Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Proposed new article structure

As per discussion immediately above and general recognition that the current article structure is inadaqute and leading to inferior results, I propose a new article structure which separates straight forward reviews of the book from the back-and-forth debates. The previous structure that separates "praise" from "responses and criticism" is really arbitrary and doesn't help the organization. The splitting of the responses into academics, organizations, politicians and so forth isn't that meaningful either. Thus I propose something similar to the below:

• Introduction
• 1. Book contents
  • Subsections
• 2. Reviews
  • Subsections
• 3. Debates
  • 3.1 Apartheid
  • 3.2 Stein resignation
  • 3.3 Plagiarism?
  • 3.4 Media bias?
  • 3.5 Anti-semitism?
• 4. See also
• 5. Further reading
• 6. Notes

How does that seem? The debates probably should be listed in chronological order, which I think is roughly as given above. --64.230.125.2 03:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that structure. For example, no one has really accused Carter of "plagiarism" per se. To use the term is to inflate the map issue beyond what even the critic himself says on record. It is an interpretation of an as-yet unresolved issue regarding Carter's actual source of the map, which he has identified as not the critic's. The topical structure has a real danger of privileging the criticism that remains allegation and not fact. This is still a book by a living person--and WP:BLP prevails in constructing it. There is also the matter of according due process and respect to an author of a book that was published only last month and about which the reviews are still forthcoming--e.g., The New York Times, The New York Review of Books and other respectable book review publications. Too much reliance of second-hand (secondary) news reports and not enough on scholarly and critical sources. For example, until I located the actual Carter Center link to Carter's letter, no one had bothered to cite it. It is a primary source, not a secondary news report. It is more reliable and worthy of citation; I left the news report in because it provides a perspective on Carter's own words. But it should not be used instead of them in documenting what he actually says in the letter. There are these kinds of problems throughout this and other Wikipedia articles.

The structure needs to be as neutral as the content of the article needs to be. It needs to adhere to avoiding POV; and to follow W:NPOV. The proposed structure privileges the criticisms of the book and not its content. Adequate attention needs to be paid first to content, then to criticism in only reliable and verifiable sources, not mere second-hand reports. The criticism must be verifiable. --NYScholar 03:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would privilege the criticism as much as you think -- for example, at least two of those debates would be headlined by Jimmy Carter, the apartheid debate and the media bias. Further more, if the plagiarism allegations are bunk it will clearly be seen in that section by the responses. Such a structure would be beneficial since it makes treats critics and supporters equally on the contentious matters -- we are not differentiating between "legitimate" debates and "overblow" debates in the structure, such distinctions would simply emerge in a reader from the properly cited and NPOV presentation of the material in each section. I would like to get the opinions of others on this matter -- because the article really does need a new more functional structure/organization. --64.230.125.2 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the table of contents section be removed. It makes an already extremely sloppy article that much more sloppy. Do other book articles include tables of contents? (and if so, should they really?) Also, I hope there is an appropriate amount of skepticism regarding the overtly partisan and frankly ridiculous suggestions that pepper this whole talk page (e.g. the guy who suggests removing or minimizing the "criticism" section because it's just the Jewish/Israel lobby anyway.) Gni 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Until Amazon.com and other online booksellers provide a "look inside this book" or its publisher links to its table of contents, this article in Wikipedia provides information about the contents of the book otherwise not easily accessible (to those who don't already have the book). --NYScholar 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with organising the criticisms topically, because it will stop the article from turning in to just a large listing of information. I think the 'plagiarism' issue should be covered before 'media bias' and 'Anti-semitism' because the issue generated more coverage. --76.214.110.18 14:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes format

To those making changes without discussing them first: please make sure that you avoid tossing in external links wily-nily as you are doing; please use the consistent notes format already prevailing in this article. It's a waste of time to add these external links, and it is confusing; the notes have a logical numbered format; the external links throw that off. Please take the time to convert your external links into notes that come at the end of sentences (preferably; don't interrupt the flow of a sentence w/ a note number when the note can be better placed at the end). --NYScholar 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --64.230.125.2 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

On Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid I merged the extern links with the further reading section. Also, the ordering I used for the "see also", "further reading" and "notes" sections was the same one I noticed was being used on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. I also copied the double column thing for the notes from that article. --64.230.125.2 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In most Wikipedia articles, Notes follow the text. That is the most logical place for Notes section. References (or a bibliography, incl. Further Reading, etc.) follow Notes; External links follow that, and usually See also sec. is last (as those are generally Wikipedia internal links. I or someone else can fix the article another time. I've moved this exchange to the Talk page of the article. It doesn't belong on my talk page, where you initially posted it. This section "Notes format" is the context for these comments. --NYScholar 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. I forgot to say that I did realize after I wrote an editing comment in the article that you had moved some of the ext. links into the Further refs sec in reorganizing it, and that's fine. I think the refs sec now works better. I usually try to put ext links in a ref. format if possible too, but in this case I hadn't done that. --NYScholar 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Special interest group??

To 64.230.120.63 -- you can't just arbitrarily remove criticism that you might not like, saying it comes from a "special interest group." CAMERA's criticism of the book is certainly just as valid as crticism by ADL, and certainly as valid as praise by "Michigan Media Watch," the "Institute for Middle East Understanding" and others. Gni 21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think much (all) of their criticism has already been covered in the Dershowitz section. We can't list what every single journalist and organasation thinks, especially when it is the same. It would perhaps be better to note that they agree with Dershowitz's assertions. --76.214.110.18 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The point here being that we need to organize the controversies topically, not according to every single 'reliable and verifiable' source's opinion. Otherwise, why not start listing what organasations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations think on the book? There could also be a paragraph for Norman Finkelstein, Ward Churchill, Al Jazeera, indivual Palestinian politicians, etc. We just need to document the major portions of controversy. (The WaPo article was already mentioned by Dershowitz too, but I don't see anything wrong with including it for completeness in this case maybe). --76.214.110.18 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. CAMERA is an organization and should be under the "organizations" heading. As to your point on repeating criticism, the praise sections also effectively repeat the same thing: "Such and such liked the book. such and such agrees with carters assertion..." Moreover, CAMERA's criticisms are more in depth and differ from some of the other ones mentioned.

And what is your point regarding Finkelstein, CAIR, etc? IMEU, The Nation, and John Dugard--all cited in the praise section--are pretty much the same.

Finally, please talk it out down here before going back into the article to try and bury, hide or delete the CAMERA section. Gni 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(Even though the other praise and criticisms are not all unique, I've updated the CAMERA section so that it relays some of the organization's unique criticism. Gni 22:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

My only problem was that it was completely redundant previously. I'll also note that I left two notes on the talk page in regard to my edit. Please try to cool your jets. --76.214.110.18 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If we list CAMERA we should list CAIR -- but I think that it is best not to go dig ourselves into the hole of relying on self-published partisan sources, at least stick with notable people who have been published in reputable/established publications (such as Dershowitz, Finkelstein, Dugard, etc.) --64.230.120.144 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it digs ourselves into a hole to start ruling out certain sources as "partisan." I imagine every source listed in this article is "partisan." If it becomes acceptable for each person with their own point of view to decide what is partisan and what (supposedly) isn't, there will be no end to the wars and revisions. Gni 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between CAMERA and just about every other source in the article. CAMERA is not a published magazine, a newspaper or journal, it is a website of an organization whose mission is to defend Israel in the media. It is not a reputable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. ADL is different in that it has a great reputation in the wider public and a long tradition of doing good work, where as CAMERA is held up high mostly by partisans. It is true that most people who are motivated to write a piece on the topic is partisan in some way, but the key is that since they are published in reputable publications they are acceptable. CAMERA is a self-published source. See WP:RS#Self-published_sources. If the same piece was published in the Boston Globe it would be acceptable but since it is just CAMERA it doesn't belong in this article. --64.230.120.144 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not reputable and partisan according to you. ADL is not reputable according to some, and reputable according to others. Same with what makes a "reputable publication." Who decides? Boston Globe editorials, according to your criteria, are self-published. And CAMERA publishes a magazine.

With the link currently, I was unable to find the criticisms mentioned in the article (anything about Ross's book or the mentioning of the 1949 remarks). I thought I would tell you on here so that maybe it won't be such a big deal. --76.214.110.18 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my jets sounded heated earlier. I didn't intend to sound angry. The criticisms are in the 5th link (Dennis Ross's book) and in the 1st and 2nd link (Carter's signing of Camp David accords). I figured it is easier to link to the page containing both criticisms rather than link to each one individually. Gni 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. I'll go ahead and add the specific sources, if you want a link to include for the main body article it might make more sense as further reading, and external link, or something of the sort. --76.214.110.18 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Lee Green?

Since we are saying that it is Lee Green that is making a statement and its on the non-reputable CAMERA website, we should establish that Lee Green is qualified to speak on this issue. I did a web search for Lee Green but couldn't find the likely individual, maybe someone else will have more luck. --64.230.120.144 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources still need a little bit of work, but I have got to go for now..--76.214.110.18 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Green is a researcher for CAMERA, which you might feel is "non-reputable" but many other disagree. Gni 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Green is the author of the commentary posted by CAMERA on CAMERA's own official website. I don't know who Lee Green is, and I also don't know who Gilead Ini is; they appear to be on the staff of CAMERA if they are writing commentaries posted on CAMERA. It is very hard to find out who the staff of CAMERA is; go to the "about CAMERA" page for more information about CAMERA and the Wikipedia article on CAMERA linked in the main article. CAMERA has been the source of much contention in Wikipedia. (See the article history.) --NYScholar 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another article written by Lee Green for CAMERA uses the editorial "we" throughout it. See on Martin Luther King hoax. --NYScholar 23:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

With nexis or some other news database, one can determine some of the staff. See, for example, the Dec. 17, 2006 Atlanta Journal Consitution @issue page, which notes that "Green is director of letter writing at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America." Also, July 22, 2006 Washington Post letter signed by "Gilead Ini/Senior Research Analyst/Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America."

I already added the information about Gilead Ini in the note that I wrote; I was just about to post the same info as above about Lee Green: same quotation. that still does not tell anyone what Lee's professional qualifications are for being "director of letter writing at CAMERA" or what that means. But the source I've just cited (Dec. 17) is one that might be added to the References list of this article. --NYScholar 00:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the various references (to Green, Ini, and Kelly). (went offline for a while afterward) --NYScholar 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable reliability of citations to blogs/unreliable sources

Removing previous material that I was going to move to note to Robert Fisk comment, but it is a blog post by an unknown author of unknown authority, and I do not think it reliable and worthy of citation in the main body of the article, even though it is positive (praise); the Robert Fisk quotation says basically the same; see WP:BLP and W:Reliable sources:

<<Fisk echoes a metaphor used in a blog post by Ben Tanosborn, who calls President Carter "Saint James of Plains" and comments "Let’s have for the first time ever in this country a thorough and honest debate on the issues that create this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and make America part of the solution instead of being the lion’s share of the problem" ("Saint James of Plains, American politician-martyr," The Middle East Online [blog] December 15, 2006, accessed December 26, 2006). >>

Is this blog post even a reliable source? Who is Ben Tanosborn? Why is this blog post being cited at all here? See W:Reliable Sources policy on blogs. It is self-published on the author's own website, but, other than his self-description, I do not know who he is or what the nature of his authority is for being cited in this article. It is a post in his personal blog, not an article published in a peer-reviewed newspaper or journal. --NYScholar 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Risk's original piece can be found here[1]. --64.230.127.25 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed a long quotation from near the end of the article to save space

because the source is linked and one can read it in both the primary source (already noted and linked) and well as the secondary source (also already noted and linked too). It's from the AP news account (secondary source) about Carter's letter to Jewish citizens of America publicly posted on the website of the Carter Center. --NYScholar 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Table of contents

If someone knows how to do this, could someone please make the TC into two columns; I've already made it small print to save space. (See talk above re: TC.) --NYScholar 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gni 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Gni for the columns and to the later editor(s) for the more recent changes to that section. The Table of Contents is quite useful now, I think. I don't mind the changing of the small print to larger print if others don't mind it. The larger print is more legible; the columns already save some space. The linking to W articles as sugg'd earlier is very useful. --NYScholar 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Major points"

I don't want to get into a revert war about this, so I'll put the issue here. Several, if not most, of the points Carter makes that are "major" are disputed at best, outright lies at worst. I think it's fine to state these as assertions that he makes, but the article should not imply that any of them are true. I'm open to suggestions how to make this clear. --Leifern 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter IS stating them, but that doesn't mean they are correct or are not lies or whatever. These are what Carter regards as the main points. It is up to reader to decide about their accuracy. To go with "Carter makes several assertions about what he regards as "[s]ome major points in the book" doesn't really read well--Tom 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for changing it without reading this first, I didn't see it. I didn't originally write it, but it looks like the "what he regards as" was previously doing what you wanted to me. All it says now is "Carter states" and the quote. I don't see this as Wikipedia endorsing what he is saying as fact, but if you want to discuss the wording further that's fine. Once again, sorry for changing it before I read this, I didn't know this was here. --76.214.110.18 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Leifem, you say you don't want a revert war? Carter is stating what he believes are the major points of his book. The book might be crap, I sure haven't read it, so I have no idea. Thats not the point here. He isn't alledging(sp) that the main points are X,Y and Z, he is stating what he believes the major points of his book are to be. Again, is this really that big of a deal? Isn't there a criticism section in this article that talks about Carters allegations and addresses them. Anyways, --Tom 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. But I (and I assume we) are perfectly willing to listen to your complaint and to try and come up with a wording which pleases everyone. If you don't feel 'states' is neutral, why not? What do you think it should be changed to? --76.214.110.18 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a quote? The article makes it appear to be. If so, lets source it and be done with it. Also, I am happy to hear other suggestions. I am curreently in a "less is better" mode and really don't like anything unless it can be sourced. Cheers, --Tom 15:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a quote, and it is sourced. It appears directly before the bullet points Carter listed. That's why I included it in the blockquote. The citation is in the article, but I shall also include it here. [2] --76.214.110.18 15:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I would maybe change how we mention the Globe article, but the quote itself is fine. Carter says "Some major points in the book are:". Are they "true" facts? How the hell should I know. Wikipedia is not saying that We believe them to be facts, just that Carter is pointing out what he feels to be the major points in his book. It must be me. --Tom 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I warned about this problem here on the talk page, but the issue was left unresolved in the article. So don't complain about a potential revert war. I am open to rephrasing the lead-in, but the current phrasing makes it sound like these are points of fact, when some of them are in fact falsehoods. I could insert [sic] next to every single assertion that is debatable, but I think that gets in the way of the flow. He makes these assertions in the book, and we should make it clear that they are assertions, not facts. I'll let the anonymous editor try a version, but this needs to be fixed.--Leifern 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence has nothing to do with whether the points themselves are fact or fiction! The "fact" here is that Carter states these as major points in the book- Adding something along the lines of "Carter makes several assertions about what he regards as "[s]ome major points in the book" makes no sense; he's not making assertions- he is actually stating that these are major points in the book he wrote- whether they are fact or not is irrelevant. --khello 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I write the exact same thing above? Pheww, for a moment, I thought it was me. Glad to see its not. Anyways, is this now put to bed?--Tom 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The sentence must make it abundantly clear that the "points" only reflect Carter's (selective) sense of reality, not any objective measure. He is asserting these points to be true, but no reader should be misled into thinking that they are true. --Leifern 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point- that section is about what Carter sees as the key points in his book. In no way does that imply that the points themselves are factual. That's what the criticism section is for. --khello 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your point, and I'm disagreeing with it. It is not sufficiently clear that his "points" are not premises for the debate at all, but merely his interpretation of affairs. No reader should be confused into thinking that these "points" are undisputed. I've tried to make a change that should make this more clear. --Leifern 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The first bit of that section doesn't make sense anymore- I suggest something simple along the lines of:

Carter states that the "major points" in his book are:

"asserts" doesn't really fit- it implies that someone is disagreeing that the following list does not represent the major points in his book. Whether you think is fact or fiction is irrelevant here- at this point in the article we're merely introducing the book and what it's about; hence no normative judgment. Even if these points are indeed "untrue", it doesn't change the fact that they are the "main points" in that book- which is what that section is about! --khello 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's trying to make an argument by summarizing it this way, and the "points" are the premise for his argument. The problem is that these premises are in dispute - we can't simply go along with his phrases if they beg the question. So we either have to restate the phrase "points" to be assertions, or we have to make it clear that while he thinks they're "points" they are really assertions. Too many people already believe it's true. The alternative is to put "sic" after every single debatable point, and that would a) be ugly and b) more contentious. --Leifern 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not trying to make an argument: this is the argument he employs in the book. That is the fact- not the points themselves. This section is about the contents of the book. So here we're presenting the main points of the book. There is absolutely no value judgment there: it is fact that these are the major points in the book. Even people who disagree with him agree that these are the main points of his book, albeit they believe the points themselves are wrong! Similarly those who agree with him also see those as the main points in the book, but in this case they do agree with him. Now, analysis of these points (factual accuracy etc...) goes in the criticism and response section, which is already the case. --khello 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in violent agreement about the substance. Now try to work with me on the phrasing so that it doesn't come across as ambiguous to a casual reader. I don't know how much you've gotten involved in articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but each one of them goes through careful phrasing to avoid the kind of ambiguity we're seeing here. --Leifern 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording still doesn't make any sense, and I don't have much hope of you trying to reach out, so I guess I'll try. Carter is stating a fact, the arguments within his book. I know that you don't think that the points within the book are factual, and you'd like Wikipedia to mention that some of the points are disputed. So: We need to state the arguments that are factually contained in Carter's book but mention that they are disputed by some. Asserts clearly does not work because the points ARE in Carter's book. Perhaps we could add a few words or a sentence which talks about some finding the points contentious? Nothing productive will happen if we can't find a compromise which everyone is happy with. --76.214.110.18 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So I would briefly allude to the fact that the book has generated press coverage because of its contents or mention one represenative critic. The point to keep in mind is that this isn't the criticism section. It is worth noting that there is dispute. It just needs to be done briefly here and with a citation. I really hope this helps. --76.214.110.18 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This particular point has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but of simple phrasing and logic. As anon above reiterated, the "fact" here is not whether the "points" are factual or not; it is that these are the main arguments in Carter's book. that is fact. I know I seem like I'm repeating myself, but issues with the factual validity of the book is addressed in the criticism section; the way it should be. The facts are indeed disputed, and no one is hiding anything- the dispute is clearly noted in the criticism section. We must keep in mind that this article is about the book, it's content and reactions- not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. the first part is to describe the books contents without passing any value judgment. First you describe the subject, then you analyze it. --khello 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the saying: When one person calls you a jack-ass, screw em. When two people call you a jack-ass, screw em. When THREE people call you a jack-as, its time to put the saddle on. Enough already. --Tom 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, the edit that finally resulted from the preceding tussle –

"Some 'Major points'": "Recently 'reiterating the keys to peace' in the Middle East as presented in his book, Carter states that, 'Some major points in the book are...'"

– was ridiculous. It reminds me of my favorite Monty Python album, "A Pick of Some Recently Repeated Python Hits, Again, Volume 2." So I've fixed it. We don't need a Chinese-box proliferation of frames telling us this is only what Carter thinks – it is very obviously a statement by Carter about what he says himself in a controversial book. Dershowitz, Ross, Stein et al are all there to heckle and jeer from the peanut gallery; Leifern may well want to join them, but that's not how Wikipedia works.--G-Dett 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent edit war

Regarding this edit war:

The issue isn't even about NPOV, but simply that of relevance. We need to remember this article is about the book.

• Gil Troy, author and professor of history at McGill University, wrote in an article published by the History News Network that December 18, 2006, "If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be." He writes:

Sadly, Israelis and Palestinians do not enjoy the kind of harmony the Israeli Declaration of Independence envisioned. Carter and his comrades use “Apartheid” as shorthand to condemn some of the security measures improvised recently, especially since Carter’s late friend Yasir Arafat unleashed the latest wave of terrorism in September 2000. Israel built a security fence to protect its citizens and separate Palestinian enclaves from Israeli cities. Ironically, that barrier marks Israel’s most dramatic recognition of Palestinian aspirations to independence since Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993.

• Melvin Konner, noted professor of anthropology at Emory University, wrote to Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman to decline a position on an advisory panel:

If you want The Carter Center to survive and thrive independently in the future, you must take prompt and decisive steps to separate the center from President Carter's now irrevocably tarnished legacy.

Konner insisted that the center must make it clear that Carter does not speak for the institution on matters of the Middle East and the Jewish community.

• According to the Journal Constitution, Konner stated that Carter's "rigidity of thought and complete failure to engage criticisms from much greater experts than me about his numerous and serious errors of commission and omission make it clear to me that an attempt by me to advise him would be pointless and counterproductive."

The newspaper also quoted Konner describing a passage in the book where he believes Carter condones terrorism. Konner said that sentence condones "the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace." "This sentence, simply put, makes President Carter an apologist for terrorists and places my children...in greater danger," he said. In his Op-Ed, Konner described the admiration he once had for Carter, then noted:

Carter has changed. Something has happened to his judgment. I don't understand what it is, but I know it is very dangerous. At a minimum, his legacy is irrevocably tarnished, and he will never again be a factor in the quest for Middle East peace. At worst, he is emboldening terrorists and their apologists in the Arab world, encouraging them to go on with their terror campaign and refuse even to recognize Israel's right to just exist.

• Troy criticizes Carter's view on foreign leaders and issues, saying, "Not only has Carter palled around with Yasir Arafat, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and the Chinese oligarchs, he has always bristled at those who dared label his buddies “terrorists” or “dictators.”

what does any of this have to do with the book? The only sentence in this whole edit that has anything to do with the book is:

Applying the Apartheid label tries to ostracize Israel by misrepresenting some of the difficult decisions Israel has felt forced to make in fighting Palestinian terror.

but that's already covered by the fact that there's so much controversy over the title- simply adding an additional reference to an already written statement would suffice

As for the whole Dershowitz response section (apart from the fact that it's in the wrong place):

• Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post), "laughable" (San Francisco Chronicle), and riddled with errors and bias in reviews across the country. Many of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by "representatives of Jewish organizations" as Carter has claimed.

This is redundant

• As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times -- certainly more times than Carter has been there -- and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.

• Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest.

Again, what does this have to do with the book??? and how is that a 'reply' to Carter as there is no previous mention of these specific points?

I've gone ahead and reverted it as I think all of this doesn't belong in this article.

khello 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's relevant because it's discussing the content of the book. Simply because it does not refer directly to the title every three sentences doesn't mean that it's off topic. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 07:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

erm... what does "Carter's legacy" have to do with the content of the book? What does Carter's "view of foreign leaders" have to do with the book? what does some Academic's rejection of a post at the Carter Center have to do with the book? what does "Zayed's rampant jew hatred" have to do with the book? --khello 07:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

you're also not addressing the redundancy of some statements: if you look under the Dershowitz criticism section the first thing you see is the exact statement you're reinserting with the rest. --khello 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to say the author is allegedly not an unbiased observer to the Middle East, which he is writing about. That tidbit is in important matter of controversy pertaining to Carter's perception and his writing of the subject. His rampant hatred says that basically, if Harvard turned his money, why did Carter take it? Why does carter call him a "personal friend"? It has a great deal of importance and controversy, possibly trying to prove he had had an agenda of some sort. It is certainly a main point to Dershowitz's op-ed. Anyway, couldn't one ask, in light of your questions, what does

"[M]any controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. . . . This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.[3][40]" have to do with the content of this book?

--Shamir1 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think copy/pasting that huge chunk is necessary- I think a simple, sourced sentence in which Dershowitz questions the "neutrality" of Carter as a precursor to the rest of the criticism would suffice. You make a good point that one of his main criticisms is Carter's apparent neutrality (or lack of it), and I think just having a single sentence at the beginning of that section would serve exactly that purpose. Also the description above is, in my view, original research- the "if Harvard..." and "possibly trying to prove he had an agenda..." bits are examples of that.

As for the other comment you copied here- if you look back at the beginning of the article, one of Carter's "ultimate purpose"s of the book is to "encourage debate" about the conflict. That's the only reason I can see that statement staying- although I personally don't think the second part of that quote should be in the article- the first bit is more than enough.

and by the way, I didn't write/put in that statement. --khello 06:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just saying "He is not neutral" is written all over this article and by commentators and is certainly not suffice as you can see with essential material regarding his relationship with that man. Dershowitz's reasons are more in-depth, and quite of interest to the article. As for explaining to me what original research is, what can i say? Thank you for reminding me? I did not insert anything about "if Harvard..." and "possibly trying to prove he had an agenda...". The "if Harvard..." part is common sense, no research or mention necessary to write or expand on it in the article. The "possibly trying" is just an interpretation that one might have one learning this information. None were included, so are you saying I am using original research while writing my own comment in the talk page? --Shamir1 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry- I think I misrepresented myself by calling the stuff original research. What i meant was, since this section is about criticism of the book, the only relevant bit is that Dershowitz questions Carter's neutrality. Everything else is just misleading: Carter didn't write a biased book because of his relationship with Zayed, and the way that passage is presented makes it seem so. So I guess what i really meant was misrepresentation rather than original research. The fact is, in Dershowitz's eyes, Carter wrote a bad book because Carter is biased. That's the criticism here. Adding that long blurb about how Antisemetic Zayed is doesn't directly relate to the book, and doesn't really belong in this article.

Therefore, I think a better way is to write a simpler statement along the lines of "Dershowitz also questions Carter's neutrality, citing an award he received....". Simple as that. As it stands now the whole Dershowitz section is copy/pasted from the article, and it is my belief that wikipedia shouldn't simply be a reproduction of other pieces on the net. It would make more sense, and certainly make it clearer, if the context is given briefly and to the point.

Sorry if I confused --khello 23:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How the criticism relates to the criticism of the book is all summed up in the final sentence of the passage: "Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest." And actually no, most of the article is not mentioned so far, we have only written one or two sentences from it. This passage, however, is the bulk of the body in regards to Carter's alleged bias. It should be noted. --Shamir1 23:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir and Khello, is there really a substantive disagreement between you here? What's wrong with Khello's proposed paraphrase, "Dershowitz also questions Carter's neutrality, citing an award he received...." Doesn't that cover Dershowitz's allegation about a conflict of interest ?--G-Dett 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is slightly more complex and has been given just one extra sentence to show. Other than that, most of the article is not even given any space. Also, I seem to be under attack for something other people have done unnoticed. So tell me, what does:

"The assault against Carter, rather, says more about the failings of the American media - which have largely let Israel hawks heap calumny on Carter's book. It exposes the indifference of the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership to the rule of law and basic human rights, the timidity of our intellectual class and the moral bankruptcy of institutions that claim to speak for American Jews and the Jewish state.[35]" HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTENT of this book? What does it have to do with the author even? Unlike the other information at hand, nothing. --Shamir1 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, I've lost count of how many times you have reinserted your material back in to the article, but I'm guessing you are close to 3RR. Please get agreement on the talk page before you reinsert again. Thanks --75.46.88.60 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that 4? Can you please self-revert until everyone is happy? --75.46.88.60 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it has been slightly changed, and if you choose to address me by my user name add the 1, as Shamir is not my name. If everyone must be happy, I should be too, so I now ask for an explanation to the two paragraphs

• "[M]any controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. . . . This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.[3][40]"

and

• "The assault against Carter, rather, says more about the failings of the American media - which have largely let Israel hawks heap calumny on Carter's book. It exposes the indifference of the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership to the rule of law and basic human rights, the timidity of our intellectual class and the moral bankruptcy of institutions that claim to speak for American Jews and the Jewish state.[35]"

Until you let me know why the Zayed passage, which is shorter than both of them, is for some reason less worthy than those two, then everyone will not be "happy." The passage deals with Carter firsthand and relates to his book, while the two I just mentioned hardly actually refer to the book. One deals with debate in general about the subject "throughout other nations", and the other is just about the "assault on Carter. Both, again, are much longer than the brief sentences about his relationship with Zayed. If there is no explanation, it deserves just as much space. --Shamir1 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just counted and I got 5 reverts ([3],[4],[5],[6],[7])within 24 hours. You are in violation of WP:3RR, but I would assume it's an honest mistake. I'm going to revert it again. Please wait awhile and discuss this on the talk page. Thanks --75.46.88.60 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, I see you've now gone and reinserted this material. I must say, it does seem like an awful lot of air time to give to the details of a guilt-by-association ploy, especially in a section supposedly about academic criticism.

I mean, just look at the timeline: Carter's "personal friend" allegedly disgraced himself after Carter accepts the award. And when exactly "in 2001" was the award given? Before, say, September, I wonder? I don't know, because I can't find any reference to the award outside of Dershowitz's op-ed. What sort of award was it? A vast, unreported sum complete with oil stocks on the QT? Or something more like a speaking honorarium, of the sort that every ex-President bounces along on? You'll forgive me, but I wouldn't put it past the Felix Frankfurter professor of law to be, let's say, massaging the details. But let's take him at his word. Do you think the award was genuinely controversial when Carter accepted it? Had other American statemen distanced themselves from Zayed at the time? Do you think that Dershowitz really believes that when a statesman in a diplomatic setting calls another statesman his "personal friend," that the phrase carries great weight, and means what it means in other contexts? Do you think Dershowitz really believes this official award, from an Arab statesman to the American statesman who midwifed peace between Israel and Egypt, created for the latter a serious conflict of interest which now, six years and several wars later, continues to reverberate?

Or do you think Dershowitz might be performing one of his little shell games?

In any case, I cannot see what is lost by hewing more closely to Khello's apt paraphase. Maybe you can explain that?--G-Dett 00:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, you are free to edit those paragraphs you mentioned. The first one I've already expressed my concerns about here. I also think the second one is definitely not a good quote; the relevant parts can be paraphrased as a criticism of the critics without adding all the moral stuff etc... to make it less POV and more on topic.

I personally haven't had the chance (yet) to go through the whole article and weed out irrelevant quotations- it is just that recent edits are easier to spot and fix. It wasn't my intention at all to pick on your edits. --khello 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reported Shamir1's 5RR vio at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Shamir1_reported_by_User:Mostlyharmless_.28Result:.29.3D. Mostlyharmless 01:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Right here on Carter's website, and right here. on Zayed's Carter received an award from Zayed in 2001. And if you want to know the award, which was accompanied with money, it was the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, 2001. What difference does it make if it was "after the award". He is the same person. It is about the person, not the time. And G-Dett, when you say: "Do you think the award was genuinely controversial when Carter accepted it? Had other American statemen distanced themselves from Zayed at the time? Do you think that Dershowitz really believes that when a statesman in a diplomatic setting calls another statesman his "personal friend," that the phrase carries great weight, and means what it means in other contexts?" Well, that is all gibberish, double-talk, and irrelevance that you can work out with Dershowitz yourself, not on this article. And yeah, it seems to be genuinely controversial because it is something Harvard rejected because of the man's name who the organization bears. The Zayed Center had already been hosting or writing articles and others that advocate Holocaust denial or that Jews control the U.S. Only about a year after Carter's award was the Center closed due to increased negative attention of the organization. Here is more on the claimed antisemitism and other controversy of the Zayed group. You can also see more here and here and here and events even before Carter's award [8]. All it is is controversy. Take note of it guys, it's short. --Shamir1 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Shamir1. They confirm all that I suspected about Dershowitz's flimflammery, down to the last detail. Carter speaks at the Zayed Center in April of 2001, about a year and a half after the center is opened, and five months before the 9-11 attacks. There appears to be nothing controversial about the center at the time; Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jacques Chirac had all spoken there in circumstances similar to Carter's. Harvard had accepted a $2.5 million endowment just months before Carter's appearance there. After 9-11, the Center publishes a book suggesting that the U.S. planned the attacks. This is discovered two years later when a Harvard researcher looks into the matter; she publicizes her findings about the Center, including its anti-semitism. Harvard returns the endowment in 2004; the Zayed Center is discredited and shuts up shop; Sheikh Zayed dies that same year. Two years after that, Carter writes a book about Israel-Palestine, and Dershowitz tries to spin Carter's (but not Clinton's or Gore's) routine speaking engagement six years before, at a center now defunct, and the perfunctory pleasantries he made there about a man now two years dead, into a current conflict-of-interest problem; and tries to taint Carter (but not Clinton or Gore or anyone else) with Zayed Center scandals that unfolded subsequent to Carter's visit there.

Now, with this in view I trust that you understand the relevance of the chronology. If, say, writer X once gave a positive review to David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden (an international bestseller written years before its author ventured into Holocaust denial), and writer Y comes along in 2006 and accuses X of having "praised the works of a notorious Holocaust denier," then Y is engaged in sophistry and character assassination. It would make no sense, none at all, to say: "He is the same person. It is about the person, not the time." I trust that's clear now, and I trust we can agree that the "gibberish, double-talk, and irrelevance" is all Dershowitz's. You are entirely right that it's not our role to expose this kind of thing. But we do have an editorial decision to make about how much space and emphasis to give this particular argument. And as we make that decision, we can certainly take into account its manifest absurdity.--G-Dett 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry you had to write an essay criticizing Dershowitz's thinking. Yes, BUT Harvard gave it back. He, as a public official, accepted his money, which is a notable case. And even when it was discover two years later, he could have just as easily returned the money (his loyalty and influence), as you just said Harvard did. Also, it was not just the 9/11 attacks, the Center denied the Holocaust and claimed of Jewish control over the U.S., as well as other mish-mush. The funniest thing is that you have some sort of idea that Zayed became an anti-Semite only after the 9/11 attacks. Certainly Carter should know his "personal friend" well enough.

So keep on reading your "international bestseller", it seems that your main agenda is to limit the amount of criticism because of your own opinion. Besides other factors, you have not mentioned anything else regarding the useless, irrelevant info that took up space, and only picked on me. And I know you have an opinion, and now we have seen it in regards to Dershowitz. BOTTOM LINE: All of your analysis or whatnot above is not relevant, and neither is mine. You provided no legitimate reasons why not to include that information (in fact at first you almost denied that the events occured). I highly doubt you would be making any of these comments had it been one of the praisers. That is all of your opinion, we don't need it on the article, it is Dershowitz's that we need. So please back off of me; I would much rather continue to discuss these issues with Khello. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Shamir1, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Every editor's opinion is relevant, it is the entire point of consensus. On another note.. this article isn't about Dershowitz's criticism, especially when it is off on a tangent. I (like most others it appears) don't feel this has any place in an already long criticism section. --75.46.88.60 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to feel picked on, Shamir1, but I think you're still a little confused about the timeline. The point is not when Zayed became an anti-semite; that's a question for psychics and psychoanalysts. The turning point is when it became known that his center was involved in fringe politics and anti-semitism. That happened in 2004. American statesmen like Carter and Clinton and Gore, who graced Zayed's center with their presence and their pleasantries years before, no longer associated with him after that. Harvard returned the center's huge gift, and good for them, but I don't know that any of the many recipients of smaller sums and honoraria returned these. Dershowitz slaloms around these details in order to fool readers, and in your case it seems to have worked. If Dershowitz's good friend Bill Clinton were to write a book critical of Israel (instead of blurbing Dershowitz's books), Dershowitz would fire the same Nerf ammunition at him that he's now firing at Carter.

Though this article should certainly address Dershowitz's criticisms, it doesn't "need" – indeed it shouldn't have – a shot-by-shot recreation of this particular smoke-and-mirrors setpiece. It has had no traction and zero influence, probably because it's been recognized as bogus even by Dershowitz partisans. Review WP:Undue weight.--G-Dett 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is bogus? Who says what is bogus? That is not true that it happened in 2004. As I said earlier, the year Carter received his award they had been publishing denying the Holocaust and the idea that Jews control the U.S. Not 2004. I dont understand anything you are talking about when it comes to Clinton or what Dershowitz "would do." That is irrelevant. When I said your opinion is not needed I was referring to the article, not the talk page. All of your "analysis" of Dershowitz's statement is for you to work out with him, not here. So far, everything he said happened. You said earlier: I don't know, because I can't find any reference to the award outside of Dershowitz's op-ed. What sort of award was it? A vast, unreported sum complete with oil stocks on the QT? Or something more like a speaking honorarium, of the sort that every ex-President bounces along on? You'll forgive me, but I wouldn't put it past the Felix Frankfurter professor of law to be, let's say, massaging the details." which obviously casts doubt that the award happened and Carter made such a comment. When a public official accepts money from someone or some place, they are more bound to be influenced by their interests. That is the point. It was never given back, he still has that money. That is the point that is trying to come accross. It does not make a difference if you think "Oh well that doesnt change anything" or "Yeah well Dershowitz is just..." because apparently Dershowitz thinks that makes a difference. That is what matters. --Shamir1 07:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, you say you don't understand what I've said. On that point at least we are agreed. As far as the article page goes, are you happy to briefly summarize Dershowitz's argument rather than elaborating it at length? --G-Dett 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier up did we establish that this criticism didn't have much to do with the book? And if so, does this mean I should persistently add numerous quotes that are even semi-related positively to the article? --75.46.88.60 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gil Troy and Melvin Konner

Konner's criticisms seem to be very similar to Stein's. I'm also not sure whether I feel that Troy or Konner meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the article because I haven't seen their claims anywhere in the 'mainstream media' (Stein and Ross seemed to generate the most coverage from what I could tell). If Troy and Konner indeed warrant inclusion, then we need to 'balance' the article, there is plenty of verifiable information to do so.

Once again, I don't claim these sources are perfect or notable, but there does need to be balance.

• Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA and a frequent commentator on Middle East issues, writes here: [9]
• Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of Political Science at Depaul University, writes here: [10]

--76.214.110.18 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

HNN, where Troy Konner's piece is "published", is a blog. It shouldn't go in. --64.230.127.25 15:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears he also wrote an op-ed in a newspaper. The blog is just used for a quote from him, so I think that is reasonable. My problem is that his complaints completely mirror Stein's and that I haven't seen a lot of coverage about about his particular incident. It just seems innotable and redundant. Troy just seems innotable. I just don't think Wikipedia should list every opinion held by a professor or printed in an op-ed. --76.214.110.18 15:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I favor including the debate in the article - thus the more opinions the better, as long as they all meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. We should use the citation from the original source (in the case of Troy) or it is likely someone else in the future will raise the same objection. --64.230.127.25 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll just wait for a few more opinions about notability. Thanks for your input atleast. I don't know what you mean with the Troy citation objection though. --76.214.110.18 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction: HNN is a project of George Mason University. Troy is on their advisory board. I don't know how I feel about it (according to Wikipedia:RS), but I'm not sure if it should be called a blog. It's put out by an organasation. --76.214.110.18 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finkelstein piece above is self-published thus it should not be included in the article (self-published material is out unless it is describing the person who is publishing, and in this case that is not the case), but the Saree piece is legitimate and I'll include it now. --64.230.127.25 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know whether I feel that the Saree piece is notable though. I'd like to define a threshhold for inclusion first. If it means printing dozens of opinions and seeking balance then fine, but that just isn't my first preference. --76.214.110.18 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in following the debate, thus I like to see all the pieces that are published in the mainstream about the topic. Eventually, we can filter down the statements and just quote one representative individual and then list all the other names of those that support/echo that general position. That would help cut down the article length without cutting down the number of people cited or the quality of the final article. --64.230.127.25 15:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't think the Konner bit should be in the article at all- it has absolutely nothing to do with the book itself but rather Carter and the Carter Center in general. As for Troy's, as i mentioned above (and as you have also pointed out) the criticism of the title has already been mentioned by Stein- I think simply adding another reference to show that more than one person has beef with the title would suffice. The article is really long and full of block quotes- which I'm not a fan of- so we really need to work on summarizing since a lot of the points are becoming redundant. --khello 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, just with different reasoning. I don't mind a few of the block quotes, but I'd like them to atleast come from people like the author or notable critics. --76.214.110.18 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is not clearly written; the sentence being interpreted needs direct quotation for the section to make any sense; it is not verifiable without direct quotation of the sentence. That someone "believes" something to mean something or other is called an "interpretation" and that is what is going on; a critic is "interpreting" a passage. If the section is at all relevant, the sentence being interpreted needs direct identification. <<

Melvin Konner

Melvin Konner, a professor of anthropology at Emory University, . . . [interprets] a passage in . . . [Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as condoning] . . . terrorism, arguing that the sentence-- ". . . ." [quote the sentence in a blockquote if lengthy; within quotation marks if short]-- condones "the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace."

>> -NYScholar 07:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is 'mainstream media' as it is, according to Wikipedia, "the only major daily newspaper in Atlanta, Georgia, USA and its suburbs." Konner is especially notable, for one the newspaper calls him a "noted anthropologist", and he was also offered the position on the advisory panel of the Carter Center. His reasons for decline are included in his review of the book and Carter. And by the way, I got that direct quotation we needed. And his review, if you actually read it, has everything to do with the views presented in Carter's book and he addresses it directly. --Shamir1 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I didn't want to include it was because I didn't want the page to become a long list of any academic or media mention of the book, but it looks like that has already happened, so if we remove Konner I'd want to remove Finkelstein and others now also. I didn't find some of the information in the quote completely relevant to the book, but once again, I now have this problem with other content in the article. I am going to leave most of it alone, but I would remind you that Wikipedia has the 3RR policy regardless of discussion on talk page. --75.46.88.60 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go over 3rr, it should be for a very good reason, not because you put another post on the talk page. I'm not going to go put your name on the 3rr board, but please try to keep this in mind for today and in the future to avoid problems for everyone. Try to talk it out on the talk page if you feel so passionate about it; given some time, the issue could easily work itself out. --75.46.88.60 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I now have further issue with some of the Konner material. The Carter Center basically said it has no idea what letter Konner is talking about, making citation #35 seem somewhat irrelevant. I'm going to leave it in while others voice their opinion on the matter. --75.46.88.60 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the material discussed in this section of talk.

• I've added publication information for sources; fixed misleadingly-incomplete quotations;
• I've made it clearer (I hope) that the likely reason that the intended recipient had not (yet) received the letter from Konner is because Konner told the source (Suggs) that he mailed it only a week earlier than Suggs's article; the Carter Center might not have received it yet or it might not yet have gotten from Emory University's central mail sorting room to the Center.
• It is important to keep in mind that part of Konner's critique relates to his being a prof. at "the institution" hosting the Carter Center. [The phrase, to me, is still somewhat ambiguous; I am not glossing it; just quoting Konner's use of it. "Institution" would seem to refer back to the Carter Center (the "center"), but it also could refer to Emory University, which hosts the Carter Center; I've revised the material containing the quotation since first posting this comment here. (Updated.)]
• I am not taking any position on the comments of Konner or others in the article, but I do think that their affiliations must be clearly identified (throughout the article) as these affiliations clearly make their comments appear to be POV and not NPOV.
• No suppression of who these people are and what their professional affiliations are must occur in this article. Suppressing their allegiances etc. gives the article the appearance of favoring some POVs over others in this account of what has become a highly-charged controversial subject (the book). (See editing history for specific changes.)
• One must also choose the verbs that one uses to define what a commentator is doing ("writes" etc.) in a spoken comment or written text about the book without becoming redundant; sometimes a colon serves more efficiently to introduce a quotation (as W points out) than additional unnecessary words ("as stating" "as saying" "as commenting" etc.
• Also: please try to avoid passive voice and use briefer active voice constructions, identifying the agent (subject) of the action (the person who opines, comments, writes, says, states, asserts, argues, claims, emphasizes, stresses, etc.).
• If adding a new source, please add all the pub. info. following the format already prevailing in this article. I (or other editors) should not have to find that; the person who inserts the material in the article needs to be responsible for filling that information in, following proper format. Throwing in external links wily-nily instead of constructing an actual citation note in proper format is not helpful and wastes the time of other editors (like me). I would appreciate other editors doing their own work more carefully in the first place. Thanks.
• I've Wikified links to sources already with articles in W: e.g., History News Network and some others. I don't see the HNN as a blog so much as as a source of reprinted or reposted articles not accessible otherwise; like Z Magazine (Z Communications), also linked now in notes. If one is allowing other media groups (e.g., CAMERA), then it appears to me that these others are allowable too; they are not, strictly speaking, "web logs" or "blogs" or self-published websites; they are sites of reprinted articles from mainstream media like The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, whose archives and op-ed pages are restricted access. I have a TimesSelect subscription, so I am able to access and thus to verify archived and op-ed articles in The New York Times, but I can't access archives of the WSJ and some other news sources without going to Lexis-Nexis (due to copyright restrictions, I can't give links to Lexis-Nexis for general, non-subscriber use). --NYScholar 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Updated.)--NYScholar 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Re:HNN: in case the article changes, please note that it is not a self-published blog; it is a "project" of an academic center hosted on the server of George Mason University but a "non-profit corporation" defined as "independent" of the university:

History News Network is a project of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Although the HNN resides on GMU's server it operates independently of the university as a non-profit corporation registered in Washington State. HNN's main editor is Rick Schenkman, but it relies upon a panel of established scholars, including historian Pauline Maier, Gil Troy and Joyce Appleby.

Note: comments by Gil Troy are also cited in this article on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.--NYScholar 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote Farm

Let's try to quote more discriminately. I think everyone who's been quoted deserves to be, but let's use tweezers instead of a forklift, and how about a little judicious paraphrase while we're at it. When we write "Jeffrey Goldberg writes" and then cut-and-paste all of this in–

Carter makes it clear in this polemical book that, in excoriating Israel for its sins -- and he blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war between Arab and Jew -- he is on a mission from God. ...

Carter, not unlike God, has long been disproportionately interested in the sins of the Chosen People. He is famously a partisan of the Palestinians, and in recent months he has offered a notably benign view of Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization that took power in the Palestinian territories after winning a January round of parliamentary elections.

There are differences, however, between Carter's understanding of Jewish sin and God's. God, according to the Jewish Bible, tends to forgive the Jews their sins. And God, unlike Carter, does not manufacture sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed.

– we're not writing an article, we're just operating an internet forum/bulletin board. What I suggest is something like this: Jeffrey Goldberg describes Carter as a Palestinian "partisan" with a "notably benign view" of terrorist organizations, and mockingly suggests that Carter's moral fervor crosses over into messianic anti-semitism: "Carter, not unlike God, has long been disproportionately interested in the sins of the Chosen People," but "God, unlike Carter, does not manufacture sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed."

For the record, the problem I'm describing is rife in both the "for" and "against" quotations.--G-Dett 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be a challenge, see for example The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, another publication by prominent commentators which drew very divisive reactions. Both articles are strangely similar in structure, although that one is a bit cleaner since it isn't use bulky <blockquote>...</blockquote> structures. --70.48.69.236 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree, but the Wikipedia paraphrases shouldnl't (couldn't beause of consensus?) be contentious, read in to what the author is saying, or make it appear as though Wikipedia is endorsing those versions of events. I also don't think Wikipedia should look like it is acting as a mouthpiece for different editors' arguments. For an example of the debate that would ensue:

• Wikipedia should not be defining what a terrorist organasation is or is not, and it appears to do so in your example
• Jeffrey Goldberg never uses the word anti-Semitism, this is original research
• It is also original research to say that Goldberg 'mockingly suggests', let him speak for himself

But this would happen for every single quote in the entire article. I think that there could also be arguments about which smaller quotes capture the main point of the article. What about "However, at other points in his article, Goldberg actually admits that the imprisonment wall is a 'desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians' and further admits 'Carter succeeded at his Camp David summit in 1978, while Clinton failed at his in 2000'.

I agree with you that the block quotes are making the article longer than it needs to be right now. I just think that using more quotes give people a better opportunity to cherry-pick, and that paraphrasing will lead to many (more) NPOV and OR arguments. If your goal is to shorten the article, especially in a less contentious way, it could also be done by including only the notable and represenative criticism. In this case, we could just remove Michigan Media Watch and CAMERA, or Normal Finkelstein and Melvin Konner (who makes about the same claims as Stein, I believe). --75.46.88.60 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So I think what you're suggesting would eventually end up looking like this:

"Jeffrey Goldberg describes Carter as a a 'partisan of the Palestinians' who has offered a 'notably benign view of Hamas, the Islamist terrorist organization'. Goldberg also compares and contrasts his interpretations of Carter and God: 'Carter, not unlike God, has long been disproportionately interested in the sins of the Chosen People,' but 'God, unlike Carter, does not manufacture sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed.' However, Goldberg agrees with Carter that 'The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians' and concedes that 'Carter succeeded at his Camp David summit in 1978, while Clinton failed at his in 2000.'"

I think that more and more quotes would be added to please everyone, and that people would want to be clear that "comment" must be attributed to person specifically. It seems like it could take awhile, and not end up saving that much space after it is implemented. But maybe people can be mature/mindful. To me though, it just seems like people want to fight about this. --75.46.88.60 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of the "keys to peace" seemed good to me by the way though, especially if it solves the conflict. --75.46.88.60 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to jump on blindly supporting such paraphrasing, but you make a really good point about the original research and "Wikipedia endorsing" issues. I can see what you were trying to do with the example above, but I don't think adding quotation marks around potentially controversial statements serves the purpose of a more free flowing reading. I reckon the Journalists and media commentators section is a good example of simply taking the main thrust of the praise (criticism) and incorporate into single, free flowing sentences.

I accept that some bits can't be summarized, e.g. the following quote by Stein

Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.

But other bits like

Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade

can be paraphrased into something along the lines of: "Stein also criticized the book's lack of Arabic and Hebrew sources, which he believes limits Carter's analysis." What'd you reckon? --khello 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry- Just realized I didn't provide constructive criticism with regards to the passage in your post! Here's my stab at it:

"Jeffrey Goldberg describes Carter as a a "partisan of the Palestinians" who has offered a "notably benign view of Hamas". Goldberg also accuses Carter of creating "sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed."

The whole Carter/God analogy is a good and clever thing to include in a book review, but I'm not so sure it fits in an encyclopedia. I was trying to keep the main thrust of the argument- that Goldberg believes Carter "manufactured sins"- without adding all the extra words. I left out the "Islamist Terrorist organization" bit out and wiki-linked hamas instead- this way there's no ambiguity as to what wikipedia 'endorses'.

The last bit of that I think is fine: However, Goldberg agrees with Carter that "The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from detonating themselves amid crowds of Israeli civilians" But I'm not sure whether the bit about Carter vs. Clinton is completely relevant here, since I don't think it really has anything to do with the book. what'd you guys think? I can't see how that could offend anyone, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part! :-) khello 05:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary, I was just trying to show how more and more information would have to be included to please different editors and reach consensus. I generally support what he wants to do (if it can be done in a NPOV way), I just think that it would turn in to a big edit war from past experience on this article. --75.46.88.60 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You all make good points about potential editorial disputes. I would just point out that 1)ideology is not the only potentially contentious thing in a wikipedia article (indeed, the very dispute I'm initiating here is about style, clarity, and editorial presentation, not ideology) and 2)not every dispute needs to lead to an edit war. I can't imagine a pitched battle between literate people about whether an accusation of "manufacturing sins to hang around the necks of Jews" constitutes an accusation of anti-semitism, (unless an editor had the goal of providing Goldberg's insinuations with rhetorical deniability), but you're right, one might well argue that the salient part of Goldberg's argument lies elsewhere. Fine, we work it out on the talk page. What we don't do, I think, is abdicate editorial duties and turn the article into a free cut-and-paste zone.

It's not a matter of length per se, but of lucid presentation. If it involves a little back-and-forth on the talk page, so be it.--G-Dett 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand this suggested paraphrase: "However, Goldberg agrees with Carter that 'The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers..." Goldberg is obviously disagreeing with Carter here, and says so clearly: "Carter does not acknowledge the actual raison d'etre for the fence." Carter calls it a "wall" and describes it as a permanent land-grab; Goldberg calls it a "fence" and describes it as temporary defense measure. They don't agree, not in the slightest.--G-Dett 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My intentions must not have been clear, I was just trying to show how it could turn in to a POV war (and my example wasn't what I would propose, it is what I thought someone else might propose). You clearly have good intentions, a reasonable edit history, and are willing to discuss it on the talk page, so I think that you should go for it. Sorry for the confusion. --75.46.88.60 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry for the confusion – I knew very well you meant it only as an example of a potential POV war, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise (!). My point, too acerbically made it seems, was just that POV disputes aren't insurmountable, and dread of them shouldn't get in the way of good editing.--G-Dett 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"However, Goldberg agrees with Carter that 'The security barrier is a desperate, deeply imperfect and, God willing, temporary attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers..."- you're right about that. I was just trying to paraphrase the passage as it was as an example of how paraphrasing can get rid of excessive quotations. I'll also go through the article and try to do some paraphrasing --khello 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

On December 26, 2006, WCVB-TV (an ABC-TV affiliate) reports that

About 100 students, faculty and alumni of Brandeis University have signed an online petition to push the administration to bring former President Carter to campus to discuss his new book on Palestine, without being required to debate it. Carter said earlier this month that he turned down an invitation from a university trustee to speak at Brandeis because it came with the condition that he debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, a harsh critic of Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

But Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz said Carter is welcome on campus at any time and a debate was never a condition of a visit. Rather, Reinharz said Carter's request that the university send a plane to pick him up in Georgia was unreasonable.

Montgomery, a senior politics major, told The Boston Globe he has received about $1,000 in pledges from faculty to help sponsor the visit. They plan to invite Carter by the end of the week. "I think there's a basic lack of debate here about Israel and Palestine," Montgomery said. (Italics added.)

OK guys- I’ve gone through the article in an attempt to shorten it and keep it as relevant as possible. I might have left somethings but will see what you guys think of this first.

The section I quote below was presented as part of the Dershwoitz Criticism section. The bit about Carter not wanting to debate Dershowitz and Dershowitz’ reply to that I think definitely do need mentioning, but I was really confused by the context and the contradictory nature of some of the points raised. Namely that in the beginning, ABC reports that Carter rejected the invitation to talk because it required a debate with Dershowitz, while directly below that it quotes the president of the university saying that Carter didn’t come was because of the plane ride...

I was also concerned about the positioning of that whole bit about Brandeis university students is relevant to that particular section- I think moving it to the Scheduled public programs.... section (but then we’d have to rename it).

As for the rest of my edits, of course feel free to butcher them- any comments/concerns would be appreciated! I think there is definitely some more work to be done on the article, and I just did what I could right now. I didn’t meant to cause offence by removing certain excerpts, and I will be more than willing to discuss specific edits --khello 06:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't follow- what do you mean? --khello 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just moved your "sorry" comment above the Notes section (on this talk page, i.e.).

See the changes also made in the article (which only have to do with the deletion of the whole section of material that you made. It is restored, but placed now in the public programs section (somewhat renamed). Please do not delete it again; it is relevant material. If you don't understand the distinctions made in the Channel 5 news report and the previous reports in the Alan Dershowitz section, please reread the sources already cited in the article's notes. It seems clear to me that there are discrepancies between earlier news accounts and the later Channel 5 account cited. These are discrepancies that are not entirely resolved because they depend on interview comments by Carter and the president of Brandeis which are not completely consistent. People give interviews that present their own perspectives on the facts (not the facts); those perspectives are not neutral; they are their POVs. But the news reports report the perspectives, which may not be in agreement. Carter says one thing; the pres. of Brandeis another; those discrepancies are part of their perspectives on "the facts" as we know them from news accounts. They are unresolved discrepancies in the reports. All we can do at this stage is provide evidence that there are discrepancies in the reports. We do not know the facts due to those discrepancies. (Note: Neither does Dershowitz, however. What he says is also just his perspective on the matter.)--NYScholar 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed down that section even further- since it's entitled Public programs pertaining to the book I thought only information about upcoming/planned/potential events should be in. Maybe we should leave it like this for now until more concrete (and non-contradictory) news about this particular Brandeis event is available--khello 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sources in full before "trimming" of the kind that you have been doing. You are cutting out some relevant information that readers might like to know (and also sometimes omitting necessary quotation marks; see editing history). In Wikipedia, one can focus on facts that are in dispute if one makes it clear what is in dispute. Omitting the fact that there is a dispute does a disservice to readers. I have provided an additional source for further information about the contexts of Brandeis' plans for the visit. This article is already tagged as a "current event" and such updates as when a visit is finalized (if it is) will be made when more information from reliable and verifiable published sources becomes available.

Right now, it appears to be a fact that such an invitation to President Carter (relating to a controversy that is discussed in the Dershowitz section--you removed the cross-reference that I provided to it) will be forthcoming from Brandeis University and that plans are currently underway there for such an invitation (from its president, with the support of faculty and students). What remains to be determined regarding such a visit appear to be logistics and details; after Carter receives the invitation, he will have to decide whether or not it fits into his schedule and whether or not he wants to accept the invitation. The information is relevant in this (now renamed) section. (Note: Brandeis is a private university, not a public university. I've revised the section heading to accommodate both public and private programs that may emerge.) --NYScholar 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove any quotation marks from that particular sentence- I just removed what I thought was an unnecessary italics. The whole bit about what Brandeis is etc... is provided by the internal wiki link, and I was just trying to keep that particular section completely on topic. As for the cross reference it was very hard to see what part it was cross referencing to- Some people might just want to scroll down to that section without reading the bit you reference to. Right now I'm not too sure that the bit about the book being assigned as spring/summer reading is completely relevant to that section, as it seems to be just "should, could" talk by a faculty professor. Those are my thoughts anyway! --khello 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In your edit, you included a sentence without quotation marks from the material that I had originally placed in the article from that source; I restored the quotation marks around the words from the source; I restored quotation marks where they needed to be to avoid plagiarism from the source. (I also had removed earlier italics as, since much had been changed in the interim between when I first composed the passage, the italics no longer were useful.) Right now, what appears in this section is currently factual. There is some possibility that the invitation to Carter for a visit to the Brandeis U campus may be scheduled in conjunction with assigned reading of the book. The timing of the possible visit is not yet a fact (a "fait accompli"); but it is a fact that certain possibilities are under discussion at Brandeis in the planning of the possible visit by Carter to the campus. One possibility being discussed by faculty (according to the source cited) is that the visit might be coordinated with programmed reading of the book by the students. That is a legitimate point to cite. The facts may change, and then one can update the section to reflect the future facts. --NYScholar 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aiming for Feature Article status

Hi all, This article is really coming along. Because this article is about a high profile book by a former President and it generated significant media coverage and debate, it could likely be a feature article if the material is presented appropriately. Here is the process:

1. Try to meet the criteria for a featured article as best as possible, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article?
2. Then request a peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review. That will provide a lot of useful, non-partisan feedback which should improve significantly the article.
3. Then initiate the FA candidate process, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.
4. If the first FAC attempt fails one can try again after a period of time, but even having the article designated as a Good Article is an achievement and is a service to our readers.

A recent precedent for a featured article on a recent and political topic was Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. --64.230.123.128 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is of course a good idea, but I think the very first task should be getting the NPOV and Cleanup tags down. It might be a good idea to collect a list of reasons for the tags to be up from editors, remove the listed reasons, and then have a consensus to take them down. This is probably included in your first step anyways, I just felt the need to explicitly state it. --75.46.88.60 08:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality issues

Further information: [[:Wikipedia policy on neutral editing]]

Removing the privileging of some critics over others by removing section headings for them is one way to achieving greater neutrality; the article was skewed toward negative academic critics because they were given sections to themselves that were longer than sections devoted to positive reactions. The article is about the book, not the critics of it. The critics' names are already identified and in many cases Wikified. None of their names deserves a section heading. The article can be discursive, in paragraphs, without such section headings highlighting them [privileging them].

The table of contents for the article was too long (see comments in talk above) and that was corrected earlier; [but some editor(s) lengthened it again, and it became] not parallel in size to the info box for the book (to the right of it). [Updated: later I shortened the table of contents so that it parallels in size the information box to the right of it.]

People who are editing this article need to beware of giving disproportionate attention to negative critics of the book (e.g., Dershowitz et al.). They need to try to make the article more concise and parallel in numbers of paragraphs devoted to each critic who is expounding views (whether the views are positive or negative). In some cases, as in the case of Dershowitz and other negative critics, there are articles in Wikipedia with sections relating to this book already in existence, which are cross-referenced. If readers want to learn more about their views in more detail, they can read the sourced and hyperlinked articles in the notes (that is one reason why I worked hard earlier to provide full citaitons to them). Also, citing self-published blogs and websites as sources (if the statements are not about the blog or website authors as subjects of articles) violate W:Reliable sources and other policies WP:Cite, as already pointed out earlier in this talk page. Such citations need to be removed from the article and not added to the article for it to remain in keeping with NPOV. --NYScholar 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [Updated; comments added in brackets.]--NYScholar 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All excellent points NYScholar. I think these are indeed the most pressing issues if this is going to become a "featured article." Especially the one about making it more discursive. Right now it still has the feel of committee prose, and a highly contentious committee at that. The temptation to keep balancing the other guy's talking points has the ultimate effect of magnifying minor voices; it's like the Oscars, where even the makeup guy gets his fifteen minutes (sometimes twenty). There's great stuff here, but let's stop pasting and start writing.--G-Dett 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I of course would like to see both the positive and negative reaction sections shortened. As it stands, the negative section is twice as long as the positive section and about one-third of the reaction. There was certainly a media reaction created by Carter's book, but I had never even heard of organasations such as CAMERA. I don't understand why we can't pick the most notable positive and negative reactions to help shorten the article. Organising the criticisms topically might also help to show which material is already being covered; this way people wouldn't feel the need to paste in another 10 lines when the opinion has already been mentioned by someone more notable. We could still keep a less notable critic if they were representative of a significant opinion. I also think topical organisation might get rid of the 'committee' feel. --75.46.88.60 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wikified the link to CAMERA in the previous comment so that others unfamiliar with it (here in talk) can see what it is. While I was not familiar with CAMERA several months ago, participating in the editing of the entry on it and related articles has made me familiar with it. There may be too much detail in the quotations from the CAMERA website in this article. There are ways to summarize the objections being made in the articles posted by CAMERA personnel. The articles cited in this article are posted on CAMERA's website by CAMERA and are written by those employed by CAMERA; from that perspective, people who work for and/or who represent CAMERA are not neutral observers, not neutral commentators; they do have a decidedly pro-Israel POV. For more info. about CAMERA, please access the W-link to the article about it. Its neutrality is at times questioned, as is the organization itself. The presentation of CAMERA by CAMERA is itself not neutral. Its website is, basically, an advertisement for itself (and for Israel), it seems to me. Without taking any kind of stand on its POV per se (as such), I am just pointing out that it has a POV. (typo corrs; updated.) --NYScholar 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Balance does not equal neutrality. We should devote as much space as needed to fully articulate the reactions to this book. And since it's controversial at best, it follows that there will be more space devoted to the controversy. And as far as I can tell, all the praise is political, not literary. In the end, this book will probably discredit Carter's political credibility once and for all, which is a shame given all the good he's done in other areas. --Leifern 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that most of those posting here know Wikipedia's policy that "[b]alance does not equal neutrality." No one disputes that. Nevertheless, there is generally more-detailed development of the negative comments than of the positive comments ("reactions"). I have had to remove the format of block quotations for very short quotations of negative comments which made them stand out more than the positive comments, which were not placed in block quotations by people who added them; or, block quotation format was removed from them. Short quotations of fewer than four lines do not require block quotations. Block quotations are used for quotations of four lines and longer (e.g., MLA format). In the punctuation format that I have used for the notes, the quotations, and the ellipses, I have been following MLA Style Manual guidelines (see Wikipedia's section on that in WP:Cite etc. Whether or not "praise" is "political, not literary" is an interpretation; we are not here to interpret. And we are not here to state our positions on the relative degrees of "good" that Carter has "done in other areas."--NYScholar 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article is one particular book, not Carter's whole life's work or whole political career or presidency. One turns to the Wikified link to Jimmy Carter for information about those other subjects. That is why his name is linked in this article: so that people can read an article with fuller contexts about his work overall. One needs to maintain focus on the subject (the book) in this article and not get distracted by the political and other agenda of the commentators on the book. One needs to state the facts about what the criticism (critical reactions: both positive and negative; including book reviews--many of which are not cited at all in this article) says through summary and partial (very carefully chosen, representative) quotations. One needs to be careful not to expound upon the representative views cited. The job of this article is to define the subject from a neutral point of view, not to interpret its worth or value from various points of view. (For more guidance, see Wikipedia's "help" and "editing" pages from the home page.) Lack of neutrality is still a problem in this article. --NYScholar 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To everyone: Do you think NPOV problems are in the whole article or in a specific section (namely the 'reactions' one)? If you think that the problem is localized in the 'reactions' section, do you think it would make sense to move the NPOV tag to this point so readers/editors can get a better feel for what is going on? Thanks for your input. --75.46.88.60 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling of course is that the NPOV tag should be over the disputed section, which would only appear to be the 'reactions' (positive and negative) section to me. I'm not sure if I'm missing an important point or if people have disputes elsewhere though. --75.46.88.60 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The current tag already alludes to this talk page. People can come here to see what the problems are or may be in the future. This is a "current event" article and is tagged as such; the problems of neutrality are best disclosed at the top of the article, up front, as a warning to go to this talk page. It would be easy for anyone to add all kinds of stuff to earlier sections (prior to reactions) which could then create more trouble in this article. As it is, some anonymous editors seem to edit the article without coming to the talk page. The warning at the top is designed to deter that tendency; those who jump into and out of articles are less likely to notice a neutrality tag directing them to a talk page if it is placed in some later section. So I say, leave it as it is until there are clearly no more problems of neutrality anywhere in the article and the notes and supporting references. This is also an article relating to a living person and WP:BLP pertains as well: more reason to come to the talk page. --NYScholar 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That answers my question, then. Thanks. --75.46.88.60 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this article for awhile and still have concern about the reliability and notability of some of the sources currently being cited for opinion on the book (CAMERA, Finkelstein, etc.). I applaud your work in identifying the sources for the reader, but I still question whether they belong in an encyclopedia article about the book (the Dershowitz criticism seems particularly long). I know this keeps coming up, but I still haven't felt that it is resolved. Is there any argument for keeping these besides 'they are verifiable and getting rid of them amounts to censorship? When querying Google for "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid", there are the following hits: 2 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, 2 from Al Jazeera, 2 from ZMag, 6 from Democracy Now, 4 from Iran-Daily, 5 from the Arab Media Internet Network, 1 from the Lebanon Daily Star, 1 from IslamOnline, 3 from Jewish Voice for Peace, 6 from Democracy Front Line, 1 from the Lebanon Daily Star, and 12 when also including the parameter "professor of Islamic studies". These can't all be reliable and notable, but I'm willing to bet there are all kinds of viewpoints contained within which are verifiable. I would really like to hear from others about what they feel the threshold for inclusion should be. --YoYoDa1 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following comes from Wikipedia:NPOV:

• "But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
• "The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."

Everyone agrees that it would be best to consume even more space documenting other viewpoints? --YoYoDa1 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas." Kudos to NYScholar for putting forth information about the various viewpoints being represented. I'll go through later and try to make sure that those listed have appropriate information with them. --YoYoDa1 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP tag

I just added a tag alluding to WP:BLP especially for newcomers and those unfamiliar with how it pertains directly to the subject of this article (the book and its author, a living person). Please consult the links in the tag at top and here for further information about special concerns and policies pertaining to editing such articles as this one. Here is a key passage from WP:BLP:

---

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

---

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research
  

We must get the article right.

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.
These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. (Some italics and bold print added.)

---

These policies are very important to keep in mind when composing and editing this article. For example, there are some claims currently presented in this article citing sources using words like "mendacity" and "lies" in relation to what they are regarding as "inaccuracies" and "mistakes" in Carter's book or making allegations skirting on claims of plagiarism (like the parts relating to derivations of maps of Palestine), which in my view are still highly dubious, as the origin of the maps and Carter's sources of the maps still may not be the book by Ross as Ross claims, despite his claims. [E.g., Carter's source can be the one that he does cite, whereas Carter's source may have used Ross, without Carter realizing that connection.]

Quoting sources making such claims and thus giving them attention and perhaps credence (belief in their value) without giving any support for the allegations of intentional deception on the part of the author, President Carter, is highly problematic and such references might be considered libelous and subject to deletion (see tag at top), given Wikipedia's current editing policies (see the notes to Jimmy Wales). In some instances, the allegations are quoted and then the article goes on to say that no specific evidence has been presented yet by those alleging such claims. That material may still need to be deleted. It is not of the "high quality" that adherence to current content policy in WP:BLP requires: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard" (see tagged links above; some italics and bold added).

To new editors: again, as I've stated earlier and in editing history comments: Please do not just toss in external links; if adding material, one needs to provide complete information about the source in a full citation in a note (prevailing format). Anything less than that is going to be considered either "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" and subject to deletion (following Wikipedia policy just quoted). One needs to provide both reliable and verifiable sources. External links are not enough; they do not identify clearly the nature of a source and one needs to know the authority of the source added (who the person is and what the publication is, so that one can verify and evaluate credibility). --NYScholar 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [Explanation: The W policy phrase "poorly sourced" implies a value judgment; one must evaluate sources in determining which ones to cite; not all sources are equal in value; some are more valuable (credible, authoritative) than others. Knowing the identity of the author of a book or article and that author's professional affiliations and defining them in the text are important means of defining the value of sources. (Updated.)] --NYScholar 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of sections

The current organization is appropriate. Without commenting on the talk page, someone screwed up the organization a few minutes ago. I just restored the proper order of sections: Text, Notes, References, See also. If there were External links in addition to References, they would come before See also. Most of the most effective Wikipedia articles that I have read follow this order. --NYScholar 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism term purge demanded!

- The article should be ridded of each and every mention of the term "anti-semitism", because that is objectively a lie. - - A person opposed to the actions and politics of the Zionist Entity (which calls itself the State of Israel) is an anti-zionist person (zionism being the late 19th century originated ideology of forming a spearate ethnic jewish country in the Holy Land). - - A person accusing genetically, religiously or culturally jewish people of having long noses and unquellable lust for money and conspiring for desctruction of christianity and thus urging their mass extermination is an anti-semite (semitic being the greek language name for jews). - - Therefore Jimmy Carter and his book are anti-zionist. An mention of the word anti-semitic is a lie and defamation! 212.108.200.69 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[The above comment section (which I regard as highly questionable and possibly defamatory) was placed by the anonymous user after notes section in this talk page, despite the warning not to do so provided below. I had deleted it earlier due to WP:BLP, but I've restored it and moved it up (to the appropriate place in this talk page) due to continuing problems concerning issues. There is some possibility that the anonymous user who posted the above comment section was engaging in both defamation of Jews and defamation of Jimmy Carter in the comments made (which is why I removed it initially). Other editors may want to consider removing the potentially-defamatory comment entirely, espec. in the light of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum exhibit on antisemitism (as that official site spells the word). --NYScholar 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)]

Well, the anonymous user illustrates the point about the confluence between antisemitism and anti-Zionism rather well, in addition to making no sense whatsoever. --Leifern 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that Jimmy Carter's speeches and writings are critical of Israel action and politics, but he never said that jews in general are bad because of genetics or chosen-ness attitude or whatever. Therefore Mr. Carter is a critic of Israel or an anti-zionist at worst. This wikipedia article however is full of the sneak word "anti-semitism" (enemy of the jewish race) which is big slander and rather disgusting. It should be considered that all-together some 27 million jews live on Earth and very few of them are living in the Holy Land. They are the militaristic minority whose behaviour Pres. Carter opposes. Most jews continue to work hard and invent in Europe and America and Mr. Carter did not speak against them (jews in generic) at all. Therefore it is demanded that ever mention of anti-semitism be replaced with anti-zionism, which is the correct term.

It is also a matter of fact that Israel was the closest political and arms supporter of UN-excommunicated white supremacy South African apartheid regime, they even gave them six atomic bombs from Dimona and helped them invade Angola with artillery supplies! Therefore the "peace not apartheid" title of Pres. Carter's book is justified, as apartheid and Israel were proven closely related. --195.70.32.136 10:51, 8 January 2007 UTC

Which is why he wrote a letter to the Jewish Community filled with pro-Israel statements? It shows that he believes that Jews and Israel are linked. Since he hates Israel, it is thus notcompletely ridiculous to call him an antisemite. Furthermore, even if the people calling Carter an antisemite are nutty, it doesn't matter. The article should document prominent people's reactions to the book. (sorry for the venting, but I couldn't take it!) 71.245.192.143 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning Bronner's NYTBR rev. of the book

N.B. Editors (and anonymous users) who are dealing with issues relating to charges of "anti-Semitism" (exact quotation from Bronner as cited in article)––or "antisemitism" as it is spelled in Wikipedia –– need to be careful to cite and quote reliable sources exactly and not to misrepresent what reliable published sources are stating. Some recent edits reveal a tendency to change the emphasis of a source through paraphrase instead of quotation to suggest that Carter is still to some degree being "anti-Semitic" even when the source's actual words stress the very opposite. (E.g., see recent additions of comments from Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Other_book_reviews_by_journalists: I've corrected the presentation so Bronner's actual emphasis is clear). See also the WP:BLP as tagged now on this page and my previous comments re: this tag. --NYScholar 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, Bronner did not "defend" Carter against "charges of antisemitism." He merely wrote that Carter's tendency to overstate his case does not amount to antisemitism. This may seem like a small distinction, but on issues like this, writers tend to weigh their words very carefully. It was the earlier version that distorted Bronner's meaning, not me or anyone else. His exact quote is "But overstatement hardly adds up to anti-Semitism." I am pleased that you've revised the wording to make this clear, but your criticism is misplaced. --Leifern 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that my criticism is misplaced [especially given that anonymous user's comment as moved up from below notes above). You had placed a criticism only in the editing history that had minimized the value of quoting a word exactly (in that case, the word "anti-Semitism" (as spelled by the source, Bronner). In response, I restored more of the full sentence so that all readers could see Bronner's own emphasis on the word "hardly" (his precise choice of words). My word "nevertheless" is substituting for Bronner's word "But" in the current rendition of the quotation; the word "hardly" in the context of the full statement "But . . . anti-Semitism" makes all the difference (along with the "But"; or the paraphrased "nevertheless"). [I've restored the "But" now.] For some reason (I do not really know what reason), you had originally left out my quotation marks around "anti-Semitism" which made it appear that Bronner himself had not used the word, which he had, changing it to W's "antisemitism." In the sentence that he uses it, his own word "hardly" is important for me to have restored, given the (I think) misleading way you rendered the point originally. I've also corrected some emphasis since you wrote this reply to me. (Updated.)--NYScholar 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allusion"

[I've Wikified the heading so that one can see the definition of the word "allusion" (allusion) in Wikipedia. Use other published dictionaries and published guides to literary terms for more information, if one needs it. Forms of the verb "to allude" also refer (not casually or in passing, but formally) to the multiple meanings [denotations and connotations] of the noun "allusion." --NYScholar 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)]

In the department of sloppy language, there is no "allusion" of the term "apartheid" in Carter's book or in its title. When the term is used in the title of the book, it can not under any circumstances by an allusion. Allusion means "a passing or casual reference; an incidental mention of something, either directly or by implication" [11]. I've corrected some of these in the article, but I would recommend that others review for this and other such terms. --Leifern 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My use of the word "alludes to" or "allude" (as per allusion) is correct. [Carter's use of the word "apartheid" in his subtitle allludes to (refers indirectly to) South African apartheid; or, to Allegations of apartheid in relation to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories; i.e., by using the word "apartheid" in his subtitle, Carter's title alludes to the history of apartheid in South Africa).] Read the article and the sources cited in this article. Your reference (allusion) to an online dictionary is not authoritative. It is not a full definition of the word "allusion." Carter has specifically said in broadcast interviews that he purposefully intended to "provoke" (be "provocative") debate by the use of the word apartheid in his title; and he is very clear that he knows what the word "alludes" to; it alludes to South African apartheid (historically as well as linguistically). E.g., quoting directly from the W article Allegations of apartheid:

The term apartheid commonly refers to South African apartheid. . . .

Carter is alluding to, referring to (and not just "in passing" or "casually"), the history of "South African apartheid" in apartheid.---NYScholar 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So to Carter it's an allusion and to his critics it is a controversial word in the title. If we are desrcribing Carter's view of it we should call it an allusion, if we are describing a critic's opinion then we should talk about how the source finds it controversial. Either way, use a quote from the source that way there can't be any debate. From what I could tell, the first source only complains about the title while the second source is very clear about their problem with the word 'apartheid' in the title. --YoYoDa1 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Carter's_response_to_criticism with Carter's response to Larry King's question about the word apartheid and what it alludes to etc. This discussion of the word allusion is basically a waste of time, in my view. --NYScholar 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, the definition of "allusion" I use is also consistent with that found in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary ISBN 1-56619-147-5, which I think anyone else would consider authoritative, to quote: "1.a. a passing or casual reference; an incidental mention of something." To say that Carter merely makes an allusion to apartheid when it is in the title of his book is grossly misleading. If you think it's a waste of time to worry about the meaning of words in this article, that's your perogative but hardly in keeping with what we're trying to do here. --Leifern 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of the use of the verb "to allude" in "alludes to"; I stand by what I have already written. I really don't know what your problem is with understanding that the verb "to allude to" has multiple usages (meanings are denotations and connotations); your insistence on "passing or casual" is simply one usage not all of them. Your insistence really qualifies your knowledge base. I didn't say "allusion"; I said he "alludes to" and what he alludes to is Allegations of apartheid in Palestine in comparison to the history of apartheid in South Africa (see History of South Africa in the apartheid era). I stand by that. Read the rest of the article and Carter's own remarks; he himself makes distinctions between apartheid in South Africa and the Allegations of Israeli apartheid in Palestine due to the subtitular word (allusion to the former in use of the word). You are nitpicking.--NYScholar 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My "interpretation" is what every dictionary I've consulted with says. Words have specific meanings, and we're not free to just invent another meaning for a word when it suits our purposes. I am not nitpicking - Carter throws around the term "apartheid" and then in late chapters of his book and subsequent meetings with people says he meant it only in a limited way. We live in a world where blowing up buses with school children no longer is an act of terrorists but of militants, but Carter doesn't want to be held responsible for putting the word "apartheid" in the title of his book, and you only think that the term is an "allusion." Orwellian. --Leifern 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment still makes no sense to me.

Towards the end of the article (already linked in my earlier comment), Carter acknowledges very clearly that he says "Peace Not Apartheid" in the subtitle of his book. He acknowledges that the word "apartheid" refers to (alludes to) what Wikipedia links in its articles (containing definitions) connected to the word "apartheid" (History of South Africa in the apartheid era, Allegations of apartheid (Please read the articles; this is what I linked to; the sentence that I originally contributed Wikified the word "apartheid." You are still nitpicking about this word (which was no longer in the article the last time that I edited it); you are interpreting what Carter may be or may not be doing in his subtitular word "apartheid," and presenting your own POV (not following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on it.

I am simply linking to a Wikipedia article within this article (Allegations of apartheid). I changed the presentation yesterday, elimininating the words "uses" and "alludes to" and just linking the word to the Wikipedia article. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia articles on Allegations of apartheid, History of South Africa in the apartheid era, and Allegations of Israeli apartheid in the Israeli-occupied territories." Carter's use of the word in his subtitle alludes to many of the issues summarized in those articles. He acknowledges that in the broadcast interviews cited in this article (read them again); at the end of his book, he defines how he is using the term according to the commentaries and book reviews cited in this article. His use of the term "apartheid" (not your or my or others' views of his use of it and its consequences) is a matter of fact. See what Larry King says in asking Carter about Dershowitz's complaints about Carter's use of what King/Dershowitz call "a loaded term": the term "apartheid" is so-called "loaded" because (in today's world of the 21st century) it alludes to (refers directly and/or indirectly to ["echoes" in Bronner's word) the History of South Africa in the apartheid era.

I have now explained this usage of the verb "to allude to" and "alludes to" over and over, and, apparently, you still do not get what it means (signifies). I can't help that. I've have done my best to explain it to you. Words have multiple meanings (uses, usages); you have listed "1a.", which is only one subset of one of the senses of the word "allusion" and the verb "to allude to." Read all of the meanings of words in a definition, not just one of them. See allusion. --NYScholar 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your patronizing tone. You haven't explained anything, but rather you have tried to create a new meaning for a word that has a specific meaning. The problem isn't that I don't "get it." --Leifern 11:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. Read the Wikipedia entry on the word allusion (again). Read all of the numbered definitions of a word in a dictionary; not just one of them. What I am talking about has to do with definitions of the verb (not just the noun); I still think that you just don't "get it." If you did, you would not be persisting in these comments.--NYScholar 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your, my, and others' views of Carter's use of the word and/or his intentions in his use of the word are interpretations, not matters of fact. They are points of view on his usage (not neutral): read W:Neutrality. I do not use the verb "alludes to" in the present version of this article (read it again). --NYScholar 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be assumed that Carter, like any published writer who presumably has editors, chooses his words with full knowledge of what they actually mean. If he only meant "apartheid" in a limited sense, he should have chosen a different word for the cover of his book. This reminds me of the Jostein Gaarder controversy, in which Gaarder wrote an op-ed that was demonstrably antisemitic, but afterwards for people to better understand what he was thinking rather than what he was writing. --Leifern 11:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But if Carter calls it an allusion, then Wikipedia should say he is calling it an allusion. If a critic is complaining that he made it a word in the title, then Wikipedia should say the critic is complaining he used it as a word in the title. If we quote the sources, I don't think this debate would happen. --75.46.88.60 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes section

It is a real inconvience - and I'm not sure why it's necessary - to deprive editors of the ability to add a section by pressing the "+" button provided. Can someone explain why we're doing it this way? --Leifern 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes sections come at the bottom of the page. If they are not at the bottom, all the notes in the talk page will not post as notes properly. --NYScholar 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article, or in the article space. Are there other examples of this practice in the Talk: space?--Leifern 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Many. Notes come at the end of the page. That is why they are called "footnotes"; they are placed at the "foot" of a page; or, they are called "endnotes"; come at the end; after main text. (Please look at other talk pages with notes). [Updated: some of the notes in this talk page are parts of comments that occur earlier in the page. There was no "Notes" section for them to appear. I added the section at the foot of the page so that those notes would show up; then some of the content moved from the article to this talk page that also has embedded notes would post correctly too.] --NYScholar 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Absurd length

The length of this article is absurdly out of proprotion to the notability of the subject. It seems that two to three representative quotes from supporters and detractors of the book would be enough, as many of the critics are completely unnotable. They largely repeat themselves as well. Zavtrakat 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding information that identifies the professional and/or other affiliations of several of the "critics" cited in this article (initially by other editors); such identifications make clear who they are and what the nature of the "authority" or perspective is and what organizations they may be affiliated with or (in the case of "representatives of organizations") represent. --NYScholar 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem when vastly more information is provided on the response to an item than on the item itself. Zavtrakat 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. I gave up editing this article long ago because it became a grab bag of talking heads. However, as someone who has done great work on this article, I would like to hear what NYScholar thinks about this. Jasper23 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my response, Jasper. (It is not clear to me who wrote the first two paragraphs in this section. Please sign comments.) I was surprised to see the comment heading "Absurd length," as the article is not much longer than some other very controversial ones. Of course, this article is only about one book, and such articles tend to be shorter rather than longer, but the book has initiated a lot of press attention and controversy crossing boundaries (politicians, academics, journalists, etc.). But it is possible that the "reactions" sections could be shortened. People who contribute to editing this article sometimes seem to want to beef up the reactions that they agree with (adding more and more examples) and to limit the reactions that they don't agree with (subtracting those), which pushes it toward POV and farther away from neutrality. I think that the section on the politicians' reactions may be much longer than needed; the section on Dershowitz tends more toward developing the controversies between him and Carter than toward developing a brief statement about his reaction to the book. The "Carter-Dershowitz" disagreements (even about this book) are better placed in the articles on each of them. There is already a section on it in the Dershowitz article (which I cross-linked some time ago. I was away for a while (several days) and appreciated not working on this article and what was done to it while I was away, so perhaps I'll stand back again and see what happens as people who are more economical than I am work on tightening it up (if that's the consensus), without (I hope) losing neutrality. Thanks again for asking. Good luck to others working on this article. --NYScholar 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I do not agree with the comment "there's a problem . . . itself." The book itself is mainly "noteworthy" (worthy of an article in Wikipedia) because of its controversial subject matter and the controversial reactions that its reception has generated. These controversies are part and parcel of any article on this subject. Via the links in the citations to Carter's book, links to his commentaries relating to it and his reiterations of its "main points" in interviews and editorials and other articles, and the quotation of its entire table of contents with Wikified links to its appendices, there is a great deal of material on the book itself, and, in total, via all those links, far more than on the book reviews, other commentaries, and various "reactions" to it. The material relating to the book, including especially the separate box with W's entry on the publisher Simon & Schuster, which includes a hyperlink to its publisher's website (leading people to be able to search the site for the webpages about it), Amazon.com reviews, etc. (References section), other hyperlinked material about the book, I would say, far exceeds the emphasis in the article itself on the reactions to it. This article, in its current version, thus provides a great deal of resource material about and relating to the book, and, in my view, that is what makes it useful to Wikipedia readers around the world. So I don't have a problem with the focus of this article in the current version. I have been attempting to make it more neutral by identifying the nature of sources cited more accurately and/or more factually than was done in past versions of this article. --NYScholar 00:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote the initial posting here about the length - sorry about the unsigned comment-and-run, I'm quite new at this. Anyway, I like the suggestion of putting most of the reactions about the book in the articles about the people making the statement - it says more about the people (pro or con) than the book. This type of media controversy has a logic and trajectory of its own - maybe even a seperate article on "Carter book controversy" would be a suitable way to detail the reaction and not burden the main article.Zavtrakat 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of working personal conflicts between Carter and 'someone' in to the article about Carter and the article about 'someone'. We could then summarize what has to do with the book here, and link the reader to those areas for more information. We need to be cautious about giving the controversy it's own article. We would need to make sure that the controversy is notable enough by itself to be an article and that we aren't just setting up a POV-fork. --YoYoDa1 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not support the idea of "giving the controversy it's [sic] own article," as suggested above. The controversy that the book has generated is, as I stated earlier, part of the subject of this article on the book. It would be "absurd," I think, to make a separate article about the "controversy" with a separate title. This article is coherent as it is. Moreover, Carter's stated (and restated) purpose in this book is to provoke "debate" and thus the debate provoked is part of the subject of the article on the book. --NYScholar 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question for NYScholar

Hello,

I'm curious as to whether or not it was my edit that you described as "misleading"? I acknowledge that there were insufficient details in the wording that I provided, but I believe that my edit was an improvement over the work of a previous editor, and I don't believe that I misrepresented the author's meaning in any way.

Please note that I'm not accusing you of uncivil behaviour: I respect the work that you've done on this page, and I particularly admire the role you've taken in resolving disputes. It's precisely for these reasons that I want to ensure a misunderstanding hasn't developed between us. If I've misunderstood your edit summary, I apologize in advance. CJCurrie 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie: I don't know what happened to your previous comment with similar questions that I moved from my talk page to this article. Maybe I didn't save it correctly. Anyway, I don't know who was the editor that changed what was (I thought) clear wording to vaguer and less clear wording; I restored Bronner's word "unfairly" because that is what he was saying; that the criticisms of Carter (such as the ads taken out by the ADL cited in this article already) "hinted unfairly" of "anti-Semitism". I wasn't directing my comment to any particular editor, just explaining why I made the changes that I did. I perceived a lack of clarity and greater vagueness than I had seen in that paragraph last night, and I just tried to improve it (further). I was not being evaluative; just descriptive. Taking out the quoted word "unfairly" in my view led to less clarity and less specificity (greater vagueness). There is no need for vagueness when one can cite specific words in an article used by a source to establish exactly what he or she is saying. Carefully-chosen quotations are useful when trying not to alter the source's emphasis; altering the emphasis of the source can be misleading. Anyway, that's my explanation. Nothing personal at all. --NYScholar 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Please keep up the good work: the project needs you. CJCurrie 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this article for the first time in a few weeks

I did some significant editing to this article in the beginning (I wrote the Ross section and some other stuff) but I stopped contributing because I didn't feel like fighting over every sentence. I hadn't looked at the article in a long while and I was really appalled by what I saw. The worst part of this article is the lengthy section on the reaction to the book. Its too long! The most notable reviews, e.g. those from publications such at the NYTimes book review that actually shape public opinion are at the bottom. Nobody is going to want to read through paragraph after paragraph of non-notable people to get to important reviews. The whole thing needs an introductory paragraph that summarizes the critical and public reaction to the book - namely that it was mixed, with some critics praising its courage and others criticizing its accuracy and its fairness, with particular focus on the word "apartheid." The "positive" section needs to be chopped down considerably, as many of the people are non-notable. The result is that the section feels like its been padded, like we are adding anything we can find from anybody. In short, it feels POV and its not very readable. Nobody cares what the head of "Michigan Media Watch" thinks. Finally, the sections that are not straight reviews, but deal with specific controversies with this book (Ross, Stein) should be moved to a separate section (Controversies, say) to reduce the length of the review supersection. GabrielF 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your views of who are "notable" and "non-notable" critics or spokespeople appear to be full of your own POV; see the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tags and the earlier sections of this talk page. Clearly, if you have not participated in editing this article since early on, you need to read the entire talk page before tinkering with others' hard work. I have removed the "clean up" tag (as I've finished the work that I've been doing on citations and sourcing of statements); I've left the "neutrality" tag as a warning to people who drop into and out of this article. It is customary in editing articles with ongoing controversy (such as this one) to provide the passages that you want to create in the talk page for consensus discussion. You should not simply be deleting material already discussed at length above and already left in the article by earlier consensus. You also need to read the whole article in context, not just portions of it out of context. By consensus "representative" criticism (positive and negative) of the book have been included. Who is "notable" to one Wikipedia reader may not seem "notable" to another reader and vice versa. Those distinctions are rife with POV. "Representative" is not. --NYScholar 04:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I renamed some of the section headings to reflect that they are selective and representative of reactions and also moved up the section on book reviews by journalists (as per your comment re: NYT review); however, I suggest reading the linked commentary on that review in the References section so that you can see that every reviewer has a POV (his or her own POV); the NYT reviewer is no less arguing from a POV (his own) than any other reviewer in any other print or online publication. The publications that are sourced in this article are not blogs; they are representative of organizations, some of which have not yet had articles in Wikipedia devoted to them. If you look at the red links, you will see that their missing articles seem to support Carter's claim of too little attention to the Palestinians' interests. The fact that there are no articles on these organizations does not mean that they are not noteworthy. The lack of attention to them in American "debate" and in the English-speaking version of Wikipedia is something that needs to be redressed (if one extends Carter's POV in his book). --NYScholar 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to redress the lack of attention a particular point of view receives in the mainstream media. The fact that you are trying to change the nature of debate in the United States and on wikipedia makes your accusation that my assertion that Michigan Media Watch is not notable one of the best examples of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen. Is notability a matter of POV? To a certain degree, yes, but are you honestly going to assert that "Michigan Media Watch" shapes public opinion to nearly the degree that The New York Times does? We are not a primary source designed to shape opinion, our job is to explain and summarize public discourse, not to change it. This idea that you are taking "representative" publications is fine, but you don't need paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs of them. Take the stuff from notable publications, get rid of the rest. Finally, you are ignoring my point that piling on non-notable source after non-notable source (and notability can be established by perfectly objective measures such as newspaper circulation, citations, etc.) gives more weight to one side of the argument than exists in the real public discourse, and this is POV, subtle POV yes, but POV none the less. GabrielF 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need three big paragraphs with statements from the ADL, CAMERA and the AJC? What's notable isn't what any one of those organizations say, its what the Jewish community as a whole thinks. All three should be combined into ONE paragraph that summarizes the opposition to the book from major Jewish organizations with a few choice quotes. GabrielF 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with these two-sentence titles? We don't need to have a resume for each person! For example:

Ambassador Dennis Ross, author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004), who was the United States' chief Middle East envoy during the Clinton administration, is Director and Ziegler distinguished fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the first chairman of a new Jerusalem-based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency for Israel. In the fall of 2005, Ross taught a class in Mid-East Peace at Brandeis University, and taught it again at Georgetown University in the fall of 2006.

Who CARES what courses Dennis Ross has taught! This doesn't belong in this article, its just distracting for the reader. Talk about his job in the Clinton administration, which is why his comments are notable and get rid of the rest. GabrielF 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put that material in this article; it still needs sourcing if left in. It establishes his authority to make the statements that he makes. (I think it's too much; the positions are not.) --NYScholar 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

These other things that you dispute are, however, sourced factual statements; you cannot delete sourced factual statements. It is prohibited in Wikipedia to make such deletions just bec. you don't like them; see editing policy. Do not delete sourced content that other people have spent a great deal of time verifying.--NYScholar 05:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. Of course you can deleted sourced statements. The issue isn't the sourcing, the issue is that the article is completely unreadable. GabrielF 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your pov, not mine. I am not impressed by what you are trying to do to this article. Try reading the whole article before claiming that it is "completely unreadable." Your pov is not consensus on this article, as far as I can tell. --NYScholar 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing etiquette in Wikipedia

See Wikipedia:Etiquette re: reminders about conduct in editing. Specifically:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

--NYScholar 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Longer than The Bible

This article is now about 20k larger than the bible. (78k versus 54k) GabrielF 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ross section

It is absolutely ridiculous that you have to read 13 paragraphs to go from Ross's comments about the book to Carter's response. Assuming that the reader hasn't given up by then, he will have forgotten what Ross was saying in the first place. Second, the section on Ross completely misses the point of the allegations, the point isn't that the maps "derive" from Ross' book, the point is that they are reproduced without attribution and that they are mislabeled. Third, NYScholar's edit summary stating that we have to include about three lines worth of Ross' titles because they establish his POV is offensive. Are you suggesting that because Ross did some work for an organization which studies Jewish population that he must have an inherent POV? Because otherwise your edit summary: "restoration of positions held by Ross; relevant to identifying who he is, his current (relevant) affiliations, what his POV is; he is not neutral observer)" makes no sense. GabrielF 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"The point" (Ross's claim that in your words--which don't match his--his words are/were quoted exactly before) is precisely what is in contention: "?the point isn't that the maps "derive" from Ross' book, the point is that they are reproduced without attribution and that they are mislabeled.?" Ross does not say that; Ross questions where Carter got the maps; and he implies that Carter's source may have gotten the maps from Ross's book; if Carter (or his research helpers) didn't use Ross's book but the Atlas cited (in Carter's responses to the criticism), then there is no plagiarism involved; Carter cites hissource, and it isn't Ross's book, according to Carter. You are calling Carter a liar, and that is not permissible acc. to WP:BLP. See tag above. This has all been discussed already: Read this talk page. This is very tiresome. --NYScholar 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My brother is Ross's research assistant and the one who discovered the similarity between the maps in the first place. Ross did NOT accuse Carter of plagiarism, the allegation was that the maps were not properly attributed. GabrielF 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NOR; your brother is not a source in this article. We can only use verifiable reliable sources; no one can trust what you say about your brother's work here. If you have a reliable published verifiable source to cite, cite it. Your claim in this talk page is not in keeping with Wikipedia:NOR; nor is it in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clearly, you yourself (via your own brother, acc. to you) have a POV at best and an axe to grind at worst. Aim for neutrality. And stop deleting relevant material from this article. Wikipedia:Etiquette. BTW: "not properly attribut[ing]" sources is a form of plagiarism:

<<[quoting from Wikipedia]

Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.

>> --NYScholar 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use him as a source in the article, I'm using him to refute your claim on this talk page that you understand the issue better than I do. Further, you accuse me of POV, yet you ignore your own. Personally I think Carter is wrong, but I'm not editing the article because I don't like the book. I'm editing the article because I don't think the article is up to wikipedia's standards. GabrielF 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF: You should not be citing your brother in the talk pages of articles relating to living persons making such a claim as you are making against a living person. See WP:BLP; read the linked material in the tag at the top of this page. I have no POV on this book. --NYScholar 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly GabrielF does not understand Wikipedia's own definition of plagiarism.--NYScholar 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

removed bisharat paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph as it is not a review or commentary on the book, but rather an opinion on the current situation in the Middle East. Considering the length of the article (longer than our article on the bible by 20k), it is unnecessary dead weight. GabrielF 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

George Bisharat, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, agrees with Carter's stance and suggests: "The debate should now be extended," asking: "Are Israel's founding ideals truly consistent with democracy? Can a state established in a multiethnic milieu be simultaneously "Jewish" and "democratic"? Isn't strife the predictable yield of preserving the dominance of Jews in Israel over a native Palestinian population? Does our unconditional aid merely enable Israel to continue abusing Palestinian rights with impunity, deepening regional hostilities and distancing peace? Isn't it time that Israel lived by rules observed in any democracy - including equal rights for all?"

This passage needs to have the following introduction (before incorporating the quotation from the same article, which is a "Commentary" on the book as per its very title):

Americans owe a debt to former President Jimmy Carter for speaking long hidden but vital truths. His book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid breaks the taboo barring criticism in the United States of Israel's discriminatory treatment of Palestinians. Our government's tacit acceptance of Israel's unfair policies causes global hostility against us.)Italics added.)

. . . .

The debate should now be extended," asking: "Are Israel's founding ideals truly consistent with democracy? Can a state established in a multiethnic milieu be simultaneously "Jewish" and "democratic"? Isn't strife the predictable yield of preserving the dominance of Jews in Israel over a native Palestinian population? Does our unconditional aid merely enable Israel to continue abusing Palestinian rights with impunity, deepening regional hostilities and distancing peace? Isn't it time that Israel lived by rules observed in any democracy - including equal rights for all?(Italics added.)

[Or that second section w/ all the questions could be omitted; the first part is more apropos to the book itself. The latter part is where the author's "commentary" on the book takes him. --NYScholar 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

removing finkelstein paragraph

I am removing the paragraph on Norman Finkelstein. (I note that while we have something like three sentences on Dennis Ross' previous affiliations in order to "demonstrate his pov", nobody has pointed out Finkelstein's previous books such as The Holocaust Industry, etc. I guess you can only be POV if you oppose Carter.) Regardless, the paragraph is not a review of the book. It is simply more dead-weight. It would be more appropriate on a separate section discussing the question of whether the word apartheid is appropriate. GabrielF 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, Carter's analysis is mainstream and uncontroversial outside the United States:

"After four decades of Israeli occupation, the infrastructure and superstructure of apartheid have been put in place. Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media[,] this reality is barely disputed."

"Michigan Media Watch"

I'm moving the Michigan Media Watch paragraph here. "Michigan Media Watch" gets exactly 88 google hits[12]. It is insane to spend 3/4 of a paragraph describing a person and then have a one sentence quote from them. Especially considering that the source is far too minor to warrant inclusion. No reader is going to be reading this article to find out what Michigan Media Watch thinks. Major national publications that actually are capable of shaping opinion are notable, small local groups are not. GabrielF 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is the publication that the article is posted in: it is the largest newspaper in America for Arab Americans according to its publisher's website; this material needs to be restored to the article. Who the writer is is less significant than who published her article and the size of its audience. (Large.) --NYScholar 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What does this contribute to the article? GabrielF 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it contributes the perspective of this prominent Palestinian American; by silencing her (deleting her perspective from reportage in this article), you are doing exactly what Jimmy Carter is claiming in his book. You are engaging in POV editing. Again, it is not up to you to delete representative sourced information (book reviews, book commentaries) from this article. You are clearly engaging in a pattern of bad-faith editing (perhaps without even realizing that you are doing so). What you are removing are mostly the positive comments that people have made about Carter's book. The pattern seems very clear to me. --NYScholar 08:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On December 5, 2006, Sherri Muzher, a Palestinian American who directs Michigan Media Watch, an organization aimed at "Combating bias in Michigan's media by promoting accurate, factual and balanced coverage of the Middle East" (mmwatch.org), writes in the The Arab American News, a weekly bilingual newspaper representing Arab Americans published in Dearborn, Michigan, by Osama Siblani, a self-described "staunch supporter of Palestinian rights and opponent of Israeli occupation and aggression": "Nobody expects instant miracles to come from Carter’s book, but hopefully, it will spark the sort of robust discussions that even Israeli society and media already engage in."

Lena Khalaf Tuffaha

Here is another paragraph that is mostly about the person being quoted and then offers a small quote that doesn't add anything new. Further, Lena Khalaf Tuffaha gets only 575 google hits, of which only 44 are unique[13]. Why should anyone be interested in what this person thinks? What does this paragraph add to the article?

On November 15, 2006, Lena Khalaf Tuffaha, in an article published on the website of the Institute for Middle East Understanding (an organization which "provides journalists with quick access to information about Palestine and the Palestinians, as well as expert sources, both in the U.S. and the Middle East"), finds that Carter's book "eloquently describes the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" and that "his book challenges Americans to see the conflict with eyes wide open."

Statements by democrats

Is there any reason why we need to have six paragraphs on the democrats statements about the book? All of them are essentially saying the same thing. Why can't we just summarize it into two paragraphs quoting Dean and Pelosi and then list the other members of congress who issued similar statements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I've rewritten this section to condense it down to two paragraphs. This new version is still rough, but it eliminates at least one place where we are duplicating text, (no need to introduce John Conyers twice). I cut the Steve Israel quote, as it doesn't really contribute anything.GabrielF 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre Article

I have to say, that this is one of the strangest articles I've seen in Wikipedia. It reads like a treatise rather than an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedic articles are, by their very nature, designed to be simple summaries of a subject. If someone wishes to know more, they can do further research elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this much information about one book. Also, why are there Notes on a talk page? They don't belong here. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This was answered above. Read the talk page before making such comments. Clearly, if people are moving material with embedded notes in them, in order for the notes to show up, there needs to be a Notes section. See above. It's already been discussed. Plenty of other talk pages that I've seen have notes sections in them. --NYScholar 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I have read the talk page, and the complaint about length has been made many times. No adequate response has ever been made. This article should be about 4 paragraphs long, similar to other books of its stature. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is somewhat long right now, but your suggestion that it should be 4 paragraphs long is out in left-field. Where is the precedence for such a thing? The important thing is to have balance, NPOV and to be well written. Right now this article isn't that well written, but that has to do, in my opinion, with the organization not yet being topically organized as I have suggested previously. We should not just cut out all the debates around the book because you find them uninteresting. If you find this book uninteresting, it may be better to contribute to other articles that more satisfy your need for stimulation. --70.51.228.233 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Tom Segev Paragraph

I'm moving the Tom Segev paragraph here. As it stands, we are cherrypicking bizarre things from Segev's quote. Segev concludes by saying that: "has no new ideas to offer and thus his book is something of a let-down, though this does not justify a rebuke. Not to Carter. We owe him for the peace with Egypt.", but this is not quoted. Segev points out several errors in the book and argues that the word "apartheid" was a poor choice, even though he agrees with the basic argument. Instead, we are quoting a section that is not a review or commentary on the book, but rather a commentary on the response to the book. This makes no sense to me. GabrielF 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Israeli historian and author Tom Segev writes in the Israeli daily Haaretz:

The book is causing an uproar among those in America who consider themselves as "friends of Israel," for one thing because of its title: "Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid." . . . Predictably, some are accusing Carter of anti-Semitism. Carter is closely following the responses, including on the Internet, and responding to his critics. He is prepared to lecture for free about his views –– but Jews don't want to hear, he complains. An Israeli reader won't find anything more in the book than is written in the newspapers here every day. . . . One reason the book is outraging "friends of Israel" in America is that it requires them to reformulate their friendship: If they truly want what's good for Israel, they must call on it to rid itself of the territories. People don't like to admit that they've erred; therefore, they're angry at Carter."

Vandalism to this article

In due course I will report this article and the recent vandalism by some users editing it to administrators. Cease and desist. I have been working to present sources in an article that had few sources cited originally and which had completely-screwed up format. See the editing history over the past week or so. (updated)--NYScholar 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that I'm vandalizing, than report it to WP:ANI, there's no need to threaten. We'll see if people actually think I'm vandalizing. GabrielF 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a warning to GabrielF: Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. [Template] The sections that GabrielF is deleting are sections in which Palestinian-Americans and others sympathetic to Palestinians are expressing their comments on the subject of the article (Carter's book). GabrielF is removing them indiscriminately. They could (and will be in future) recast to read more effectively perhaps, but deleting them entirely is not good-faith editing; it is vandalism and it smacks of POV editing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations abound in these deletions. Also, in the changes that he is making, he is introducing multiple typographical errors and not correcting them. (See the Democrats sec. that GabrielF worked on, e.g. Please proofread more carefully and make the corrections needed.)--NYScholar 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

I do not appreciate the following comment that GabrielF posted on my talk page about this article editing dispute: I have moved it here so that all can see it: <<

note

I think you need to seriously read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Accusing someone of vandalism, having alternative motives, etc. is not appropriate. I could argue that you're pushing a POV just as easily as you could argue that I am pushing one. Further, see WP:OWN, you do not own Palestine:Peace not Apartheid, you are going to have to go with the consensus, and the editors who have recently looked at the page, including User:-Slash-, User:Morton devonshire, myself and User:Leifern all agree that the page is too long and difficult to read.GabrielF 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) >>

Slash and Mortondevonshire and Leifern have not posted in this talk page in response to any of your comments, however. Leifern appears obsessed with a verb that for some time no longer appears in the article ("alludes to") in his section called "allusion" which I Wikified to no avail. Either you or Slash or Mortondevonshire seems to have lost all the note formats at some point, which I restored so that there were notes in the article. What a mess that created. I see no "consensus" here; it's the middle of the night and most people are asleep. Let this article alone for a few days so that other people can read it over the course of time and comment. I'm fed up with it at this point, given all the POV changes that you have engaged in. --NYScholar 09:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not belong on the article talk page. You can dish it out but you can't take it. You have no problem calling people vandals and trolls, but it isn't acceptable for someone to advise you to read policy. You have no problem accusing others of pushing a POV at every turn, but you ignore comments on the POV that is inherent in the article at the moment (e.g. undue weight) and you happily promote insignificant pundits in order to fix what you perceive to be a bias in our culture.GabrielF 09:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also moved another comment replying to GabrielF from my talk page to this article page. I ask GabrielF to stop harassing me (both here and on my talk page): <>

I am not engaging in personal attacks: Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. . --NYScholar 09:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not create the material in the sections of reactions; I edited them to provide sources for the material that other people had added, and I provided transitions to identify or Wikified links to identify who or what these people are and/or are affiliated with as a means of providing information about their authority to be cited at all. When the quotations previously inserted by other editors were misleading due to partial quotations and wrenching the sense of the source out of context, I restored the missing parts of the quotations. They may be longer, but they are more accurate than they used to be. There were grave distortions in earlier presentations of quotations from sources.

If the some of the sources cited now appear to be less recognizably "notable" (famous, familiar) than others, it is because now it is clear who and what they are. (Before they were just names.) But their unfamiliarity to non-specialists in this subject (most editors) does not make their views not "notable." The reliability of the source is what makes it notable, as well as the representativenss of the source's factually-verified statement(s). However, it is also clear that one cannot delete their views if they are representative of a lot of other people's views of the book; the representativeness is notable. I don't think that GabrielF understands that. Also, despite the identification of the publications in which the article quotations inserted by other editors initially come from, GabrielF and some others do not seem to grasp the importance of those publications in that they are read by many people. Just because a Wikipedia editor is unfamiliar with a publication does not mean that a publication is not "notable." Some Wikipedia editors are better informed about the nature of publications and sources than others. To engage in such POV value judgments about what is or is not "notable" without any basis for making such judgments is not following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies linked in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If a source is reliable, it is worthy of noting if it is concerned with the subject in a way that informs readers about the subject. The tendency to omit information because it appears not to be "important" from an editor's POV on the subject is not following "neutral point of view." What one editor finds important, another may find unimportant, but if it is factually relevant, "importance" is not a criterion for omission. --NYScholar 09:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some general thoughts

Some general thoughts on improving this article:
1.The "Review and commentaries" section needs to be cut down considerably. Much of this comment needs to be moved to OTHER sections, because it is not a review or commentary on the book, but rather a specific issue unique to the book. Some examples of this are the Ross controversy, the Stein controversy, the use of the term "apartheid", the question of media suppression and anti-semitism. Carter's responses should be moved into these new sections so the response is right after the criticism and not 13 paragraphs away.

I disagree with these points. The material mentioned is from commentaries on the book and not on specific issues unique to the book. That is an absurd distinction; you are fudging things, clearly, to eliminate comments on the book. Carter's responses followed the sections of comments earlier, but other editors complained that the controversies were taking over the section on reactions. Carter deserves his own section of responses to the reactions (in general, and spefically; only a handful of sentences separate the sections and there are clear transitions reminding a reader what Ross, Dershowitz, Stein et al. said (briefly); anyone who reads the article from beg. to end (and not just piecemeal) can understand it. People print out these articles and read them offline too; one doesn't read articles only online as editors may do. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

2. The "Review and commentaries" section should be ordered by the type of comment, rather than by the person. For example, "Carter has been widely criticized for misinterpretting resolution. Historian such and such says..., person two adds..., carter responds..." This way the notable part, the criticism, can go in the lead sentence of the paragraph rather than being buried at the end of the paragraph.

I suggest you propose the entire rewrite in talk; let's see what you can do. But don't delete the current version until you get a consensus on what you are proposing (an actual text); use sandbox for trial version.--NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suggested something similar earlier, see #Proposed new article structure. --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Quotes need to be checked to see if we are accurately reflecting what the person is saying.

I've already checked all of them. They were accurately rendering what the person was saying as quoted until you started tinkering with them. The sources are all cited in the notes; try reading them yourself. I've already done all that work. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people checking quotes and looking over the changes NYScholar and others make. --70.51.228.233 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

4. If someone is so un-notable that we need three sentences explaining their title, why will a reader care what they think about this book?

Readers vary; their knowledge varies. Wikipedia operates with the assumption that its readers are of varied backgrounds and that articles must supply information either through Wikifying links to identify the person or item mentioned and/or through clear transitions. Apparently, you are unaware of the function of source transitions in identifying the nature of a source's authority. They are necessary. All sources are not equal in the nature of their authority. You are apparently a student, and perhaps you are not that well-versed in what teachers of research and writing (and Wikipedia) call "evaluating sources." --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Non-notability can not be judged by the number of sentences introducing an individual. For a while, most commentators were not being introduced in this article, just simply named, but after some discussion it was decided to describe them fully in this article. The question of notability is an important one, but it is better to use more objective measures. I strongly felt that GabrielF's removal from the article of Norman Finkelstein and Tom Segev based on claims of non-notability were prejudicial and inappropriate. --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove those quotes because the authors were not notable, I removed them because, in the case of Finkelstein, he wasn't talking about the book but the state of discourse in the US, which is redundant and not a review/commentary and in the case of Segev, sentences were cherrypicked from his article and his comments on the book itself were ignored (even though this is a section on reviews and commentary) in favor of his comments on accusations re: anti-semitism. GabrielF 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see, if we went with the topic organization I suggested at the top of the talk page, we could have Segev' review in the review section and include his comments and Finkelsteins comments in the appropriate debate sections -- I would favor such an arrangement, it would make things a lot more clear and easy for the reader to follow. --70.51.228.233 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Rather than a section on responses from organizations, we should have a section on responses from the Jewish community, which should combine CAMERA, ADL and AJC into a summary of a couple of paragraphs.

Not all of these organizations are specifically "Jewish" organizations; e.g. the ADL deals with anti-defamation against others who are not Jews.

Several people in this talk page have already questioned whether CAMERA is notable enough and reliable enough to include at all. People could add other organizations in the future that are not at all Jewish in make up; "Representative" implies that the organizations represent a community of people. The Wikified links make clear what the organizations are and who they represent (mostly).

• Doesn't this suggestion contradict directly with your above suggestion to that the responses "should be ordered by the type of comment, rather than by the person"? I think this is a very problematic suggestion since it involves trying to determine who speaks for the community. --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

6. I'm not sure that the Brandeis stuff is notable enough to include here. It takes up paragraphs and paragraphs and seems ultimately insignificant.

It is definitely notable enough to include. It is a controversy about the book that received a lot of press attention. To omit it is to mislead. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is interesting. Why not summarize it into a few sentences -- 4 sentences with links to the original articles. It has become a non-issue because of how people reacted (and skillfully handled that hot potato), although it had the potential of being an issue for a while. --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

7. The Public Programs section also does not seem particularly notable and can probably go.

It too is highly notable. It is absurd to omit it. The book represents a "current event": see the tag. The programs are in the works (forthcoming), and updates to this article will add dates when they become available. [Had to add numbers so replies would post.]--NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand why NYScholar put these links in, but they are pretty unusual for a Wikipedia article. It would be better if we linked to a single website which tracked up coming events of that nature. If you think about it, an Encyclopedia isn't for advertizing upcoming events. Anyways, once the event happens the notable results should be included in this article. --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquotes alternative

One major suggestion that incorporates some of the above items (see tag re: quotes on article currently) would possibly be to reorganize most of the representative-reactions quotations into a very well-organized and very well-documented page of "sourced" Wikiquotes, with a tag to Wikiquotes placed appropriately in relation to a very brief summary about reactions. I've placed some summary sentences in the introductory part of this article entry (as a kind of guide for what follows). One could possibly rewrite very brief summary sections for topics relating to reactions if needed (but maybe they would no longer be needed, since the introduction now introduces the main issues of controversy [thus far; keep in mind: this is a "current event" and that could change). Almost all of the structure now organized as categories of organization and individual reactions (positive and negative) can be re-done as categorized sections in page(s) of Wikiquotes, in my view, as long as the material regarding sources in the notes remains properly and fully documented in a "Notes" or "References" section for such (a) Wikiquotes page(s). I would hate for all that sourcing work to go to waste. --NYScholar 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF and others: Please stop putting all these additional sections in talk after the Notes section of this page. The notes will not post correctly if you do that. There are embedded notes in all this material that you have been deleting and moving to the talk page. (updated). --NYScholar 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey NYScholar. It is a great idea to have proper notes on the talk page but they just aren't designed for that and its pretty non-standard. You can push for it, but if GabrielF doesn't want to do it, there is little you can do. If you complain about it GabrielF can use it against you to claim you are disruptive or what not. Such arrangements only work if everyone wants to play together nicely, which isn't the case at the moment. The biggest issue with the notes is that the standard way of adding comments to the talk page, via the use of the "+" button at the top of the page, always places the new comments below your notes section. --70.51.228.233 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Please put new sections [of talk comments] above the Notes section (and this warning) [in this talk page]. Thank you.

Notes

Request for comment

This is a dispute over the length and readability of this article.

• GabrielF believes that at 70+kilobytes of text, this article is too long. Further it is difficult to read because it contains too many quotes which are poorly organized. Further, in a number of cases a one-sentence quote is preceded by as many as three or four sentences explaining the background of the person being quoted, and GabrielF believes this information is unnecessary. GabrielF believes that the Reviews and Commentaries section needs to be considerably paired down, with non-notable quotes removed and other quotes reformatted so that the opinion is in the first sentence of the paragraph and not the last. Further, he believes that some material about specific disputes should be taken out of the giant Reviews and Commentaries section and placed in new sections describing those specific disputes. (E.g. disputes over the use of the word "apartheid", the resignation of Kenneth W. Stein, etc.)
• NYScholar appears to object to deleting any sourced material from the page.13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article is too long. But I think it's premature to reduce it, while it's controversial. My recommendation is that we let it grow organically until the "real world" controversy continues, and then work to shorten it while maintaining NPOV. --Leifern 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is long, but one must admit that the debate over this article has been more charged and more wide ranging than most book discussions. GabrielF seems to favor trimming out those who defend Carter such as the very notable Tom Segev (removal [14]), and Norman Finkelstein (removal [15].) I would recommend that GabrielF, instead of just removing the people he doesn't like, work to summarize the opinions of them clearly thus reduce the quote bulk. Another way of shortening the article is to group similar quotes together where they are presented together in one summary, although with a slight extra for where they are different (an entropy reduction approach -- based on the idea of compression techniques, a subject that GabrielF as a computer science major should be familiar with -- if you will.) Outright removal of information, especially of notable individuals, is a disservice to our readers and will only lead to conflict -- imagine if I decided that Alan Dershowitz, who has written less books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and context than Tom Segev and Norman Finkelstein, wasn't enough of an expert to comment, it would cause an uproar of perceived censorship. --70.51.228.233 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are failing to assume good faith and ascribing motives to me where there is no basis in fact. You will note that I cut out Steve Israel's criticism of the book and cut the democrats criticism from six paragraphs to two. Also, I advocated cutting the ADL, AJC and CAMERA criticisms from three big paragraphs to a couple of shorter summary paragraphs. I think the letter to the carter center should be cut down to one or two sentences and the rest moved to that article. Dershowitz's stuff could also be cut down. I removed the positive reactions because they were from the most non-notable people (come on, Michigan Media Watch??) and because some of them were not really "positive reactions" to the book at all, but comments on the state of debate on the issue in the United States. My plan is to ultimately compress things, by adding introductory paragraphs to each section, summarizing the various positions, but if I just rewrite, I feel that someone will just add caveats and more quotes further contributing to the bloat. GabrielF 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose your topical organization on the talk page here in outline form for comment as I did earlier? You may be able to get some agreement if you approach it this way. BTW what is the difference from your position between Michigan Media Watch and CAMERA besides their stated POVs? --70.51.228.233 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Michigan Media Watch" gets 81 google hits[16], a fair comparison with CAMERA is not possible, because camera is a common word, but "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" gets about 42,000[17]GabrielF 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)