, as it is my perception that Armon is determined to continue with the hostility and edit warring, and that he is even willing to engage in systematically distorted communication in order to do so. I'm trying to appreciate that he feels the same way about me, but I'm not sure where this gets us. csloat 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're not clear. If the sources were online, then the various editors could, indeed, click on the links, and make their own judgement as to what the source is saying. However, they are not online: How can one properly assess the relevance and import of a citation without having the full context? Rather than devoting 1000 words to avoiding giving the full citations, why not just give them? This reluctance to provide very basic information critical to assessing article content strikes me as bizarre at best, and is undoubtedly contributing to the protracted disputes on this page. Please just give the proper and full citations, not only to make it possible for all parties to examine them, but perhaps more importantly, to show that your intent is indeed to lessen conflict, rather than protract it. Jayjg 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are clear. This is exactly what I'm talking about, Jay. You ask, "How can one properly assess the relevance and import of a citation without having the full context?" One can simply go to the library or check a database and read the article oneself. I have provided the full context, and explained it carefully, including "proper and full citations." I'm not sure what else you want. csloat 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The last two citations provide all the words surrounding the reference to Cole. The first two do not. Please do so for the first two, so that all parties can decide for themselves what the context is. It's an entirely reasonable request, and your continued attempts to avoid doing so unfortunately give the impression that you are either trying to hide something or scuttle mediation. Jayjg 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. I will do so, but your charge is both ludicrous and offensive. I have explained everything above. And your claim that "all parties" are not privy to information that has been published and in libraries for years is anti-intellectual, to say the least. If you think I am hiding something, go to the library, or indicate what you think it is. It is insulting to start with the presupposition that I am lying. And I am curious why you have not even attempted to hold the other party to the mediation to the same presupposition? And you have ignored my essential point, which is that this information is not relevant to the current mediation at all. That said, here is what you asked for:

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24

"Gaining the Kuwaiti oilfields means little if Iraq can't sell the product. Saddam has also used oil revenues to pay off restive internal factions. "If you take away this regime's ability to throw patronage around, then the next time there are riots, how is it going to deal with them?" asks University of Michigan Middle East historian Juan Cole."

• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8

"According to the Detroit News, part of the preference probably stems from the fact that Saddam is more distinctive than Hussein. "A lot of people (in the Arab world) are called Hussein," says Juan Cole, a Mideast professor at the University of Michigan. "

csloat 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless Armon contests the accuracy of Commodore Sloat's transcriptions, WP:AGF compels us to accept them at face value. Two slightly different questions are at play here: one is whether the press regarded Cole as an expert on the Middle East during the 1990s; the other is what specific type of expertise he possessed. The latter remains unresolved from the quotes Sloat provided, but only the former seems to have been at issue in this particular disagreement over wording. In my opinion it would push WP:NOR too far to disallow the term expert in this context: it's hardly conceivable that a university professor, quoted within the broad realm of his expertise for a general readership publication, would be anything other than an expert source.

Now it really isn't practical to discuss every facet of this dispute in so much depth. Let's reorient and look for ways to cut this gordian knot. I'm particularly interested in Armon's perspective on this. Commodore Sloat has already commented on what he sees as the larger problem dynamic. Armon, why do you think these discussions have kept getting stalled? Durova 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon

1. Newsweek (29 October 1990); Associated Press (17 December 1998); Interview on WXYZ-TV (11 September 2001); Toronto Star (21 October 2001).
2. Philip Weiss, "Burning Cole", The Nation, July 3, 2006.
3. ^ Karsh, Efraim. "Juan Cole's Bad blog". The New Republic.
4. Newsweek (29 October 1990); Associated Press (17 December 1998); Interview on WXYZ-TV (11 September 2001); Toronto Star (21 October 2001).
5. Curt Guyette, The blog of war, Metro Times, 8/25/2004