Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

RfC on causality

The dispute is between this version and this version; Here is a diff that shows the changes. The "Armon" version states:

Public interest in Cole's blog led to attention from other media sources.

The "Sloat" version states:

Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before publishing his blog. Ephraim Karsh claims that public interest in Cole's blog led to attention from other media sources.

I feel the "sloat" version is more accurate for the following reasons:

1. It accurately attributes the claim of causality to Ephraim Karsh rather than to Wikipedia. One could argue that Cole's blog was popular because of his expertise, and not the reverse. Citations going back to 1990 show that Cole has been cited in the media as an expert on Middle Eastern affairs long before he published his blog. Wikipedia should not attribute causality anywhere; it should simply note that that the claim was made and indicate who made the claim.
2. It removes a citation (Weiss) which does not appear to substantiate the claim of causality.
3. It accurately reports several citations from 1990-2001 showing Cole recognized as an expert in this field. Armon claims these citations are OR but I don't see how - they are not being used to substantiate any claim beyond the fact that they were published. There is no causality attributed in the sloat version of this passage.

I am happy to consider other versions of the passage but causality should not be attributed here by wikipedia, and the sourced citations of Cole's opinions should definitely not be deleted. These are sourced to WP:RS and they are notable and relevant. csloat 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion per RFC request: you folks are splitting hairs, making mountains out of molehills, and (insert your own tired metaphor here) by fighting over one sentence. It's pretty clear that he gets media attention due to the 9/11 attacks, the subsequent Afghanistan and Iraq wars, etc. Does it really whether the journalists desperately looking for someone to make sense out of possibly the most wide-ranging effect of this century so far tend to find him by reading his previous papers, searching on the web, asking a university, or holding a seance? I propose the following change to the one or two sentences in question: ""

Yes, that's right, I suggest we can easily live with deleting both versions of that sentence. Start that whole section with the next sentence: "From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East...". Personally, I'd make that "Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Cole has been ..." but that's not such a big deal either. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

miscellaneous quotes

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. <<-armon->> 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including that quotation at all. My problem is with your deletion of other naterial. csloat 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cole’s online weblog, “Informed Comment,” has made him a minor celebrity and a controversial figure for his outspoken leftist opinions. <<-armon->> 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a quote from a college paper, nor am I sure why it is relevant to this discussion at all. csloat 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, as there seems to be a misunderstanding -- my problem is with the specific attribution of causality that says Cole's blog caused him to be cited in the media. I don't have a problem quoting the Chronicle for Higher ed noting that his blog has made him the most visible commentator. Those are two separate claims -- one infers causality (blog leads to media citation) whereas the other limits its claim to the blog itself (Cole is visible because his blog is visible). I don't have a problem with the causality claim either as long as it is properly attributed to its author.csloat 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW the Weiss cite states: "it is hard to separate Cole's scholarly reputation from his Internet fame." <<-armon->> 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which certainly militates against treating one as causal. csloat 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After the US invaded Iraq in March 2002, Cole began offering his perspective on the "war on terrorism," the Iraq War, Middle East history, Islam and religion in his own Web log, an innovative Internet form of personal journalism known as a "blog." Cole's blog, "Informed Comment" (see www.juancole.com) began in 2002 as a way to communicate with several hundred other academics. But by this April it had soared "into the blogosphere," he reports, "and the average hits to my Web log rose to 20,000 a day." Now accorded public-intellectual status throughout the world, Cole accepted an invitation to appear before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this April 20 to present his views on the war. <<-armon->> 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another good quote establishing the importance of Cole's blog, but also irrelevant to the current dispute. csloat 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Through his daily blog Informed Comment, Juan Cole has become "a must-read for those interested in the Middle East," as the online journal Slate put it. In turn, the University of Michigan professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history has also become a widely sought expert and commentator whose articles have appeared in such outlets as salon.com, The Nation, The Washington Post and The Boston Review. Shall I go on? <<-armon->> 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to go on; as I've noted above, you seem to be missing the point. Hopefully, though, the compromise version I've added will satisfy both sides here. csloat 05:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess you need this one... 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. <<-armon->> 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good one; it establishes what I've been saying all along -- causality is not just one way here. His expertise and media appearances led to more blog hits, and not just the reverse. csloat 06:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you appear to be disruptively editing. You didn't even read the compromise version I provided before reverting it. The quotes you yourself provided support the compromise version far more than your version. Please be reasonable. Thanks. csloat 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's disruptive is injecting WP:OR because what WP:RSs state contradicts the spin you would prefer. <<-armon->> 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no OR or spin. The WP:RS's actually support the version of the page that you reverted. Including the quotations you yourself provided above, one of which I used in the changes I made to the page. I don't see any evidence you really understand the changes you are reverting. csloat 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The cites clearly state that he became an expert used by journalists due to his blog. We have none which state he was a media pundit/expert beforehand. The fact he was referred to a couple times before 2002 is simply your own original research to support a claim that his pre-existing status was "enhanced". <<-armon->> 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They do not clearly state that. They cut both ways; see my comments above. You are deleting several sourced comments. I did no original research; the fact that he was quoted before 2002 is easily verified in the sources that I cite. My version even includes one of the sources you cite. You are deleting several sourced references without explanation. csloat 03:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page so that all those involved in the edit war can reach a compromise regarding its contents. Please let me know when this has been achieved, so that I can un-protect. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available

Code	Result
|{{User:UBX/Juan Cole}}	This user wonders why people won't listen to Juan Cole.†	Usage

--One Salient Oversight 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all!

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

Bye

Messrs Cole and Hitchens

My first college level training was in physics and I cut my teeth on special relativity and quantum mechanics. Accordingly, my bias is to look at things from two directions. Moreover, I feel at home in the world of the strange. After looking at the Cole article, I was surprised at the weight given to the criticism of Hitchens. A devil's advocate would argue "that Cole is quite a polemicist against a greater Israel and some would like him to look bad." But how does it look from the other end? Indeed there is a Wiki article titled Christopher_Hitchens%27_critiques_of_specific_individuals. Using my browser's search function with "Cole" as input returns a nul result. So in the Hitchens article, Cole rates a ZERO. Methinks then it is very strange that Hitchens has such a prominent role in the Cole article when Cole is not important for the Hitchens article! Accordingly for balance reasons, the Hitchens subsection needs to be pared down to a sentence or deleted, unless of course there is something going on besides a biography article.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mssrs. Cole and Karsh

Everything abovewritten: ditto. see Efraim Karsh article. Not a mention of Cole. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Project Chicago

What's the Chicago template connecton. He teaches in Michigan. Chicago is in Illinois. After a week if no one answers, i"ll assume it's a mistake and consider deleting it.Godspeed John Glenn! Will —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I right that the project Chicago is a mistake??Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see, Northwestern University where he got his B.A. is in in Chicago.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in Evanston a suburb of Chicago, but not part of Chicago.--CSTAR 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know CSTAR, it's the only connection i see, i contacted TonytheTiger, he left a note about a bot. The wiki entry on the school says it has a downtown campus in the "city of big shoulders" (my lingo).Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see we're dealing with a robot here. Somebody deleted the template and then the robo stuck it back in. I contacted the robo's master, he didn't know why the page was selected, but said the leading editors could delete it. Sure, and then it comes back. It depends on how much tolerance you have for clutter. It don't bother me no-moreGodspeed John Glenn! Will 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Below is Tony's reply made at my talk page.

• If Juan Cole has any categories on his page listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS our bot will add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to his talk page when it does its twice a week run through the categories to look for new articles. We follow all local alumni who become prominent for non-Chicago related activities. If the lead editors of his article are uncomfortable with this the best solution is to remove any category that would make the bot think he has any affiliation with Chicago. Otherwise, respond to my talk page. By the way, the article is looking like it is getting close to GA status. You may want to consider nominating it at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i studies out of balance

An anonymous editor has doubled discussion on this from the article's previous incarnation. Clearly, lists and summaries of articles are not encyclopedic.

In is academic capacity, he's written one book on Baha'i, two books on Egypt, three (at least) monographs on Shi'h, and added significantly to the corpus of Gibran available in English. Yet this section is about twice as much Baha'i as his other academic interests' coverage combined. WP:Undue weight anyone?

Lastly, outside of his own published work on his charges of "fundamentalism", that is a thread that has not gained any traction from other researchers. Talisman was titillating to the dozen or so participants who agreed with him, but outside of Panopticon it was never covered by indepedent sources. WP:Undue weight again.

Objections to culling back to the previous edition? MARussellPESE (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; there were some valuable additions by the anon but there was way too much focus on Bahai; the academic work section has become completely Bahai-centric and the anon deleted a lot of information about Cole's much more well-known work. But I think some of the other changes could be kept rather than simply reverting back -- perhaps start with reverting just the academic section and then delete a bunch of the bahai stuff.... I guess there are a lot of edits to wade through that way though....csloat (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's me. I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, Cole's background in the Baha'i religion, and the academic field of Baha'i Studies, does in fact explain much of his current worldview, including his writings on non-Baha'i subjects such as politics. (Those familiar with the Baha'i will see this easily.) On the other hand, yes--you're right, as it stands, the description is lopsided and needs to be fixed. (By adding, subtracting, or rearranging? Difficult question.)

Defintitely more coverage should be given to (say) his writings on Egypt and mainstream Shi'ism, and I hope somebody can do that. I don't have access to any of these books. Also, the anti-colonialism strain in Cole's writing is not really a Baha'i theme (though Cole might argue the opposite) but probably comes either from his academic training, or from living in the Middle East. Since most of his books and articles pick up on that--including, I expect, Napoleon's Egypt (his latest), that should be expanded. Perhaps someone more familiar with this subject can identify what authors Cole is influenced by on this point.

Some historical perspective: Cole became a Baha'i, then as a result of that, decided to travel in the Middle East and become an academic. Since "Baha'i Studies" is considered kind of marginal for academic job-hunting purposes, and since Baha'i history can't be understood without Shi'a Islam anyway, he branched out early on. (He was writing on Shi'ism and anti-colonialism basically all the way back, concurrently with his Baha'i stuff.) Since Modernity and the Millennium he has avoided writing on Baha'i topics, and as you know, got famous through his blog.

Why is it important to emphasize Cole's Baha'i orientation? For one thing, it explains why he is so dead-set against most separatist movements (except possibly Kashmir, because of the UN thing) and in favor of multi-national states. (He also sees strong states as necessary for defense against imperialism.) It also explains much of his perspective on U.S. intervention in Iraq--a form of unilateral invasion which the Baha'i writings specifically condemn. People who aren't aware of this aspect, tend to misjudge him--as when he got accused of anti-Semitism, for example. (A key Baha'i principle is the unity of all races and religions.) And no, I'm not a Baha'i myself.

I'll sit back for awhile and let other people play in the sandbox. But I'll check back and answer questions if you want. Good luck! --Dawud

PS. The "list and summaries of articles" is kind of important--to people interested in Cole in his capacity as a Baha'i academic, a field in which he's had an enormous impact. In general, I would say that the article needs much, much more description of individual writings of Cole's, rather than less. Incidentally, Cole himself said something like this on his blog once, not sure how to find it though. I.e., that at a minimum, an article like this should contain descriptions of his major writings.

I also agree with the poster who said the Cole / Hitchins clash gets too much coverage. Actually there were several online teapot-tempests sort of like that. One was over slain journalist Vincent Stephens (is that right?) who Cole said was shot for having an affair with an Iraqi woman, and then his widow posted...and well, it's complicated. Another issue was over the book "The Israel Lobby," and the related issue of Jewish pressure on universities to cancel various lectures. Maybe all of these could be in the "controversies" section? Or the first could go under "Iran."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.56 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The real reason Cole merits such an extensive BLP is his presence as a Middle East commentator. His academic work wouldn't warrant such an extensive article, and his Baha'i work occupies a shrinking corner of his work.

However, assuming that he has a "Baha'i orientation" clearly misrepresents that religion's teachings. His outlook is much more in sync with that of liberal American academics, and his point of view is much more Jeffersonian than Baha'u'llah. True, Baha'i got him on this path, but he stepped away from Baha'i years ago — if he ever really understood it in the first place and wasn't cherry-picking beliefs. There are parallels between his views and Baha'i, but he has an anti-authoritarian streak that cuts deeply against the grain of Baha'i.

His strident politics, polarizing rhetoric, and withering criticisms are antithetical to Baha'i. Baha'is are to:

• "shun politics like the plague" (Shoghi Effendi)
• "The attitude of the Bahá'ís must be twofold, complete obedience to the government of their country they reside in, and no interference, whatsoever in political matters or questions." (Shoghi Effendi)
• I admonish you to observe courtesy, for above all else it is the prince of virtues. … This is a binding command which hath streamed forth from the Pen of the Most Great Name." (Baha'u'llah)

"Informed Comment", while often proving to be better informed than Fox news pundits, and sometimes even constructive, nevertheless in tone, tact, and subject is so far removed from Baha'i as to make comparisons between the two more ironic than informative. WP isn't the place for irony.

Lists and summaries of articles is not encyclopedic. That's what external links are for. In this case he maintains an extensive online library of his papers. WP isn't really the place to reproduce that.

Summarizing his papers critical of Baha'i "fundamentalists" from a period prior to opening his blog only seems to demonstrate that he's prepared to turn a poison pen on whatever authority figure has his attention. (I pity his department chair and dean.) However, making that point would be OR and inappropriate. Otherwise, I don't see the point of these. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MARussellPESE, are you a Baha'i? If so, that would explain your hostility. Your venom is characteristic of the attitude active Baha'is often have for those who leave their faith, criticize it, or conceive of their Baha'i identity in a different way (as Cole does).

By any objective standard, Cole is one of the leading authorities on the Baha'i religion, and a crucial figure in the field of Baha'i Studies (even though he is no longer active in it). A discussion of his writings on the Baha'i religion is hardly out of place here (and only space considerations would prevent them from appearing in a mainstream encyclopedia). While his current Middle Eastern commentary is admittedly more important, there is no reason why this would prevent us from giving substantial attention to other fields, especially since this was the matrix (so to speak) from which his other interests sprang.

You are right in pointing out that Baha'ism is only one of several equally important influences on his thinking, Jefferson being another. --Dawud

Dawud: Assume good faith. Trying to impeach your interlocutor's arguments becaus of their beliefs is argumentum ad hominem, and a personal attackcontrary to Wikipedia policies.

Cole's problems with Baha'i are well documented. What I've done is raise fair observations of them. I've neither attacked his character nor yours.

It's a cheap shot, and uninformed, to accuse me of having an "attitude" about ex-Baha'is. Personally, I'd rather people with unresolvable problems with any belief system have the intellectual integrity to dissociate themselves from them. That's exactly what Cole did in '96.

Accusing me of personal animosity towards Cole because of my religion is also a cheap shot. I think that the Global Americana Institute is a stroke of genius and long, long overdue. His sympathy for Jeffersonian priciples will make him an excellent translator. (I wonder if they'll be translating The Federalist Papers at some point.) Ignorance of the Islamic world in the West is matched easily by ignorance of the Western world in the Islamic. Those sitting in the interstices between these have a unique opportunity to bridge that gap. My disappointment with Cole is that he often cripples himself with his poison pen.

You've raised two arguments:

1. Cole's positions on Middle Eastern politice are rooted in/informed by Baha'i principles.
2. Discussion at length of his works on Baha'i are relevant/encyclopedic.

I've countered both.

First, emboiling oneself, and even his approach to political disourse, is antithetical to Baha'i. For those unfamiliar with that religion, specifically identifying what those are here is not a personal attack but thorough discussion; as well as directly on point to the assertion that Baha'i influences Cole.

Further, If you're familiar with Modernity, he actually argues that the influence went the other way. His thesis being that Baha'u'llah's thiking was influenced by liberal Western principles that were being discussed widely in the intellectual circles of Baghdad during his sojourn there. So, according to Cole, the liberal currents in Baha'i have their germ in the Enlightenment, not "Revelation". So how could Cole be citing/relying upon Baha'i principles when he, himself, identifies those as Western at their source?

Second, summaries of his papers on Baha'i mysticism, administration, Talisman, and "fundamentalism" don't inform his positions on current affairs in the Middle East. As such they are awfully close to trivia.

His academic work, by itself, wouldn't merit an article of this length. The article itself states that he was obscure outside of his field until "Informed Comment" got rolling. Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami are scholars of even wider academic repute (Ajami is far more influential as well), but whose articles are both about half as long. The bulk of those are also on their controversial positions. Nikki Keddie, another leading scholar in the field but who's kept her head down politically, has a stub for an article despite her publications being comparable to Cole. I'm using those as examples. You need to make the case that this is relevant. Merely stating that they are isn't an argument: it's argumentum ad repetitionem (argument by repetition). MARussellPESE 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed good faith in the beginning. Experience has led me to doubt it. Wikipedia policy simply does not deal very well with groups like the Baha'is, who make PR-motivated edits of obscure subjects that otherwise tend to go unmonitored. Hence the need to "name and shame."

Cole is a different kind of Baha'i than you--and moreover, a kind whom your religion has taught you to regard as a perversion of the true Baha'i teachings. It is not a "cheap shot" to point this out. You yourself have attacked him on this basis.

Yes, Cole says that Baha'u'llah was influenced by various then-contemporary political and intellectual currents. However, Cole's entry to Middle Eastern subjects came via Baha'i Studies, and then he branched out from there. That's what I meant.

Cole's "poison pen" is an interesting question. I tended to avoid his more barbed comments while summarizing his Middle Eastern views, but perhaps that was unfair of me. I would not object to including a sampling of such comments to illustrate his style.

His academic work, whether in Baha'i Studies or elsewhere, is hardly trivia. Trivia, by definition, is unimportant. (For Finagle's sake, Wikipedia has an article devoted to every one of the Pokemon creatures. How is this trivia, and not that?) Baha'i Studies may be obscure, but the fact that various scholars are publishing on it is enough, I think, to establish its significance for Wikipedia purposes. In any case, the article is supposed to be about Cole--the whole scholar, not just the famous blogger and TV personality. These Baha'i articles (and I only included a few representative ones) illuminate an important aspect of his scholarship.

By the way, according to my understanding, the Federalist Papers have already been translated into Arabic, and published in a very limited press run. Cole was trying to find out about getting the rights. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.171 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was making germane comparisons between this article and Cole's peers. Comparisons to Pokemon (Or my personal favorite of wiki-fluff: Lightsaber combat) don't inform the discussion. As amply demonstrated in the article itself, Cole's Baha'i research is not from whence his notability comes — hence its extended treatment here is out of balance and POV. Proof by assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Name and shame"? Well, apparently this discussion won't rely on the merits but on name-calling, even after good-faith attempts. That's too bad. So, I feel free to edit. MARussellPESE 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing Cole with other well-known ME commentators. But this avoids the question of whether Cole is "noteworthy" (which, you'll note, is different from "famous") as a Baha'i scholar. Since Pokemon are apparently noteworthy enough to deserve ample coverage on Wikipedia, I propose that Baha'i Studies must also qualify. (Surely a Baha'i would concede this point...?) So as you see, the example is in fact germane.

As for name-calling, I wish to draw the attention of others to the Baha'i strategy of attempting to erase embarrassing facts about their religion from Wikipedia. I perceive that your interest in this article is primarily of this nature. Of course you may edit, but do be aware that your edits will be scrutinized. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-read WP:Notability. His research in general, the Baha'i portions of which occupy an ever-shrinking portion of his work, was never particularly noteworthy outside the field as identified in article. He is notable as an ME commentator. Comparing him to others like Ajami or Lewis is directly on-point.

Likewise the Talisman episode fails WP:Notability, even for an obscure topic like Baha'i. It involved half-a-dozen or so individuals out of a community of six million. It received no independent coverage at all. And sources on it are neither dubiously reliable as they are mostly made up of blog posts. But you know that already from your edit wars on those pages.

And, of the nearly thirty articles on Baha'i he's penned, you chose to summarize all of the ones critical of Baha'i. And you accuse me of peddling POV? MARussellPESE (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - his Middle East scholarship is far more important and notable than the Bahai stuff. The latter should be mentioned, and if there is a reliable source explaining how bahai is supposedly at the root of his thought, we can cite that, but a lot of the anon's changes seem to constitute original research. Additionally, he has removed some material that is important independently of the bahai controversy. csloat (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Commodore, obviously Middle Eastern politics are more important, but surely Baha'i Studies are notable enough to be discussed. And once this is granted, what harm does it do to have more detail rather than less? (MARusselPESE would have us censor all details that make his religion look bad.) If anything, there should be more detail about other subjects.

Baha'is often lie about their numbers (even one million would be a stretch) but sure, the number of scholars of Baha'ism is far below the number of Baha'i sheep. But this is not what "notability" means. In particular, scholarship should be assumed to be noteworthy, even if on an obscure subject in a small field.

The influence of Baha'ism on Cole's thought may be found in Cole's own writings. Click on footnote number 13 (his Baha'i belief) or 55 (on his meeting Baha'i martyrs in Iran). I am not peddling any POV other than Cole's here.

My choice of Cole's Baha'i articles reflects the fact that many are on obscure topics that fail to reflect his basic beliefs. The critical ones, however, not only do that, but have had the most influence (apart from Modernity and the Millennium). --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.144 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon's POV is certainly showing by now. His desire to "name and shame", and accusations like "You guys are like North Koreans worshipping Kim Jong-Il", "Baha'is often lie", "Baha'i sheep", "MARusselPESE would have us censor", etc. (By the way Dawud, if you were using an account, I'd have put up an WP:NPA notice before now.)

If I really wanted to censor Cole's conflicts with Baha'i administration, don't you think I'd be culling it all out instead of leaving it basically alone for over a year? I've never, till you brought your axe and grindstone, removed any material on this subject. This was my first edit to the article.

Note that the version I prefer has a clear link, which I added, to the totality of Cole's work on Baha'i, including the critical stuff, while maintaining a streamlined article. If you have to dig through footnotes to tease out "Cole's Baha'i belief" then it's not as central as you're purporting it to be, is it? Also, looking at his current Unitarian and Sufi pages on his personal website it seems certain that he's left Baha'i, as a belief system at least, behind. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think anyone is saying there should be nothing about Cole's Baha'i work here, only that it should not be disproportionate to the rest of his far more well-known work. Second, you didn't just add stuff about Baha'i, you also deleted material about his academic works. Third, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Russell is Baha'i -- he may be, and I notice he hasn't denied it, but I also never noticed him asserting a Baha'i identity or faith (perhaps I missed it in the above?) Either way, however, his religion is irrelevant to his ability to edit, and as he pointed out, he did not edit out the previous material on Cole's Baha'i writings before you got here. Fourth, I don't think it's wrong to say that Cole's conflicts with Baha'i have influenced his thought. But your edits put that influence at the core of his thought, and denigrate all other possible influences, which is overboard. At best, your edits are in conflict with WP:UNDUE.

Other than marveling at the Bahai temple in Illinois when I used to live in Chicago, I know next to nothing about Baha'i faith, politics, etc. So I'm not claiming any expertise on this topic. But I do have a bit of background in Middle East studies (though it's not my field per se), and Cole appears to be something of a giant in that field. He is also very well known because of frequent appearances in the media, as well as for his popular and well-regarded weblog. I have read dozens of entries in his weblog and seen/heard/read him in the mass media scores of times. In all of that, his conflicts with Baha'i never came up; all I know about his relationship to Baha'i is what I have read on this web page. I think something should stay here about it but I don't think it should become the central focus of this page. csloat (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawud is correct, and I'd like to add my voice of support to what he is saying here. A few words about MARussellPESE. This individual is indeed a member of the Haifan Bahai organization and I can confirm he is a Bahai. He is also deputized by the Internet Committee of this Haifan Bahai organization to hold a permanent presence on the wikipedia pages that have any Bahai relevance and make it accord with the standard line that the Bahai administration of the Haifan Bahai organization has determined to be kosher; this, as well as to put a Bahai stamp on as many religious oriented articles on wikipedia as possible. See my edit war on the Maitreya page which has abolutely no relevence to Bahai and where these individuals are gratuitously attempting to put their religious stamp on with threats and intimidation towards whoever calls them on their dishonesty. In other words, MARussellPESE as well as several other individuals here (and a few others besides), i.e. Jeff3000 Cuñado are sockpuppets of the Haifan Bahai administration's Internet Committee deliberating pressing and imposing a propaganda line from the authorities of their organization. They are the wikipedia Bahai gang and they will use every dishonest and duplicitous trick and deception in the book.

As for Juan Cole. Until my personal fall out with him in November 2002, I knew him personally and can confirm that Juan Cole considered himself to be a Bahai albeit an unenrolled Bahai. Even though he had disavowed Bahaism under duress in April-May 1996, he recommitted himself to Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri Baha'u'llah (the founder of Bahaism) publicly on the successor list to talisman@indiana.edu, viz. talisman9@yahoogroups.com. This makes him a Bahai. This category of unrenrolled Bahai was spawned by Cole and it has since become the hallmark of those so-called liberal Bahais who see themselves as a loyal opposition (another of Cole's phrases of choice) to the Haifan uhj (Universal House of Justice). Given this, Cole is very much a Bahai and the last I knew he considered himself to be a Bahai in the same fashion that many a Christian considers their lord and savior to be Jesus Christ, although carrying no card as such. Myself and several other individuals - including Denis MacEoin - have pointed out that even though Cole fell afoul of the Haifan Baha'i establishment and left, his scholarship (and I would say many of his political views as well) still exhibit distinct Bahai biases. If anyone wishes to know what these are, I am happy to get into them. And just note that I have been calling Cole out to a public debate with me on several issues since 2004. That said. As far as this MARussellPESE is concerned, Dawud is absolutely, spot-on correct! Thamarih (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thamirih's accusations of sockpuppetry, collusion, etc. are typical personal attacks of his. Apparently evidence is not something he requires.

As an aside, if Cole is really a Baha'i, why do his academic interest pages point to the Unitarians, when he's never published to my knowledge any research on them? All of the other religion links are clearly academic interests. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry of MARussellPESE is well established and I am not the first person nor will I be the last to have so commented.

Now as for Cole's unitarian universalism, having been there personally through the whole ordeal, I can say that the primary reason - among several others - why Cole in 1996 reverted or converted to Unitarian Universalism was nothing more nor less than to protect himself from institutional retaliation from the Haifan Bahai organization in being declared a covenant breaker. Cole figured at the time - and privately recommended to a few others - that taking a new institutional-religious affiliation - whatever it may be - to some degree protected those withdrawing from the Haifan Bahai organization as well as opening possible legal channels of redress through this new affiliation should the Haifan uhj so designate said individuals and harrass them. This was a wise move. Given this and as far as I am concerned, with Cole and several other of these people, their conversion/reversion to Unitarian Universalism was nothing more nor less than a pragmatic political strategy to protect the resignee from the institutional harrassment of the Haifan Bahai organization, since being declared a covenant breaker by the Haifan uhj would have entailed these individuals being shunned and ostracized by all Haifan Bahais everywhere. That said, when it appeared that the Haifan uhj was not about to commit any further acts of political suicide as far as Cole was concerned, in 1999 Cole re-declared himself a Bahai by dedicating himself in word to the Baha'i founder on talisman9@yahoogroups.com by which act he also invented a new Haifan Bahai category as unenrolled, which has since been taken up by people such as Alison Marshall and Karen Bacquet and their supporters. This, in many ways, makes Juan Cole the actual founder of a virtual Haifan Bahai sect, which indeed makes him a Bahai in every sense of the word. Based on his own word, which he posted on the USENET group talk-religion-bahai, Cole considers himself a "loyal opponent" to the Haifan [[Universal House of Justice". Here is the thread where he lays it all out. Unless you have a more recent statement from Juan Cole post-December 1999, he considers himself to be a Bahai: http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/a83f04b808ae8d7c/0d3c66d8b3378ec9?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Juan+Cole+%2B+loyal+opposition#0d3c66d8b3378ec9

What ideological hacks of the Haifan organization's Internet committee think of all this, is irrelevent. Thamarih (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)