Wikipedia, Karsh and Cole
An encyclopedia article should be an objective accounting of a person's life and work. The wikipedia entry on me is constantly being distorted by a small group of far rightwing activists who put the comments of my ideological critics up into the body in an attempt to discredit me.
I never replied to the smear of me gotten up by Marty Peretz of the New Republic and carried out by a far rightwing Israeli historian named Ephraim Karsh, some time ago. It was beneath contempt.
Karsh used scurrilous propaganda techniques, attempting to insinuate that my criticisms of the Neconservative clique in the Bush administration are somehow like believing in the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Of course, he put the insinuation in the negative, so as to protect himself from criticism. No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment.
Karsh charged that I am innocent of the 20th and 21st century history of the Middle East because much of my writing had been on earlier periods.
But in fact I have formally published in refereed academic venues on the Taliban, on September 11, the Ayatollahs of Iraq and democracy, on the historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and many other twentieth century and twenty-first century subjects. My book, Sacred Space and Holy War contains chapters on the twentieth-century history of the Arab Shiites and on the modernity of the Islamic Republic of Iran and I have also published a chapter at McGill University Press on the treatment of religious minorities by the Islamic Republic, especially in the 1990s and early zeroes.
In addition to my writing on academic 20th century and contemporary topics, which has been extensive, I have published a raft of op-eds on contemporary affairs in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, etc., etc. I am a sought-after commentator in the media on contemporary Middle Eastern affairs, which I follow on a daily basis, having made appearances on the Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, CNN Headline News, etc., etc. The news professionals are in no doubt of my expertise on the up to the minute happenings in the region.
I am a person of wide personal experience with the late twentieth century and contemporary Middle East. I worked as a newspaperman in Beirut in the late 1970s. I lived for several years in Cairo. I lived in Amman, Jordan. I lived and traveled widely in Pakistan and India. I have continued to visit the region frequently in the past 15 years, keeping in touch with the pulse of opinion and changing local views. I don't need to do that through interpreters. I speak fluent colloquial Arabic, Urdu and Persian, and can get around in Turkish.
I have written a lot about the earlier history of the Middle East and will go on doing so. But Karsh's attempt to paint me as a dusty antiquarian is simply implausible.
You will note, moreover, that a medievalist like Bernard Lewis, who for the most part wrote about the early Muslim period or the Ottoman Empire, is lionized by people like Karsh when he writes about current affairs. Lewis's experience on the ground in the Arab world is minimal compared to my own.

|
10 Comments:
Professor, the ravings of "wikiality" are so far off base that even the Colbert Report and Penny Arcade mock the Wikipedians.
Considering that Bill "Austro-Hungarian Monarchist" Lind links to your site, chances are good you're getting readers who actually have their boots on the ground. Therefore you were right in the second paragraph -- Peretz and Karsh are beneath you. Don't bother with them. If they're really that annoying, you can get a grad student to explain why they're so stupid. You've got bigger fish to fry.
The only remedy for propaganda is "critical thinking".
The propagandists' job is to apologize for, to shore up, the belief system of the propagandists' targets. The propagandists themselves may not even believe their own propaganda. They provide a service to their targets, casting their own reason as the lawyer to their clients' will. They provide an excuse for courses of action already chosen. They are the horse behind the cart, desperately trying to keep up with its mad progress.
It does seem true that most decisions taken in the world are based on fear of the loss of fortune or privilege... things whose existence may itself be illusory.
But there is no alternative to trying to find the causes behind the effects in this world we observe if we wish to have any leverage over those effects at all.
It is not the propagandists who are the problem, it is their clients' fear of loss, most often of something they do not possess to begin with, that must be countered. The propagandists are defending a static order that does not exist to begin with. Fear of change, of the natural state of things, can only be tamed by critical thinking.
Your column daily fosters critical thinking.
Please keep up the good work.
The dogs may bark but the caravan passes on. Just speaking even more than one relevant local language puts you 10K feet above 99% of the commentariate, whether one agrees with you or not (I happen to most of the time). The ubiquity and fungability of electronic media has blinded us to the fundamental value of observers who are (1) in situ and (2) can speak the lingo. You are performing an outstanding public service. Please keep it up, and do not waste time on the Big Lie people. We know who they (and you) are...
I believe Wikipedia has the ability to flag your entry as controversial so that changes can only be made by an editor.
Wikipedia is a good source of information but is abused by immature, childish people.
As we all learned from John Kerry and 2004, you can't allow [censored] to SWIFTBOAT you. You have to defend yourself.
It's just about time that the Professor did. And now the JC biography Wikipedia ("WP") article has shaped up overnight.
Actually anybody can start an article and anybody else can edit or modify that widipedia article (in general unless it gets protected or locked) If you don't register for a user name, u can still edit, your IP address shows up in the edit log.
WP is the Encyclopedia Brittanica I wanted as a kid and Mom couldn't afford to buy. It is incredibly good.
But when it comes to the Middle East and issues concerning Israel, a small group has gained control. Ten to twelve people with about 4 administrators-NeoKon Likudniks. WP has a 3RR rule. An editor can't delete or revert on an article more that three times in a 24 hour period. Otherwise, I could have sat there all day and deleted the unfairly prejudicial slimy Karsh quote as quick as it went up.
Actually I miscounted twice and got blocked from editing for 24 hours once for deleting Karsh and once for sticking back a Cole quote in the neofascism article. Karsh stayed up because I and the other fairminded people were simply outnumbered. It is a numbers game when it comes to content because the detractors could not be reasoned with or compromised.
Yes, this is a plea for people to get involved in Wikipedia and fight for fairness. It would not take a whole lot of people to make the game honest again. Ten neutral editors ready to stand up to the NeoKon Likudniks. (Kon instead of Con because they are not conservatives)
WP is a great idea, a participatory Encyclopedia, electronicaly searchable, free, and instantaneously accessible.
It just needs to be honest when it comes to the Middle East.
Best Wishes
As a grad student, I agree with Publius Americanus - get your grad students to periodically edit your Wikipedia entry.
They'll appreciate the chance to procrastinate while actually performing a service. Wikipedia will tag your entry as "controversial", which should warn the readers that there are people out there distorting what should be an objective description of your work and credentials.
You should not have to constantly monitor your entry, nor should you have to answer these people - you are actually doing something useful with your time.
I haven't even looked at the controversial bits yet, or how neutral the article is, but there's some very poorly written content there, so I might lend a hand with the copy-editing.
I haven't even read the "controversies" entry, or started thinking about neutrality. Some of the article is so badly written I'm going to have to copyedit it just for my own sanity.
this is how bad things get in WP
----------------------------
" More on the Karsh quote
I'm sure this will be reverted, but could we please reproduce what Karsh actually said about Cole for the sake of accuracy in the article? It is weird to have Cole's reponse that he did extensive research without having Karsh's comment intact. Also, I added Cole's actual response--that he published--rather than what was there--that he did extensive research. The only reason to revert this would be to obscure the points of the dialog. Elizmr 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The "poisoning the well" remark is valid; however, the article fails to mention that Cole believes Karsh to be politically motivated; in fairness that should be said somewhere even if just as footnote. I don't like putting some of Cole's "stronger" statements, such as his saying Karsh's remarks are "beneath contempt". Though he did say that, it seems to me that out of the blog context where it was made, it makes Cole look too defensive; I concur with Will that Cole should defend himself, and has every right to do so but randomly extracting bits and pieces of his defense in this article is not a good idea. The "elevator summary" for this graf in my opion i ssomething like this "Karsh has criticized Cole's expertise: it's derivative and echoes conventional wisdom; Cole has replied this is nonsense and he can prove it by his published record. Moreover, Cole believes Karsh has a right-wing agenda".--CSTAR 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Elizmr, the word "extensive" was there too, and one could argue that it was your edit that seemed intended to obscure certain points of dialog -- best that we just don't go there and WP:AGF, however frustrating that is to do. I should add that this section is already way beyond what seems permissable according to WP:BLP; that is a separate issue however.--csloat 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please put back "extensive"; I did not take it out purpousely. There is nothing there that violates WP:BLP and we've been throught this before. Also, I think that it is fine to have more of Cole's reply. Why not put in the part where he says that someone else put Karsh up to it and the whole thing? I just wanted Karsh's statement to be in there as it was written and not clipped up into unintelligibility. The elevator summary just didn't convey Karsh's meaning in my opinion. Elizmr 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. What is your summary?--CSTAR 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The quote is the article now is ok with me. Elizmr 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
WHAT in blazes does this stuff mean?
* published research but has not researched???????. Karsh's whole quote is patent non-sense and is clearly non-encyclopediac. Cole even to a kindergartner is a handson scholar that has lived in the region, has kept in touch with it, and knows what's going on. I'm going to email him some of this stuff so he can have a laugh. Cheers. Will314159 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between doing primary research and publishing it and reviewing others research, editing collections of manuscripts, and publishing that sort of thing. What Karsh says is that he hasn't done the former. I wouldn't expect a kindergartener to get this, but it is a reasonable distinction for any academic to make. Also, Will, Cole writes a lot about Israel and he has never been there and doesn't know Hebrew or Jewish history, so his claim of having been everywhere and speaking every language has an enormous hole in it as far as the middle east is concerned. Elizmr 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
ELIZMR you make a lot of unfounded assumptions that are conclulsory and unfounded in fact. Your POV makes up your facts. I would think any good Bah'ai that's been to Cairo, Beirut, and Amman would have taken the the time to visit the shrine of the founder in Haifa, and that is indeed the case, but your POV had already determined your facts for you. Arabic and Hebrew are cognate languages, both based on tri-consonanantal roots, the scripts are both written right to left, and much of the research is available in English anyway. His reference is the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and you can certainly pick up on that from reading English and Arabic and U.N. resolutions as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention on Human Rights. It's obvious you are going to pick your way through whatever maze or labrynith you have to decreditianiallize what Joshua Landis called the great MidEast scholar of our time for your POV reasons- namely that he is a great exponent of Human Rights (for the Palestinians, inter alia) Take Care! Will314159 19:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, Baha'is, as a general rule, do not go to Israel, unless if they are going on pilgrimage, or volunteering at the Baha'i World Centre. Baha'is, from the time of the Ottoman Empire, do not teach their religion to others in the region of Palestine (now Israel). So Cole going to Cairo, Beirut, and Amman, does not mean that Cole would have gone to Haifa. -- Jeff3000 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
JC REPLIES. There a famous saying about when u assume, what you do to u and to me b/ I"ll spare. The reply from JC is "I have been to Israel. I have carried out extensive academic research on the twentieth-century middle East. cheers Juan" Is that going to satisy Elizmr and get her to stop pushing her Karsh quote? Wikis for the Editors, Beers for the Horses Will314159 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC) "
Best Wishes
Prof. Cole,
Wikipedia does have very stringent measure in place to ensure the accuracy of its articles. One of these includes the email system, where volunteers will do their best to help you by correcting any anomolies in the article. You can contact the team by email at: info-en (at) wikipedia (dot) org
I'm sure that we'll be able to help
Post a Comment
<< Home