Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Carter on the book's provocative title

The title of the book, which contains the hot button term "apartheid" is part of the reason why it is such a topic of discussion or controversy. Jimmy Carter discussed his feelings towards provoking a controversy with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press two Sundays ago. Here is a snippet from the official "Meet the Press Transcript for December 3, 2006":

MR. RUSSERT: Your 21st book. “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Mr. President, that title alone is going to create some controversy.
FMR. PRES. CARTER: Well, well, maybe it’s provocative. That’s —- I prefer that. I don’t look on provocative as a negative word. If it, if it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process—which is now completely absent or dormant—rejuvenated, then—and brings peace, ultimately to Israel, that’s what I want.

--70.51.230.254 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a section on the title is warranted. It should answer a few questions that anyone who encounters the book is likely to ask: Why does Carter use the word apartheid? How does he justify his use of the term? What do others, especially experts on the Middle East have to say about his use of the word apartheid? GabrielF 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A few sentences from Carter explaining his title could be useful. A sentence or two going in to detail from experts or people noting controversy might be appropriate. An entire section seems like overkill to me though. --75.46.88.163 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why dont we just refer readers to the relatively well written "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid " article?68.166.30.6 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we pasting in television transcripts to this page?--G-Dett 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More Jimmy Carter on the title from the LATimes [1]:
"...it would be presumptuous of me to ask to be on 'Larry King' or to talk to the L.A. Times to promote my ideas about the Middle East. If I write a book about it, however, this gives me a vast array of forums where I can express views and answer questions. The book gives me this opening."
--70.51.230.196 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
He discusses the title here too: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225 . If we need to label the book as controversial, polemical, etc. then Carter seems to embrace the word 'provocative'. I think that might make everyone (close to) happy. --YoYoDa1 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Work in Progress...

Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.--G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only major formatting change left to make at this point is to move the "praise" and "criticism" sections up so that they precede the "controversy" section. At least for the present. Stein's major allegations remain unspecified and Ross's minor one unverified, and in the national media both critics are making rapid segues from complaints about scholarship to statements of ideological opposition. In other words at the present moment the "controversy" over scholarly practice gives every appearance of being an outgrowth of the controversy over the book's content, and so should naturally follow it. As the dispute over scholarship comes into focus, the order of primacy may well change.--G-Dett 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's response to map allegations + Finkelstein comment

Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.

Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning [Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."

From Newsweek interview [2].

Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) [3].

--70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham H. Foxman / Anti-Defamation League criticism

From [4]:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"

--70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7talk 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The piece cited above is pretty tame. Check out this one: [5]. Or this [6] response to a positive review of the book published in the AJC. --70.51.230.196 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why ADL's statement should be excluded. Actually, the term "slander" is far more appropriate for the title of the book in question (speaking of clichés). BTW, Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Humus sapiens - all criticism from notable sources should go in, just like all praise from notable sources should go in. We shouldn't pick and choose based on which pieces we feel are legitimate and which are smears. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
On a lighter note [7] -- Kendrick7talk 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) the onion really is his news source!

What if the cause were Muslim and CAIR was commenting? Would that be irrelevant? Elizmr 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From my position, the more outrageous over-the-top criticism the better since it makes Carter's book more prominent and the resulting movie more engaging and demonstrative of how screwed-up debate is in this area. --70.48.70.188 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More pointed criticism

Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany." [8]

Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: [9]. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a positive review from a mainstream Syrian newspaper: [10]. My hope is that we don't have a cultural bias where only commentary from US or British based media is considered valid. --70.48.70.188 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I'm sure whatever it says wikipedia can survive the next 24 hours with it. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's already been removed. CJCurrie 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And now it's back again. I reiterate my request. CJCurrie 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know a lot about 3RR, but I don't think I can touch it now either. --YoYoDa1 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ--could you be more specific about what you object to? Elizmr 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about all the labels that keep getting thrown in to the article, ie Jewish-American, left-wing activist, etc. Right now the only one in there is left-wing activist. --75.51.230.180 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's what he's talking about, then he's right the labels are poisioning the well and inapproriate. But why not let him speak for himself. I'm familiar with him from other articles I've often seem him insert those kind of labels himself (I think his intention is to be helpful to the reader), so I'm not sure he woudl be so upset about that. Elizmr 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. If you read the edits on the page history though, specifically around that time, then you will see what I am talking about. --75.51.230.180 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sappo12

Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) No, no Kyle, don't be so hard on yourself!
Washington Institute is mentioned as being pro-Israel in both the Israel lobby in the United States and the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy articles. Thus it isn't a stretch to label it as such, although such a label should include a proper citation I would think. --70.51.230.6 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There is probably a much better way to say what he is trying to get across. --75.51.230.180 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The term "Jewish" is being used too broadly in an attempt to implicitly discredit some critics. There are more appropriate, and less prejudicial, ways to describe the established views of some of these critics, such as Alan Dershowitz is "pro-Israel" having written a number of books defending Israel such as "The Case for Israel" and Dershowitz has also been criticized in the New York Review of Books for launching "unjustified" attacks on Human Rights Watch because they issued a report critical of Israel's actions. The NYRB article critical of Dershowitz, and in defense of current HRW head Kenneth Roth, who happens to be Jewish, was written by the founder of HRW, who also happens to be Jewish, thus further making clear using the identifier "Jewish" as a simplistic means to discredit critics is really not appropriate, and shows a lack of fidelity in one's thinking. --70.51.230.6 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggsting the alternate "pro-Israel" as a better way of Poisoning the well against Dershowitz? Elizmr 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dershowitz is a difficult case in that his work in defending Israel (such as his more recent effort to bring the Iranian President to the ICJ for promoting genocide because of his recent comments) are more significant and relevant to his involving in this situation than anything else. Please note that Rabbi Michael Lerner is still being described in the current version of the article as being a "left-wing activist." --70.51.230.6 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey anon, poisoning the well by any other name is still poisoning the well. Elizmr 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue that it is manifestly relevant if a critic or supporter of the Carter books is either Jewish or Palestinian. This is, afterall, a dispute between Jews and Palestinians. It is important to point out that most of the critics listed on this entry (Ross, Dershowitz, Goldberg, etc) are Jewish. It is relevant to cite pro-Israel books they've written or the fact that someone has served in the Israeli Army. Equally, it is important to cite the fact that someone may have been a member of Hamas or Fatah or the PLO. Or simply that that person is Palestinian or has written obviously pro-Palestinian books or articles.

Also, I refer you to a paragraph frome the undisputed entry on Alan Dershowitz:

"Dershowitz was born in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, and grew up in Borough Park.[1] His parents, Harry and Claire, were both devout Orthodox JewsItalic text. Harry Dershowitz (May 8, 1909–April 26, 1984)[2] was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company. Alan Dershowitz's brother Nathan, at the time of their father's death counsel for the American Jewish Congress, is a partner in the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson"

Why are these references to his Jewish heritage not offensive?

How does stating factually that someone is Palestinian or Jewish constitute an effort to discredit?

Also, this commentary below is way, way off the mark and totally imflammatory. The comparison is offensive and in no way relevant.

In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

note: above unsigned comment placed by Sappo [11]

Thanks for you opinion and please see WP:NPA. My remarks were DIRECTLY responding to Ken7's comment: I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I was explaining why it is ad hom to call someone Jewish in some circles including people who might read this page. I am sorry if you found my remark extreme, but I was trying to make a point that anyone could understand using a well-known example. I agree my remark is hard to hear, but it speaks to the issue. I also hear you on what you are saying, but there is NOTHING about a Jewish POV or an Israeli POV that it is all homogenous. Elizmr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More commentary on the book

BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. --70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

From a Google News search...

  • Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis, Associated Press
    • "Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid' because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested. 'I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,"'Carter told The Boston Globe. 'There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.' The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said."
  • Carter: careful no more, Seattle Times
  • Quakers back Carter book, Jewish Telegraph Agency
  • Jimmy Carter: Human scum, WorldNetDaily
    • "These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs (read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer."
  • 'How Many Bubbles in a Bar of Soap?' Jimmy Carter Fails the Literacy Test, New York Observer
    • "This was part of the Times' continuing series to give space to (Jewish) defenders of Israel to denounce Carter as misinformed and dotty because he dared to write a book likening the Israeli occupation to apartheid. Two days before, WINEP's David Makovsky told the Times the book is filled with errors, and he's 'saddened by it.' Back when Jimmy Carter was young, they used to have literacy tests to keep black people from voting. The black person would go to the polls and have to take a literacy test in order to vote. The pollworkers would ask the black person questions like, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" When the black person couldn't answer, they couldn't vote. The Times is enforcing the literacy test on Israel/Palestine. Jimmy Carter failed. He made too many mistakes so he can't offer his opinion. Only experts can vote, usually centrist-right Jews who have no interest in or idea what's going on in the Occupied Territories."
  • Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar, David Horowitz

--70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is one I just saw on the Jersualem Post site: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881904465&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . Note just because an article exists, we don't have to use it. I'm sure there are lots of newspapers in Palestine/Middle East which could also be cited. Also, a very substantial numbers of academics that support the views (of Carter) could also be cited. Then there could be some think tanks. The idea is to document notable and reliable information, not already contained in the article, that an average reader of Wikipedia might have an interest in reading to become informed. Just saying. --75.51.230.180 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie.

I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7.

  • The article had a section on "response to criticism" but when I read the article carefully, I noted that there was much response also interwoven into the rest of the text. I removed this all to the exisiting section.
  • The "controversies" section was really criticism and this ambuigity interfered with the flow of the article. I moved Stein and Ross's comments to the criticism section and elimitiaed "controversies".
  • I tried to improve the headings in the criticism section to remove well poisioning stuff.
  • There was a suggestion that the democrats criciszed the book only for political motivations, which I'd argue is WP:OR. The release of the book was after the midterm elections (I believe) but there was lot of publicity beforehand (and it was already mentioned on Wikipedia pages beforehand). If democrats responsded with criticism then, their criticism is still valid. Elizmr 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ken, please don't revert all my edits, OK? I worked hard on this. Elizmr 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey -- sorry -- you probably should have hollered at my talk page; I just saw this section. Oops. Anyway, I largely approve of this reworking and I think everything's coming along OK. -- Kendrick7talk 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Critism and countercriticism

I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted the added material which I thought made this worth it's own section. -- Kendrick7talk 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind; I see it made it back. But I'm not too picky how this is organized, eitherway. -- Kendrick7talk 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The way the article was written before, there was response to criticism worked in all over the place and also a separate section. I'm just worried about the article being a messy collection of "he said she said" exchanges that will be difficult for the reader to follow. Elizmr 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Carter seems to have repeatedly reserved his most public critism of his critics speficially for Dershowitz though. -- Kendrick7talk 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is an argument for the article structure you are a proponent of. Elizmr 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've resectionalized things. -- Kendrick7talk 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I feel the top few sentences are now getting lost. I'll put yet another subject heading there so this doesn't happen. Elizmr 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned WaPo ref

There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7talk 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wait -- it was a duplicate; should be all set now. -- Kendrick7talk 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the refs formats etc. Elizmr 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: "He Comes in Peace" film

Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:

Here are the main stories:

  • Demme helms docu on Carter for Participant, Hollywood Reporter
    • Demme is quoted: The president's book tour occurs at a crossroads where the world of religion intersects with global politics. This picture is just an extraordinary honor for me. I loved Carter when he was president, and I've loved him more and more since he left office. He makes me feel so proud to be an American.
    • Weyermann is quoted: Jimmy Carter embodies a determined sense of justice and a devout faith, grounded in tolerance and driven by a fierce desire for world peace. Jonathan Demme is a filmmaker of immense vision who will be able to marry the intimate portraiture of 'Heart of Gold' to the political savvy of 'The Agronomist' and advance his series of 'portrait docs' with a subject so worthy of further examination.
  • JIMMY CARTER ALOFT, New Yorker
    • Carter, who is eighty-two, was coming off a full day of interviews in New York (Rose, King, Gross) and embarking on another (Russert, Blitzer, Lehrer), but his zest for trumpeting his ideas and accomplishments seemed undiminished. He wore a checked jacket, gray flannels, and brown Kiltie loafers. Jonathan Demme, meanwhile, was shooting a documentary about him, to be called “He Comes in Peace.” Demme and his crew sat across the aisle, cameras rolling. They had even filmed him swimming that morning, in the pool at the Peninsula hotel. (“I do a variety of strokes,” Carter said, and it was a pleasure to hear him—an Annapolis man—use the term “Australian crawl.”)
  • Demme on Carter trail, Variety
    • The former president is using the national tour to generate discussion and to hear from people with varying views on the polarizing topic -- all of which will be captured on camera. Demme said he is taking an experimental approach so as to avoid turning out a pic dominated by talking heads.

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This probably should just be it's own article, with a see also from here. I don't know if an article about a film that is only in production would survive an AfD, but if you want to put the effort into creating this article any way, feel free: He Comes in Peace. -- Kendrick7talk 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: Election-context of Democratic party criticism

The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.

Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:

  • With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
  • Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date.
  • The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. ... “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
  • Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors.
  • Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the basic context. We need to provide context so someone reading this 100 years from now is aware that there was an election about to occur and that these comments were made prior to the book's publication. Future generations, and our own, can draw whatever conclusions they want; somehow I personally doubt, FWIW, that these people had nothing better to do in October than track down an advanced copy and read it cover to cover. -- Kendrick7talk 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is ok to state that elections were coming up, but saying that these folks were just "distancing themselves" discredits their remarks as politically motivated and devoid of content. It poisons the well. Could we compromise on this? Elizmr 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob -- that hadn't occured to me. -- Kendrick7talk 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I guess I hadn't spelled it out well. Good comprimise. Elizmr 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

here is extra material

This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.

In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank.[1] Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role,[2] though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization.[citation needed] Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution.[3] Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem[4] and that the maps are publicly available.[5] In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels.[6] Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States."[7] But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive."[12][8] Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993.[9] Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace.[13] David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history."[14]. The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations.[10]Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

article structure

I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a super big fan of the new structure either, I was just going with it to be agreeable. --YoYoDa1 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

Gave some structure. --64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz's Rwanda smear

Anyone who has reviewed the interview transcript should realize that Carter was comparing conditions in Palestine *now* to conditions in Rwanda *now*. He specifically refused to be drawn into a debate on the Rwandan genocide, and did not compare the current situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide.

For us to assert "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda" is both improper and inaccurate, given that Carter did not actually do what Dershowitz is said to have accused him of doing.

We could perhaps write "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for allegedly having compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda", but then we'd have to include a follow-up sentence indicating that Carter didn't actually say this. I can't imagine Dershowitz coming off well in such a comparison and, frankly, I can't see Carter's original comments as being sufficiently important for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The new edit is no better. Anyone with the slightest bit of sense will realize that the current wording is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said, even if the words are technically correct.
  • I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Add: I don't appreciate SlimVirgin's decision to remove the dispute template while I was still making my comments on this forum: [16]. CJCurrie 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That disputed tag should not be removed till all of this is sorted. Dershowitz falsely accused is probably how the article should read. Jasper23 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I took this out of the article because it isn't true.

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda.[11] Jasper23 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jasper, in what way isn't it true? The transcript shows the comparison very clearly. The text previously said he was comparing it to the genocide, and that's not so clear, so it was changed to "situation." Having said that, it's not clear that he didn't mean the genocide; all he says is he doesn't mean "ancient history" in Rwanda, but the genocide isn't ancient history. I think this is an important example of him being caught out using ridiculous hyperbole, and being unwilling to retract. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's quite clear that he doesn't mean the genocide. You can criticize him for using the words "ancient history", if you wish, but it's crystal clear for the transcript that he's referring to Rwanda *now*, not Rwanda in 1994.
As to your "ridiculous hyperbole" argument, wouldn't that be original research? CJCurrie 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
But it doesn't say "genocide" now. I don't understand your last point. If I put it in the article, it would be OR, yes. Does that extend to talk too? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say "genocide" now. It merely links to an article where Dershowitz incorrectly accuses Carter of comparing the situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and is written in a such a manner that readers are likely to believe Carter was referring to the genocide. Seriously, you really need to take a step back if you can't see the problem with this text. CJCurrie 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You are taking sides. We report what reliable sources say, not what CJCurrie wishes they had said. The transcript is clear. He does make the comparison and he thinks the situation with the Palestinians is worse. Dershowitz points that out. We publish that he pointed it out. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, Dershowitz's comments draw into question his status as a reliable source. Anyone who reads the transcript can see for themselves that he was wrong. To the original point, Carter's observation that Palestine 2006 is worse than Rwanda 2006 is not particularly notable to begin with, so I can't see how AD's comments are at all relevant. CJCurrie 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.] CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't say he compared it to the genocide. How many times? But he does compare it to Rwanda, and says it is worse. Read the transcript properly. And no, Dershowitz doesn't get called into question as a reliable source just because you don't like him. There is a real world out there in which Dershowitz has credibility, your personal opinions notwithstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed this below. Even if we accept that the Dershowitz article should be included (and I do not accept this premise), the current wording is still a grotesque violation of both NPOV and BLP. Seriously, Slim, what do you think readers are likely to conclude from the present wording? CJCurrie 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It could not be clearer now. And it is not up to you to decide that Dershowitz is not a reliable source, just because you don't like him. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I consider Dershowitz to be an unreliable source because his recent article transparently misrepresents the context of Carter's remarks. My personal opinion of Dershowitz is not the point at issue. Why must you always assume the worst? CJCurrie 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Moments after I removed the Disputed notice (since the disputed text was no longer in the article), SlimVirgin decided to restore the disputed text without also restoring the disputed notice. Quite charming, really.

To the point at issue: the current wording may be technically accurate, but it is also woefully misleading and inappropriate for the article. That SlimVirgin doesn't seem to recognize this is quite disconcerting, although not entirely surprising.

At the risk of repeating myself, please note that I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent apology for this kind of behavior really didn't mean anything, did it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? CJCurrie 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about this, which I'd hoped was an apology for your intransigent revert warring, but clearly not. I've also asked you twice to show me examples of you adding, or agreeing to the addition of, criticism to articles about left-wing figures; you said you would supply examples but haven't. Here I see you once again editing only from your own narrow POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim, pay very close attention: I offered an apology on the Israeli apartheid page because I realized I was in the wrong on a particular point. I am not going to apologize for my behaviour here, because I am not in the wrong on this point. In response to your ad hominem attacks: (i) not that it's relevant, but I did provide you with an example, (ii) I'm reverting information that any reasonable reader would find inappropriate. CJCurrie 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Asking other editors to revert war for you. [17] SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Jasper23 to review your reversion of his edit. There's nothing wrong with that, or are we only allowed to make such requests on private listservs? CJCurrie 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You've asked him to revert for you because you're out of reverts, even though the text is now completely accurate and well-sourced. I can't say anything more to you. I've really had it with your editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie has asked someone else to intervene. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin may be interested to learn that I have no strong personal history with YoYoDa1, and do not know how he will respond to my request. He may side against me, for all I know. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You are unbelievable. All YoYoDa1 has done practically is edit this article, and he's given you a barnstar! [18] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice why he gave me a barnstar? From what I can tell, YoYoDa1 has a genuine concern for neutrality on this piece. (In any event, he's decided not to intervene for the present time.) CJCurrie 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The text is technically accurate and technically sourced, but is still hopelessly wrong for the article. It's a shame that you don't realize this. CJCurrie 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is YOUR POV. The edit is accurate. It is sourced to a reliable source, albeit one you personally don't like. The source discussed it in the context of this issue, so it's relevant. Your POV is not relevant. It's a shame that you don't realize this. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim: The current edit is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said. It may be accurate in a very narrow and technical sense, but it's also an obscene violation of both NPOV and BLP. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Carter said. He said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know," and was called on it.

  • CARTER: ... [T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know.
  • SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
  • CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
  • SHUSTER: Yes.
  • CARTER: Yes.
  • SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
  • CARTER: I'm not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
  • SHUSTER: You're talking about right now, you're not talking about say, a few years ago.
  • CARTER: I'm not talking about ancient history, no.
  • SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn't ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
  • CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory .... They're taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks.

But you still don't seem to understand the NOR policy. Even if the above were completely irrelevant, Dershowitz criticized Carter for it. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because we are simply reporting what D said, and it's clearly not a trivial matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accept your premise that Dershowitz's piece is an appropriate source for this article (which I do not), the current wording is still a grotesque distortion of both NPOV and BLP.

Incidentally, I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you misdescribed the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already corrected my remarks concerning Dershowitz's article here, and was about to do the same on the RfC page before you intervened. Everything else I said was correct. CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Slim has just adjusted the text. The current version is much better, although not quite perfect (the final section is still misleading, and requires either rewording or further clarification). CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not quite perfect? How careless of me. Why couldn't you have adjusted the wording? Why must you always and only revert, revert, revert? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that SlimVirgin has added further text. The current edit is not even close to being acceptable, and I plan to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity. (Carter did not "invoke" Rwanda, for a start ...) CJCurrie 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from Dershowitz. He is a prominent critic. You are not going to correct him. The interviewer asked Carter about Rwanda and he SAID YES. He could have said no. He is a former president, not a deer caught in the headlights. He said yes. Therefore, he opened himself up to this criticism, and we're not going to censor it for your benefit. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer the question. Why do you almost never edit? You revert, revert, revert, when all you'd have to do is edit, adjust the wording, find a better source. Often, you're reverting so much other people can't get their edits in because of edit conflicts with you. Then calling up other people, and RfCs, and time-wasting arguments on talk. Why couldn't you have done what I just did? It's a serious question. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
He said "Yes", the situation in Palestine today is worse than the situation in Rwanda today. I suspect that certain people have an interest in twisting this comment, to insinuate that he said "Yes" to something else. Removing obviously tendentious editing is not "censorship", by any reasonable definition.
To answer your question: I add text frequently. If it seems like most of my edits that you happen to notice are reverts, perhaps this has something to do with the things that other contributors have tried to add to these articles. CJCurrie 04:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The article now says that he compared the situation with the Palestinians to the situation in Rwanda today. You didn't answer the question. Why didn't you clarify the text, rather than remove it all, remove the sources, the transcript, revert it two or three times, put a disputed tag on it twice, and then file an RfC? Why didn't you just edit? Please answer. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The short answer is: because I don't believe a reference this misleading belongs in the article at all. CJCurrie 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Then my question is: why do you feel you should decide which reliable sources who have discussed Carter get to be included? If you believe you have a right to ditch prominent, reliable critics with serious criticism, you've totally misunderstood the content policies and the purpose of Wikipedia. Instead, you could ensure that anything written is written accurately, but you almost never do that. You revert immediately, instinctively, and constantly, even though you must know by now that that's the most time-consuming route with these articles. I know that reverting with controversial articles is sometimes the best way to proceed, but you do it way too often and too fast. Seriously, when it gets to the stage that other people can't improve their edits (by finding sources, by adjusting the wording), because you're involved, and that means constant reverting and therefore constant edit conflicts (and others having to worry whether they inadvertently violate 3RR by making an improvement to something you've just reverted), then it means there's a problem. Please give this some thought. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to apologize for removing misleading and tendentious references, Slim. This particular Dershowitz article can hardly be called "serious criticism": it's a horrific distortion of Carter's literal words to suggest something he quite obviously never intended. Beyond which, I've not seen any indication that the mainstream media has covered this particular story, and I suspect that referencing this article before Carter has a chance to respond may effectively give Wikipedia a complicit role in a smear campaign.
I'm going to explain my position in more detail, shortly. CJCurrie 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The Dershowitz point is a very important, relevant one. The criticism is that some people on the left are obsessed by Israel for reasons that can't be explained, or rather it can be explained in some cases, but I'm assuming that's not relevant here. They focus exclusively on it, exaggerate what's going on there, and usually they don't know much about it themselves. Carter was caught doing that very thing. He said it represented the worst human rights violations he knew of. He was asked "Worse than Rwanda?" And, clarifying that he meant Rwanda today, he said yes. Even with that clarification, it's absurd for the reasons Dershowitz pointed out. Then he tried to backtrack, saying he didn't want to talk about it, because he knew he'd said something very silly. He's a former president of the most powerful country in the world. He doesn't need you to defend him. And the references were not misleading or tendentious. The transcript was even provided! And you removed that too ...
As I said elsewhere, it boils down to good editing. Please try to engage in good editing, instead of POV censorship, removal of source material, and the endless reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting extrapolation, albeit one that's easy to refute. In any event, I've already outlined my position in greater detail, and I have no desire to continue this tiresome back-and-forth. If you choose to respond, please do so in a separate section rather than cutting up my remarks. CJCurrie 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The present controversy

I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:

On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.

The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

This the relevant section:

[CARTER]: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—
SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
SHUSTER: Yes.
CARTER: Yes.
SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.
CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.
SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.

On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post: [19]

This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later: [20]

What's the point of mentioning where it was reprinted? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Because we cite StandWithUs as our source. CJCurrie 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's why I asked the question. They are not the original source, so why mention them? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Our article currently summarizes this situation as follows:

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." [14][15] Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel. [13]

My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:

  1. It isn't clear that Carter did compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda, except insofar as he responded to a specific question from an interviewer. Our first sentence, as such, seems to misrepresent Carter's approach to the situation.
    But he did respond, and he said yes. He could have said no, he did not think it was worse than Rwanda, then or now. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. A phrase such as "ancient history" is non-specific, and is likely to be misinterpreted. The interviewer asked Carter if he was referring to the situation in Rwanda "a few years ago", and he responded "no". If we are to reference this matter at all, we should clarify this point. (By way of an aside: I suspect that some readers may consider the "ancient history" phrase to have been inappropriate on Carter's part. They are entitled to this opinion, but it's entirely peripheral to the dispute at hand).
    We can't clarify it, because we don't know what he meant. We can only say what he said.
  3. It is not clear that Carter "backed away from the analogy", except insofar as he declined to pursue his interviewer's invitation for a comparison. Even Dershowitz qualifies this particular accusation better than we do, saying that Carter "seems to have" backed away.
    Again, we say what Carter said, what the interviewer said, what Dershowitz said. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Since Carter did not invoke the Rwanda analogy, it is difficult to understand how he could have "trafficked in" its symbolism. We are not under any compulsion to reference Dershowitz's comments when they are flatly contradicted by the evidence.
    He trafficked in it as soon as he started using superlatives about the Palestinian situation, for reasons I've explained above. D's criticism is about C's, and the left's (that includes yours) "obsessive focus" on Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Beyond these specific criticisms, it should be clear to any reader with even the smallest bit of sophistication in these matters that Dershowitz's piece was intended as a smear, not as serious journalism. Dershowitz was smart enough to avoid directly accusing Carter of comparing the current situation in Palestine with the Rwandan genocide, but it's unlikely that many people reading his blog entry would have made this subtle distinction (to their credit, however, some respondents did). It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal.

I also have some concerns about the use of sources. The other Dershowitz criticisms in this article are taken from the New York Sun, a credible journal. StandWithUs and Dershowitz's blog are not reliable, peer-reviewed sources, and I doubt that any credible paper would have published a piece so misleading. We don't regularly cite pieces from FrontPage Magazine, so why should we cite this?

Dershowitz's blog may be used under V and RS, because he's a well-known professional commentator on the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Dershowitz recently published a highly truncated reference to this controversy in a piece for the Boston Globe. It might be possible for us to reference that work, although I'm not certain how one could do this without engaging in "quote-mining".

From what I can tell, no other credible journalistic source has referenced this controversy at. I'm concerned that referencing this matter on Wikipedia would simply make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a smear. We reproduce the transcript. Readers can judge for themselves, which is what you don't want them to do, it appears. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE. CJCurrie 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried ... CJCurrie 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CJC emailed me and asked me to look in and give my view on this.

It seems pretty clear from that transcript that:

  1. Carter did not bring up Rwanda himself.
  2. If he said anything that could be taken as a comparison of the current situation of the Palestinians to the Rwandan genocide, it was at worst a slip of the tongue.
  3. Carter did refer to what I would think of as relatively recent events in Rwanda as "ancient history", which is not exactly admirable, but also suggests that he was not exactly on top of his game at that moment, and, if anything, suggests one more reason not to put too much weight on his response to an apparently unexpected question. Similarly, his slightly belated "You mean, now?" shows that he was somewhat confused by the initial question.

I would also add to that: Dershowitz is not exactly known for fair treatment of critics of Israel. I would agree with CJCurrie's characterization of this as a smear.

I don't find anything in the exchange or in Dershowitz's remarks that at all obviously rises to the level of belonging in an encyclopedia: it reads to me mostly like Carter being tired and not choosing his words carefully. I think CJCurrie's remark "It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal" is absolutely on the mark. I'd be inclined to leave the whole thing out.

But if we are going to include it at all, I would be inclined to write something like:

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, interviewer David Shuster asked Carter a series of questions inviting comparison of the situation of the Palestinians with "a place like Rwanda". In the course of his answer, Carter "the Rwandan civil war" (Shuster's wording, presumably the 1994 Rwandan Genocide) as "ancient history", and asserted that the "persecution of the Palestinians is one of theworst examples of human rights abuse I know".

I'd put the full exchange reproduced above in a footnote. If we really want to, we can include Dershowitz's remarks, but only after such a neutral description of what Carter actually said. I, myself, would not be inclined to include Dershowitz's remarks. I think they are a smear, based on a presumption that his immediate reply to an unexpected question should be treated on the same level as his writings, and that his clarification was eitehr insincere or otherwise to be dismissed.

Alan Dershowitz criticized Carter's backing away from the Rwanda analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.

(Footnote Dershowitz as appropriate. And, yes, Dershowitz's blog is citable for what Dershowitz says.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

One gripe I think most would share: The Dershowitz section twice lists Carter's use of the term apartheid as a criticism. We should just mention it once to conserve space. --YoYoDa1 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what they said, and what we say

It's very simple. Why not let readers and other editors judge for themselves whether we've portrayed it accurately. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia says:

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.

Here is what Dershowitz wrote: [21]

Here is what Carter said:

  • CARTER: ... [T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know.
  • SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
  • CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
  • SHUSTER: Yes.
  • CARTER: Yes.
  • SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
  • CARTER: I'm not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
  • SHUSTER: You're talking about right now, you're not talking about say, a few years ago.
  • CARTER: I'm not talking about ancient history, no.
  • SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn't ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
  • CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory .... They're taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks. [22]
Carter's use of the words "ancient times" to describe Kenneth Stein's involvement with the Carter Centre (1993) provides a bit of context to his use of "ancient history" regarding the Rwandan Genocide (1994). That said, I think that the section actually seems relatively balanced at the moment. Mostlyharmless 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

Readers may note that the excerpt I've provided above is more complete. CJCurrie 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and cluttered with your own opinions, which is why I'd like to keep it simple — what we say, what Dershowitz said, and what Carter said. And then let people judge whether it's accurately portrayed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means, readers should take up this challenge. I suspect I know what fair-minded readers will think of Dershowitz's piece, and our summarization of the same. CJCurrie 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Readers should note that I did not add the "Opinions" header to this section. SlimVirgin did, in order to keep her preferred section "clean". Given that she cut up my summary (despite two requests that she not do so), I can't help but consider this a bit ironic. CJCurrie 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Where did you ask me not to? I saw no requests. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here and here. Both of these sections were removed by your subsequent edit. CJCurrie 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I kept getting an edit conflict, because you kept going back to edit, and I'd already written out the questions so I just posted it. If you want to ask me something, you have to do it clearly on talk before I edit, rather than adding what looks like an instruction after I've already responded. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've received several edit conflicts in this discussion too, Slim. The difference is that I don't complain about them, and I take new comments into account. CJCurrie 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As the person who first found the StandWithUs article and the "Hardball" transcripts and added them to Wikipedia, I am honored that it has received such heated debate. I am even more honored that SlimVirgin has taken up the responsibility to preserve the integrity of myself, herself, Alan Dershowitz, Israel, and Wikipedia standards without fail. Let's analyze the statement line by line:

  1. "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comments that he made in an interview with David Shuster on MSNBC." True. See Alan Dershowitz's editorial to verify.[23]
  2. Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." True. See the transcripts to varify.[24]
  3. When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes". True. See the transcripts to varify.[25]
  4. Carter then clarified that he was referring to conditions in Rwanda now and not to past events in that country, and declined to pursue the comparison further. True. See the transcripts to varify.[26]
  5. Dershowitz accused Carter of trivializing the Rwandan genocide through his comments. True. See Alan Dershowitz's editorial to verify.[27]

So we have established that as of this moment, every statement in the disputed section is true, therefore none of it should be removed for the sole reason that any one claim is false or misleading or is original research. How about the claim that Alan Dershowitz is an unreliable source? That would challenge statements 1 and 5, but not 2, 3, and 4. I offer this compromise to CJCurrie and other like-minded Wikipedians: if anyone can find a reliable source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not criticize "Carter for comments that he made in an interview with David Shuster on MSNBC" or a source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not accuse "Carter of trivializing the Rwandan genocide through his comments," I would accept the removal of Statements 1 and 5 from the article. Statements 2, 3, and 4 would stay, of course since the "Hardball" transcript is not a disputed source. ;) --GHcool 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Double standard?

[28] CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is it my double standard, CJ, and not yours? YOU think that Chesler's copy editing errors in one book must be alluded to because one source mentioned them. But at the same time you think a former president's comparison of the Palestinian situation to RWANDA (!) should not be mentioned, even though a source has criticized him for it. Were it not for WP:NPA, I'd be tempted to use the word "hypocrisy." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see how a former president's decision to compare Palestine in 2006 with RWANDA (!) in 2006 should occasion anyone's concern, especially as he wasn't the one who raised the issue. Rwanda still bears the scars of the horrific upheavals from twelve years ago (to say nothing of its more recent conflicts with Uganda over Congolese territory), but there's nothing particularly insulting about comparing the two populations today. I can't help but wonder if certain writers are deliberately encouraging confusion between Rwanda 2006 and Rwanda 1994 in order to make Carter appear to have said something he did not. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.

As far as Chesler goes, how do you know that her mistakes are merely "copy editing errors"? I'd be hard-pressed to define the Aung San Suu Kyi error in those terms, personally. CJCurrie 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism/responses

The criticism and responses have been written up separately. They really need to be together, in part because it's fairer, but also because it's more interesting to read. The current article is very list-like, with virtually no narrative. I would like to try to rewrite it, but there's so much reverting, I hesitate in case it's a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point concerning the article as a whole, but your recent edits have only made a bad situation worse. CJCurrie 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
How so? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

Just saw the RFC and thought I'd poke my head in, hopefully not landing on a minefield. So, does Carter actually compare Palestine to Rwanda in "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"? Or is this something he said outside of the book but is relevant because it reflects Carter's views on the situation in general.

If he mentions it in the book, I don't see how you could possibly not mention it in this article-- I mean-- it's a very bold and obviously inflammatory statement to make in a book. If it was just something he said off the cuff in an interview, then the situation is grayer-- maybe it was a major point, or maybe he just misspoke. In that case, comes down to sheer notability: has the major media picked up on the Rwanda analogy issue, i.e. are there CNN/Nytimes/whatever stories which mention it? If so-- you gotta talk about such a controversial statement. On the other hand, if it's just something that hasn't gotten much media attention outside of the blogs, then perhaps don't mention it, lest we give it undue weight-- but being sure to re-evaluate that over time for if and when the major media picks up on it. --Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents off the top of my head. --Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the book, and he never compared modern Palestine to the genocide at all. CJCurrie 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's not in the book itself, do any newspapers/media sites mention the Rwanda analogy controversy? If there's lots of talk about it (CNN/Fox/NYTimes/BBC), then it has to stay in, even if he did just misspeak. If somebody just wrote a blog about it, then I think we can chop it. If we included every criticism in every editorial about a former president, the encyclopedia would be unreadable.
(Keep in mind, though, I'm just saying this on the general principle that "If there are no news stories, then don't include a criticism". I'm not saying there actually aren't such sources. I'm just saying, if everyone agrees this is just an internet thing only, then it's okay to cut it.) --Alecmconroy 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No credible media source has referenced the story (unless you count Dershowitz's own piece in the Boston Globe, and I'm inclined not to count this as credible). CJCurrie 09:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's right, CJ, the Boston Globe. Again, you discount a source because you don't like it! And Larry King referred to the Dershowitz criticism, and Brandeis University invited Carter to debate with Dershowitz. It has not been ignored. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm discounting its significance, as it was written by the same person who made the initial accusation (and my understanding is that King and Brandeis never mentioned this particular controversy). CJCurrie 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to take sides but I think Brandeis University invited Carter for a debate before the latest controversy that Dershowitz arises. I never saw the Larry King interview, but it would probably need to include the words Dershowitz and Rwandan genocide. --76.214.110.18 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless

MH, you shouldn't change what Carter said. He said "ancient history," and it's arguably important to keep that in, in part because we shouldn't guess what he meant, and in part because it's disrespectful and shows a certain mentality: that one million people being murdered in a few weeks in 1994 is "ancient history." Remember that we're not here to attack, but also not to defend. We should simply report what was said. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's "ancient history" remark may have been insensitive, but it's also irrelevant to the point of discussion. CJCurrie 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
For goodness sake. The question about Rwanda was brought up by the interviewer. Carter agreed, while asking "now?" The interviewer asked about Rwanda's history, and whether he thought that the situation in Palestine was worse than that historical situation. Carter tried to talk about the present day. The interviewer tried to talk about Rwanda's history. Carter tried to talk about Palestine... The interviewer pushed the analogy onto Carter, who then tried to distance himself from it. The use of "ancient history" was Carter trying to distance himself from analogies with the Rwandan Genocide. Unsuprisingly this has been twisted by Dershowitz to mean the complete opposite. I'm agreed that we should simply report, but do we need to report so many words of Dershowitz? SlimVirgin, I normally hold your editing in high regard, but I think that you're totally out on a limb here Mostlyharmless 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's directly relevant, because it's the only timeframe he gave. It must stand as he said it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it mustn't (or needn't). The interviewer asked Carter to indicate if he was referring to events from a few years ago. His response was "no". We don't need to reference an ambiguous phrase when his purpose was explicitly clear. CJCurrie 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortuantely, I think his purpose his explicitly clear to you and maybe not explicitly clear to others. We can't assume though. Perhaps it would be better to put Carter's words in context with past Carter quotes about Rwanda and work that Carter's organasation has done on Rwanda, if any. This will of course add even more to the section, which will place even more importance on determining what is really notable and needs to be mentioned. --76.214.110.18 15:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My latest changes

I should clarify that I don't believe the "Rwanda" nonsense belongs in the article at all, but I've chosen rewording over deletion for the time being. I await SlimVirgin's outraged response. CJCurrie 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For a start, why did you delete the material below? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[Alan Dershowitz]], Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict — including The Case For Israel — has written that 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." [12] Dershowitz writes that "[m]any 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." [12]
Undue weight. I mentioned Dershowitz's article, and mentioned that it referenced negative reviews. We don't need to overload the article with details. I also took the last quote into the footnotes, and provided a comparison with Carter's complete statement. CJCurrie 08:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
... which someone else has now removed. CJCurrie 08:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a whole lot of criticism from Dershowitz, the least we can do is let Carter's actual words stand for themselves. Mostlyharmless 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly right. But he said "ancient history." So why did you change it? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the two previous occasions wherein I said the "ancient history" line was irrelevant to the main point of discussion. If so, please allow me to reiterate the point now. In any case, there's nothing wrong with paraphrasing. CJCurrie 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
My question was addressed to Mostlyharmless. Is that you? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. I thought the question was directed to me. CJCurrie 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight. This is an article about a book. Mostlyharmless 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asked either, but it looks like undue weight to me also. I think the disputed section (which now appears to be the whole article?) should be trimmed for redundancies and notability. The Dershowitz section seems out of line chronologically, and I think everyone would agree that this is a problem. --76.214.110.18 15:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually think the paragraph about the Rwanda comparison is pretty good as it stands. --GHcool 07:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Is criticising the actions of the Israeli State anti-semitism? Apparently so. I wait for the POV scarebox to be reinstated... Mostlyharmless 09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I presume by "scarebox" you mean Judeophobia?--Lance talk 09:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The template is transparently POV, and should not be returned to this article under any circumstances. CJCurrie 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(I've deleted the rest of the discussion, as several comments violated WP:BLP. Please use this page to discuss how the article can neutrally cover what reliable sources say.) Kla'quot 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zayed Center

Odd that Dershowitz didn't mention this ...

Still, philanthropy could be complicated. In 2004, he withdrew a $2.5 million gift to Harvard Divinity School after protests about his earlier support of an Abu Dhabi research center that had invited anti-Semitic speakers. Zayed had already closed the think tank, saying it "starkly contradicted the principles of interfaith tolerance."

(From Zayed's obit, printed in the New York Times, 4 November 2004, p. 2) CJCurrie 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Your critcism is irrelevant. Whether you agree or disagree with Dershowitz, his criticism obviously merits inclusion in the article.--Lance talk 10:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If the template should go up here, it should also be on:
  • Palestine: Peace not Apartheid
  • Al Gore
  • Al Gore talkpage
  • Jimmy Carter
  • Jimmy Carter talkpage
This particular book by Carter has nothing specific to do with his 'association with the Zayed_Center_for_Coordination_and_Follow-Up'. I think the association might also be a little weak if you are having a hard time convincing other Wikipedia editors. I think the template should be removed unless you can establish a consensus. --76.214.110.18 15:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

CJC, you appear to have violated 3RR. I've left the diffs on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh. There was no 3RR violation. I don't know why Slim even brought this up. CJCurrie 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You were 50 minutes outside the limit with a number of complex, partial reverts, apparently designed to game the system, which as you know is blockable — when all you needed to do with the first revert was edit instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The real explanation is much simpler. I made all of two reverts at 8:42: the first was a rewrite of the Dershowitz section, and the second removed a POV template that had been put up a few minutes earlier. There was no chicanery involved here.
Also, "50 minutes outside the limit" = "clearly outside the limit". I can't see how *obeying the rules* and *waiting until I was allowed to edit again* constitutes "gaming the system". CJCurrie 10:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It definitely does constitute that. 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Doing a 4th revert minutes after the 24 hours is a classic example of violating the spirit of WP:3RR --Alecmconroy 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Pouncing on someone for almost violating a three revert limit would also seem to be violating the spirit of civil society itself. And backing up such behavior isn't much better. -- DLH

Slim: I have reason to believe that another contributor to this discussion is actually in violation of the 3RR right now. For reasons of consistency, will you tell this person to self-revert? CJCurrie 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I misread one of his edits, never mind. CJCurrie 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have not looked through the edit history, Alecmconroy is correct when he says "3RR is a limit, not an entitlement." Unless you are dealing with a vandal, even reverting the same thing twice without obtaining some sort of consensus is pretty dubious. Of course, that applies equally to both sides: it takes two to have a fight. In general (and I don't know if this is the case here), if you find yourself way in the minority to the point where you are making multiple reverts against different editors, that suggests that you are editing against consensus, and you should try to rebuild the consensus or should seek dispute resolution. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The new book carter made does two things omit facts and say innacurate statements. As this article said, ross [who was at Camp David unlike that Cater that peanut head], even said that Carter's statement to israeli reaactions at camp david in 2000 are wrong. I know that article was saying the truth when it made that statement. I remember hearing an interview when carte rsaid that Hamas stopped doing terrorist attacks in 2004. Carter, wrong again. Every sensible person knows that Hamas did some terrorist attacks in 2005 and did some terrorist attacks in 2006. When I say tha tHama sdid sme terrorist attacks in those two years, I include the Qassem rocket attacks. The Qassem rocket attacks are terrorist attacks. Hamas intends to have the Qassem rockets kill innocent Israeli civilians. Everyone at Camp david [excluding the Palestinians] all agree that Israel offere da generous offer and arafat rejected it not even making a counterproposal but just leaving. This is an accurate article. Dendoi 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Jasper23 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he was under the wrong idea of what the current arguments are with the article. Perhaps we need a specific topic to put all of this in (which can be linked to from the main page). I don't need it, but just an idea. --YoYoDa1 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two things I'd like to point out:

  1. I have a feeling that certain editors may try to use my supposed "gaming the system" against me at some point in the future. By way of a pre-emptive response, I should note that not only was there no 3RR violation, but it wasn't even close. My edits were at 07:53, 00:45, 01:00 and 08:42 ... but no-one seems to have noticed that I self-reverted the 01:00 edit later on. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the rules, but it seems to me that a self-reverted edit doesn't count towards the total. Unless I'm mistaken, then, my 08:42 edits was actually my second revert in a 24h period.
  2. Meanwhile, I see that Lance is woefully over the 3RR with his edits. Is someone going to report him? CJCurrie 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

You were clearly gaming and were 49 minutes outside the limit with complex, partial reverts. Diffs below. You do this often, so I'm not sure why you think this example in particular will be "used." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Version reverted to 00:40 Dec 22, without the Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
  • 1st revert 07:53 Dec 22, CJCurrie removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
  • 2nd revert 00:45 Dec 23, removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.

CJCurrie responds

Since you seem not to have read my comments, I should reiterate that I self-reverted the 01:00 edit a few hours later. My understanding is that this edit would not count toward the 3RR, accordingly. I could add in passing that your own decision to revert my "Totally Disputed" template seems at least equally questionable.

Nothing about Lance? CJCurrie 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have reverted after you were called on it. I'd have to look. All I know is that you were gaming the system, making a series of edits, reverts, edits, reverts, reverts of reverts, more reverts, in order to confuse. And then you report someone else for 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I reported him after I asked you twice if you would do so, and you declined. Forgive me if I wonder about a double standard being applied. And no, I did not revert because I was "called on it". CJCurrie 05:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Citation problems

Did some work on this article; more is needed (see history). --NYScholar 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this why you added the cleanup tag? Well could you expand on these problems so we know exactly which tags to use? Plagiarism? What citation problems? ==Taxico 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There were and may still be problems of plagiarism, missing quotation marks, missing and unclear citations to sources, improper use of ellipsis (wrong to use brackets; quotation marks and/or block quotations are needed for quotations from sources; brackets are not conventional use with ellipses; one uses brackets with ellipses only when a source already uses its own ellipses and one needs to differentiate among the different users of ellipses); all kinds of other problems that I have been noting in the history as I make corrections. Read the history. I think the clean-up tag is needed; someone removed it. Do not remove such tags. They signal that people need to come to the talk page to see what the problems are. No "he" has "fixed some of the plagiarism," by the way. I ("NYScholar") have "fixed" some of the plagiarism; there may be other plagiarism and faulty "quotations" remaining. They need close and careful checking against the sources being given in the citations. Missing citations need supplying; verification is a must in Wikipedia: see WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources. This article is on a current event relating to a living person (President Carter); the subject requires following WP:BLP.--NYScholar 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All the problems you list above can be found in pretty much every single Wikipedia article. But in any case I'm not going to remove the tag anymore; you've given enough of an explanation. ==Taxico 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I know one problem is that there are lots of statements missing citations. I think he already fixed some of the plagiarism. --YoYoDa1 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Most statements seem to have citations. The ones that do are marked with {{fact}}. If this is the only reason for the cleanup tag, then the tag needs to be removed. Otherwise I need a reason for having that tag, so we can replace with a clearer one. ==Taxico 04:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I myself added the "[citation needed]" tags today; previously they weren't in the article. More citations needed. You can't just make statements without providing reliable sources for them. This is supposed to be a factual presentation of information about the book; not POV. See policies in Wikipedia against leaving off citations etc. See the history. I have no more time to respond to what is obviously already noted in the history and the changes. I spent time to convert problematic notes. The punctuation is still problematic; there should be commas after the normal order of authors' names in notes. They are not bibliographical references in an alphabetized list. There is no reason that the last name comes first in numbered notes.--NYScholar 05:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following added without a source; the editor who added it needs to find and to cite a reliable source before putting it in this article:

<< In a December 23, 2006 letter to The Boston Globe, Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey expressed that, while Carter "raises some legitimate concerns" about Israeli settlement policy, Markey notes that Israel has in the past attempted to work out peace deals and that Carter's terminology is unnecessarily inflammatory.[citation needed] >> --NYScholar 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I was going to take it down as I'm not sure why it is up anymore. If anyone has a reason to leave it there though, let me know.--YoYoDa1 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say there's quite a bit of undue weight in the article, at present. CJCurrie 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I might agree with that. I'm trying to get everyone to list their grievances together. Then we can have a list of things to work on, and hopefully we can eventually remove the tag. --YoYoDa1 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, YoYo. My grievance is twofold: first, I would like published criticism of Carter to be included, fully and without censorship, no matter whether other editors agree with it or like the source, so long as the source is compatible with WP:V. And secondly, the article is poorly written and basically just a list of names and what they said. This is what these articles always end up like at the hands of the same editors. I would like to see both issues dealt with, but my priority is the first one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I'd like to see published criticism dealt with in a fair manner, and for editors involved in contentious debates to avoid loaded terms like "censorship". CJCurrie 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There it is in a nutshell. I would like to publish what critics have said. CJCurrie wants to it to be "dealt with in a fair manner"; that is, he wants to change it, paraphrase it, soften it. It is not what we are here to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, Slim, how does it benefit this article to have a picture of Sheik Zayed in the Dershowitz section? Are you seriously arguing that this was objective? CJCurrie 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm speechless

In one move, SlimVirgin has removed the provisional consensus on the Alan Dershowitz section and restored text that many editors have criticized. ([29]) From what I can tell, she did not consult with any other editors before making this change.

Do others believe this edit was appropriate? CJCurrie 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And does anyone seriously believe that this is neutral? I don't believe that Slim is even pretending to edit this piece in an objective manner. CJCurrie 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't keep criticism out of the article. This is very serious criticism, made by a serious commentator. So long as we write it as it was said, and not contorted as you would prefer, we'll be fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep on debating this endlessly with you. It's a form of disruption to expect people to respond to your every post, especially when you're posting in multiple venues. This book and its author have been heavily criticized, and that must be reflected and will be reflected, but it will be done accurately. Also, I merged the two versions, adding some of the quotes you had added, but I restored the material you deleted. I did not delete anything, unlike you. I don't do that, as a rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

... unless it's Uri Davis or Tariq Ali, but I digress. I have no desire to keep on debating this endlessly with you either, but I'm really not impressed with your decision to ignore the complaints raised by several other contributors to this page, while offering preposterous justifications in the process. There a million other things I'd rather do as well, but I'm not going to let you turn this page into an extended smear. CJCurrie 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is indeed serious. We should summarise the facts simply - the version you reverted to did nothing of the sort. Mostlyharmless 09:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that you alone are somehow the model or the abitrer of objectivity, CJC. It's easy to criticize other people's bias, but apparently hard to acknowledge your own. No doubt everyone editing and commenting here has their own biases. The point is to work within the rules to overcome those sharp differences of opinion. Pretending that you are neutral and that everyone else is skewed doesn't help matters. Gni 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar problem as in "allegations" artice

First come the claims, next the praise and only at that point the Critism. Thuis is not what NPOV policy says.

Withh all respect to Carter - his view is a fringe minority view and should eb treated as such. NPOV means that the other view should have equal standing in each paragraph and in the lead. The organization of this article (as well as the allegations article) need to change. Zeq 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The inevitable shouting down continues. Rather than create an article where actual criticisms of the book are printed, ad hominem attacks (such as the ridiculous pic there at the moment - seriously, wtf?) are inserted at liberty. Mostlyharmless 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed- What does this have to do anything about the book? A criticism like that should go in the Carter article- certainly not about the book. I really don't see how anyone can justify including a picture of Sheik Zayed in an article about Palestine: Peace not Apartheid... --khello 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of problems throughout the article:

  • (WP:Undue weight):Word counts the Derhowitz criticism as about 20% of the article by word count
  • (WP:LIVING):"Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association." Jimmy Wales:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
  • (WP:RS):"Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." "Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature)." "The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation" And finally, "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people."

We also need to make sure that all the information appearing in this article has to do with the contents of this article. --76.214.110.18 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tackle the ball, not the man

With this diff [30], the stuff about Rwanda and UAE prizes has been added again. This has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, it would have more relevance in the Jimmy Carter article. Please justify the inclusion of this material. Catchpole 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is criticism of Carter's authorship of this book made by a serious commentator with direct reference to the book. It therefore satisfies V and NOR, and according to NPOV, all majority and significant-minority views about this book must be included within reason. The Rwanda reference is about Carter's being interviewed about the book and the arguably offensive comparison he made during that interview, which, as the critic says, highlights the degree to which he focuses on Israel to the exclusive of all else. The UAE prize is mentioned by a critic of the book because, the critic argues, the Sheikh money/award shows Carter is not a neutral figure when it comes to the Middle East or Jewish issues. There really is no excuse possible for keeping these issues out of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have criticism of Carter put it in the Jimmy Carter article not here. This article is about the book, not the author. The book is about Palestine and Israel so obviously it's going to be focussed on that. Rwanda isn't even mentioned in the book. The UAE issue is so tangential to be laughable. Catchpole 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey slim, my main concern is the lack of dialogue on changes being made throughout the article, but especially the Dershowitz section. While some of the above sections deserve a place in the article, some are less deserving than others. I agree that the Rwanda statement has got legs under it, but the Sheikh money is almost not related to the book at all. Valid and/or well-connected criticisms should be included but I don't think the sheik thing qualifies. Especially the picture. If possible, could we all decide on one version and then keep it the same and stop this annoying edit war? I think everyone working on this article can agree that the Dershowitz section needs work. Jasper23 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really dislike the image, please remove it. I added it only because it was the only relevant freely licensed image I could find. But the criticism itself; it seems relevant to me, and it was made in relation to the book by a reliable source. As for discussion, I'm happy to talk to people; I'm just talked out with regard to CJC (no offense, but I really am, sorry). But I'll discuss with others. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you post what you think is a final version on the talk page. I have seen past versions that I think are fully acceptable but then they were changed with no comment. I would be fine with this section without the sheik material and a few very minor grammar changes.Jasper23 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the inclusion because it makes the latter responses to criticisms more meaningful when they point out that many of the attacks have been ad homimen rather than dealing with the book's content. It proves the point. --64.230.125.2 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Jasper23 said the Rwanda comment "has got legs under it". But the Sheik issue is completely unrelated to this article; whether it's a reliable source or commentator is irrelevent, methinks. --khello 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the new picture and am okay with the current version. Jasper23 19:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

There is way, way too much in the way of commentary from other people, particularly Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is not even an expert on the subject, has EIGHT paragraphs in this article, plus sections in his own article on his comments on both Carter and on the book. The main effect of all this is to make the article cumbersome and ultimately unuseful. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Praise and criticism: a suggestion

Why don't the editors who like Carter's ideas concentrate on finding positive things to say about this book (within V and NOR), and leave the criticism completely alone for, say, seven days. In the meantime, editors less keen on him should concentrate on the criticism (within V and NOR), and leave any praise alone for the same period. Both "sides" should concentrate on finding good praise and criticism, writing it up well and accurately, and sourcing it well. Then at the end of seven days, we can see what we have in place, and if disputes remain, we can ask uninvolved editors to take a look. How does that sound as a way forward? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a matter of liking Carter's ideas or being "less keen on him?" The main problem with this article is that it is far more about reaction to the book than about the book itself. I think it would be sufficient to say that many Democratic politicians distanced themselves from Carter's views as expressed in the book, and that several commentators have praised the book for bringing serious consideration to aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that many Americans are not well-informed of, while others have criticized the books for factual errors and for being inflammatory and overly hostile to Israel, and then maybe a comment on Dennis Ross' particular complaint. And then any details can go in footnotes. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
I think that's a very valid point- there are way too many quotes in this article. I reckon a good deal of summarizing would make it clearer and certainly more reader friendly. Certainly keep the criticism/praise/reply in there- I like the format- but definitaley with more concise sentences rather than long winded quotes --khello 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I made a few deletions. Let's see if they are put back. The article is more about the controversy that what the book is about. The controversy sectons should be reduced and not eveery quote under the sun be added. That is JUST WRONG.Luigibob 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, most books don't have a Wikipedia article about them at all. There is only an article if there is something notable about the book, and in this case, the main thing that is notable about it is the controversy it has created. There is nothing wrong with focusing on that in the article. 6SJ7 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The sales are more important than the controversy, which is mainly the Jewish lobby, sorry Israel lobby in the United States, getting their knickers in a twist over any criticism of Israel. Catchpole 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be notable just for being a book by a former US President on a topic about which at one time he was a central player. Were it written by someone else, it probably would not ever have become controversial because no one would worry much about anyone paying it any mind. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
To be fair, Jimmy Carter picked a title that was purposely designed to put some people's knickers in a knot because it raised the profile of the book, its sales, and the visibility of his recommendations. --64.230.125.2 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, Jimmy Carter has explained (to Larry King on Larry King Live (which I watched, live) that he purposefully selected a "provocative" title because he wants to "provoke debate." That is the stated (and many times re-stated) primary purpose of his book. He seems to be consistent in saying that. One wants to sell one's books to as many people as possible to communicate one's pov on a subject (that is what authors do); it's not just to be visible for the sake of visibility (or sales, in terms of $); it's to get his point across to as many people as possible. Former presidents like Jimmy Carter (and Nobel Laureates) do not need to continue to write books unless they feel and believe very strongly in what they have to say. Carter is a statesman (statesperson), a non-official diplomat, a person of charity, a peace broker, an elections monitor, and an aging person who could easily rest rather than do all this work. He already has a secure reputation as a former president. It appears to me that people really do misunderstand that his purpose (whether or not one agrees with his analyses of the issues) is to secure a "permanent peace" in the Middle East. Given the contentiousness in just this article alone, one can see how difficult such a purpose is to attain; yet, that is what he is striving to do. One can debate the issues with him and criticize his points of view, but it seems very unfair to me to assume (as some might do) that he intends anything other than what he says that he intends to accomplish in the publication of this book and its ensuing publicity. He also has a certain dignity that he would be concerned about maintaining and, from his pov, it seems to me, engaging in debate with people who do not have an open mind about resolving the problems in the Middle East is something that he will eshew (with good reason and with sound judgment). He is not going to engage in a "free for all." People can debate the book among themselves; he never says that he is the one with whom people must debate the issues (as Dershowitz seems to be saying); he wants people around the world and particularly those involved directly in the peace process in the Middle East to debate these issues among themselves and with the citizens of the world (as we are, in many ways, all involved in the outcome of ongoing strife and conflict in the Middle East). Having spent Christmas Eve working on this article, I now sign off to have some peace in my own world. Have a nice Christmas and a happy New Year to all, and let us hope that soon peace (a "permanent peace") will prevail in the world. --NYScholar 04:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, NYS! Blessed are the peacemakers, and far too few and far between! ;) -- DLH

Another suggestion

Could everyone editing this article please note whether or not they have read the book? I myself have not, yet. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I have read it -- it is super middle-of-the-road and straightforward compared to the controversy. I bought a few copies to give as Christmas presents. It has been a bestseller in both Canada and the US for over a month now and over-the-top critics like Dershowitz really help it along. --64.230.125.2 20:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Boy, please edit the article more, then! There should, at an absolute bare minimum, be as many excerpts from the actual book as there are from the swirl of debate surrounding it. I hope it's not considered "original research" to have read the book. ;) -- DLH
It seems appropriate, yet ironic, that all of the controversy actually seems to be helping sales of the book and editing of the article. Just an observation. --76.214.110.18 20:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Well, its hard to just pick any particular quote to include in the article, but maybe one could include its table of contents:

  • List of Maps
  • Historical Chronology
  • 1. Prospects for Peace
  • 2. My First Visit to Israel, 1973
  • 3. My Presidency, 1977-81
  • 4. The Key Players
  • 5. Other Neighbors
  • 6. The Reagan Years, 1981-89
  • 7. My Visits with Palestinians
  • 8. The George H. W. Bush Years
  • 9. The Oslo Agreement
  • 10. The Palestinian Election, 1996
  • 11. Bill Clinton's Peace Efforts
  • 12. The George W. Bush Years
  • 13. The Geneva Initiative
  • 14. The Palestinian Election, 2005
  • 15. The Palestinian and Israeli Elections, 2006
  • 16. The Wall as a Prison
  • 17. Summary
  • Appendix 1: U.N. Resolution 242, 1967
  • Appendix 2: U.N. Resolution 338, 1973
  • Appendix 3: Camp David Accords, 1978
  • Appendix 4: Framework for Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, 1978
  • Appendix 5: U.N. Resolution 465, 1980
  • Appendix 6: Arab Peace Proposal, 2002
  • Appendix 7: Israel's Response to the Roadmap, May 25, 2003
  • Acknowledgments
  • Index

The appendices are just the texts of the resolution or agreements, there is no commentary. We could directly link to the appropriate articles from those items in the ToC.

--64.230.125.2 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is phenomenon that we are discussing in this article. The content of the book represents only a portion of the full phenomenon. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that more pages has been written in the media about the book than there are pages within the book itself. The article should reflect this reality. I find it interesting that the same people who want to censor criticism of Carter's book have no opinion when it comes to the fact that the article about The Case for Israel says almost nothing about the book's content an only focuses on "Criticisms and controversy." The same could be said about From Time Immemorial. (Note: I have read Case for Israel and portions of From Time Immemorial. I have also read critical responses to both books. I have not read Carter's book, but I have read critical repsonses to it.) --GHcool 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the difference between P:PnA and TCfI and FTI is that the criticisms of the latter two are absolutely damning: TCfI is accused (not without some justification, from what I have seen) of being basically a re-write of FTI, and FTI is accused (with quite a bit of justification, from what I have seen) of being a ham-handed polemic based on an extremely biased and selective use of available data, and that its arguments are easily dismissed when better data is considered. The main factual criticisms of P:PnA are that it incorrectly includes Jordan with Syria and Egypt as countries that were pre-emptively attacked by Israel before the Six Day War, and that it failed correctly to attribute a map that it used. If we accept the criticisms of TCfI and FTI, we should not take their main arguments seriously at all; if we accept the criticisms of P:PnA, there still has not been a serious, fact-based challenge to its central theses. -- DLH
I'm afraid you don't fully understand the controversy over the content and title of Carter's book. It is more than just an incorrect statement here and there. If you read the Wikipedia article, you would see this for yourself. As for Case for Israel, Harvard University exonerated Dershowitz from all plagiarism charges. I'm less familiar with the From Time Immemorial controversy other than the charges that it is a selective reading of the conflict; which are the same charges made by critics of Carter's book. --GHcool 02:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I understand it all too well. When an accusation is made that a book is "riddled with errors and bias," as Dershowitz claimed of P:PnA, you look awfully damn stupid to me if the only concrete error you can name is that Jordan, unlike Egypt and Syria, was not pre-emptively attacked in the Six Day War. Does this error have any bearing on Carter's main theme? None. It is the sort of error, the pointing out of which serves to indicate that the facts claimed in a book are very, very solid indeed. -- DLH
I agree. That's why I suggest just including the ToC to give people a sense of what is actually contained in the book itself. It is the controversy (and the title) that is making this article so long and why the book is selling so well, not so much because of its actual contents. --64.230.125.2 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there are many who want to 'censor' the criticism, I think there are just some who want to 'keep it in perspective'. I think the problem that arises is that we all have different perspectives. I guess the key is to have a discussion to reach a consensus. State of Denial and The World is Flat are two other best-selling books that might be worth looking at. --YoYoDa1 21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
YoYoDa1, the nature of those two wikipedia articles (for SoD and tWiF) are completely different than this one. There are benefits to focusing on the content of the book more as evident from those two articles. --64.230.125.2 21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In editing this article, I put in the section with the Table of Contents yesterday. Today, responding to some more recent comments, I revised it to small print, and I've asked (in the editing history) for someone who can do it to make the TC into 2 columns (to save further space); see my comments in a later section or sections below, giving further reasons for having the TC in the article. Thanks. I'm signing off. --NYScholar 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NYT best seller statement

Everyone seems to be editing this particular section in the past couple of minutes! how about having the following:

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a New York Times Best Seller[13] book written by Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, published by Simon and Schuster in 2006. While President, Carter initiated the talks between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin that led to a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In this book Carter argues that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."[14]

Since saying that it's a NYT best seller "since its publication" could be old news tomorrow, just simply saying that it is an NYT best seller should suffice methinks. what does everyone else think? --20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --64.230.125.2 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved it up again. --YoYoDa1 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
now you beat me to it... :) --khello 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Box with Dershowitz's picture, etc.

Whoever added that box into this article is "privileging" Dershowitz's criticism of the book. That is not following W:NPOV; it privileges one POV over others. It needs to be removed, in my view. The Rwanda ref. also, as someone says above, seems irrelevant to this article. --NYScholar 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the box material that I believe is inserting POV into this article: <<

Professor Alan Dershowitz argues that there are factual inaccuracies in Carter's book and points out that "There are real world consequences to Carter's - and the far left's - obsessive focus on Israel."
Professor Alan Dershowitz argues that there are factual inaccuracies in Carter's book and points out that "There are real world consequences to Carter's - and the far left's - obsessive focus on Israel."[15]

>>

Quotations and dev. of Dershowitz's views are currently greater than those of any other critic; his criticisms of Carter's book are amply covered here, and there are already cross-references to the main article sections pertaining to his views of the book at start of this subsection for anyone who wants to read more about Dershowitz and his views in the sources already cited and linked. Any more coverage inserted in this article (like such a box) is POV. The main subject of this article is Carter's book, not Dershowitz and his extensive critique of it. The latter is already sufficiently developed and no box is needed or appropriate.--NYScholar 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest flaw with the quotation in the image caption is that it comes from a blog. Blogs are not valid sources. --64.230.125.2 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In my view, that is not the "biggest flaw"; the biggest flaw (in my view) is to have it inserted at all. Blogs may be used as sources of the views of the writer of a blog when he or she is the subject and for other qualified uses; see the full discussion of blogs as sources in Wikipedia; it is revised from time to time. See WP:Reliable sources and W:Verifiability and read the whole discussion re: blogs. Not all blogs are the same in reliability or lack of reliability. If one is citing someone's review or criticism of a book that is presented in his personal blog written in his/her actual name as author (as Dershowitz's sometimes are), it is a reliable source of his (e.g., Dershowitz's) or her views. But Dershowitz's views of Carter and his book are not the main subject of this article. They do not deserve privileging over anyone else's views of the book. He is simply one among many reviewers of and commentators on the book. His views do not deserve any more attention than anyone else's. To give them more attention is to "privilege" them (as I have already said more than once now).--NYScholar 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Disorganized

Right now, the article is disjointed. I think it needs to be structured in a way that a) outlines the main points of the book, and b) describes the controversy clearly, with references that exemplify the points of view of the controversy. --Leifern 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it already does (b) but that (a) needs dev. I developed that section earlier, but all the material of the "major points" of the book went "missing" somehow after someone changed "major" to "main" or some other way (I know not how); perhaps I forgot to save my edit; but what I had thought I had saved is gone. Someone else can restore the "major points" that Carter himself outlines; just the main points of chap. 17 cannot constitute a summary of the "major points" in the "contents" of the entire book. In working on this article over the past couple of days, it appears to me that contentious editors are involved in leaving much of the description of the book's "contents" out of this article for who knows what reasons. --NYScholar 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored the missing material and added the table of contents provided earlier in talk. That should take care of (a); (b) is clear to me. --NYScholar 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying links

I leave it to others to Wikify links in the material added in the article recently, as doing that would be helpful to other readers. --NYScholar 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources of Dershowitz references

The lead sentence of the Deshowitz section starts off with:

"Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict — including The Case For Israel — points out that Carter's book has been condemned in reviews as "moronic" by Slate, "anti-historical" by The Washington Post, and "laughable" by the San Francisco Chronicle,"

It would be best for us to find the exact reviews of the book that he is referencing and include them rather than only resort to him quoting them possibly in a selective nature. --64.230.125.2 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Dershowitz problem

I have concerns about this sentence as well:

Dershowitz writes that "[m]any 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 not a completely accurate reflection of Carter's original comments. Carter's actually wrote: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel".

Is it appropriate for us to reprint AD's selective half-quote, without having the full version nearby? CJCurrie 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a new organization for the article. I think that there should be one section for simple/straight forward reviews/responses, and another section for debates. This would go in the debate section where there is responses and back and forth. Let's do that. One debate can be about the title -- the word apartheid. The Stein allegations would be considered a debate since there is back and forth there. I would also consider the accusations of media bias by Carter and the counter accusations of anti-Semitism, and Carter's open letter response to be a second debate. This would make it easier to follow what is going on. --64.230.125.2 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Another debate can be about the maps. Thus there would be 4 debates. --64.230.125.2 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)