Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Proposed new article structure 2 Notes format 3 Special interest group?? 3.1 Who is Lee Green? 4 Questionable reliability of citations to blogs/unreliable sources 5 Removed a long quotation from near the end of the article to save space 6 Table of contents 7 "Major points" 8 The recent edit war 9 Gil Troy and Melvin Konner 9.1 Melvin Konner 10 Quote Farm 11 Recent edit 12 Aiming for Feature Article status 13 Lack of neutrality issues 14 BLP tag 15 Organization of sections 16 Anti-semitism term purge demanded! 17 Notes

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.

^[1][2]

• 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.”^[3]

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."^[4]

>> -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.)^[5]

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:

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view Attribution What Wikipedia is not Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility Consensus No personal attacks Resolving disputes

---

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research
  

We must get the article right.^[6]

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.^[7]
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).^[8] --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)

Please do not try to start a flame war. Wikipedia does not try to define who is Anti-Semite or who is a terrorist or assign label. It does however quote noteable sources that accuse people of such. Making comments like Jimmy carter hates Israel are unproductive at best and libelous at worse. As well ignoring critics of his books that consider he's comments anti-semitic is also against WP. If they are Reputable sources they deserve quotation wikipedia does not censor. Gordie 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes