Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 4

message: N.B. Editors (and anonymous users) who are dealing with issues relating to charges of "anti-Semitism" (exact quotation from Bronner as cited in article)––or "antisemitism" as it is spelled in Wikipedia –– need to be careful to cite and quote reliable sources exactly and  not to misrepresent what reliable published sources are stating.  Some recent edits reveal a tendency to change the emphasis of a source through paraphrase instead of quotation to suggest that Carter is still to some degree being "anti-Semitic" even when the source's actual words stress the very opposite. (E.g., see recent additions of comments from Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Other_book_reviews_by_journalists: I've corrected the presentation so Bronner's actual emphasis is clear).  See also the WP:BLP as tagged now on this page and my previous comments re: this tag. --NYScholar 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar, Bronner did not "defend" Carter against "charges of antisemitism." He merely wrote that Carter's tendency to overstate his case does not amount to antisemitism. This may seem like a small distinction, but on issues like this, writers tend to weigh their words very carefully. It was the earlier version that distorted Bronner's meaning, not me or anyone else. His exact quote is "But overstatement hardly adds up to anti-Semitism." I am pleased that you've revised the wording to make this clear, but your criticism is misplaced. --Leifern 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: It is a real inconvience - and I'm not sure why it's necessary - to deprive editors of the ability to add a section by pressing the "+" button provided. Can someone explain why we're doing it this way? --Leifern 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article, or in the article space. Are there other examples of this practice in the Talk: space?--Leifern 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The length of this article is absurdly out of proprotion to the notability of the subject.  It seems that two to three representative quotes from supporters and detractors of the book would be enough, as many of the critics are completely unnotable.  They largely repeat themselves as well. Zavtrakat 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been adding information that identifies the professional and/or other affiliations of several of the "critics" cited in this article (initially by other editors); such identifications make clear who they are and what the nature of the "authority" or perspective is and what organizations they may be affiliated with or (in the case of "representatives of organizations") represent. --NYScholar 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I agree. I gave up editing this article long ago because it became a grab bag of talking heads. However, as someone who has done great work on this article, I would like to hear what NYScholar thinks about this. Jasper23 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking for my response, Jasper.  (It is not clear to me who wrote the first two paragraphs in this section.  Please sign comments.)  I was surprised to see the comment heading "Absurd length," as the article is not much longer than some other very controversial ones.  Of course, this article is only about one book, and such articles tend to be shorter rather than longer, but the book has initiated a lot of press attention and controversy crossing boundaries (politicians, academics, journalists, etc.).  But it is possible that the "reactions" sections could be shortened.  People who contribute to editing this article sometimes seem to want to beef up the reactions that they agree with (adding more and more examples) and to limit the reactions that they don't agree with (subtracting those), which pushes it toward POV and farther away from neutrality.  I think that the section on the politicians' reactions may be much longer than needed; the section on Dershowitz tends more toward developing the controversies between him and Carter than toward developing a brief statement about his reaction to the book.  The "Carter-Dershowitz" disagreements (even about this book) are better placed in the articles on each of them.  There is already a section on it in the Dershowitz article (which I cross-linked some time ago.  I was away for a while (several days) and appreciated not working on this article and what was done to it while I was away, so perhaps I'll stand back again and see what happens as people who are more economical than I am work on tightening it up (if that's the consensus), without (I hope) losing neutrality.  Thanks again for asking. Good luck to others working on this article.  --NYScholar 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Hello,
I'm curious as to whether or not it was my edit that you described as "misleading"?  I acknowledge that there were insufficient details in the wording that I provided, but I believe that my edit was an improvement over the work of a previous editor, and I don't believe that I misrepresented the author's meaning in any way.
Please note that I'm not accusing you of uncivil behaviour: I respect the work that you've done on this page, and I particularly admire the role you've taken in resolving disputes.  It's precisely for these reasons that I want to ensure a misunderstanding hasn't developed between us.  If I've misunderstood your edit summary, I apologize in advance.  CJCurrie 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CJCurrie: I don't know what happened to your previous comment with similar questions that I moved from my talk page to this article.  Maybe I didn't save it correctly.  Anyway, I don't know who was the editor that changed what was (I thought) clear wording to vaguer and less clear wording; I restored Bronner's word "unfairly" because that is what he was saying; that the criticisms of Carter (such as the ads taken out by the ADL cited in this article already) "hinted unfairly" of "anti-Semitism".  I wasn't directing my comment to any particular editor, just explaining why I made the changes that I did.  I perceived a lack of clarity and greater vagueness than I had seen in that paragraph last night, and I just tried to improve it (further).  I was not being evaluative; just descriptive.  Taking out the quoted word "unfairly" in my view led to less clarity and less specificity (greater vagueness).  There is no need for vagueness when one can cite specific words in an article used by a source to establish exactly what he or she is saying.  Carefully-chosen quotations are useful when trying not to alter the source's emphasis; altering the emphasis of the source can be misleading. Anyway, that's my explanation.  Nothing personal at all.  --NYScholar 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you.  Please keep up the good work: the project needs you.  CJCurrie 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for NYScholar

message: See Wikipedia:Etiquette re: reminders about conduct in editing.  Specifically:
Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative. --NYScholar 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing etiquette in Wikipedia

message: This article is now about 20k larger than the bible. (78k versus 54k) GabrielF 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer than [[The Bible]] 

message: It is absolutely ridiculous that you have to read 13 paragraphs to go from Ross's comments about the book to Carter's response. Assuming that the reader hasn't given up by then, he will have forgotten what Ross was saying in the first place. Second, the section on Ross completely misses the point of the allegations, the point isn't that the maps "derive" from Ross' book, the point is that they are reproduced without attribution and that they are mislabeled. Third, NYScholar's edit summary stating that we have to include about three lines worth of Ross' titles because they establish his POV is offensive. Are you suggesting that because Ross did some work for an organization which studies Jewish population that he must have an inherent POV? Because otherwise your edit summary: "restoration of positions held by Ross; relevant to identifying who he is, his current (relevant) affiliations, what his POV is; he is not neutral observer)" makes no sense. GabrielF 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My brother is Ross's research assistant and the one who discovered the similarity between the maps in the first place. Ross did NOT accuse Carter of plagiarism, the allegation was that the maps were not properly attributed. GabrielF 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:NOR; your brother is not a source in this article.  We can only use verifiable reliable sources; no one can trust what you say about your brother's work here.  If you have a reliable published verifiable source to cite, cite it.  Your claim in this talk page is not in keeping with Wikipedia:NOR; nor is it in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Clearly, you yourself (via your own brother, acc. to you) have a POV at best and an axe to grind at worst.  Aim for neutrality. And stop deleting relevant material from this article.  Wikipedia:Etiquette.  BTW: "not properly attribut[ing]" sources is a form of plagiarism:
<<[quoting from Wikipedia]
Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.
>>
--NYScholar 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to use him as a source in the article, I'm using him to refute your claim on this talk page that you understand the issue better than I do. Further, you accuse me of POV, yet you ignore your own. Personally I think Carter is wrong, but I'm not editing the article because I don't like the book. I'm editing the article because I don't think the article is up to wikipedia's standards. GabrielF 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm moving the Michigan Media Watch paragraph here. "Michigan Media Watch" gets exactly 88 google hits. It is insane to spend 3/4 of a paragraph describing a person and then have a one sentence quote from them. Especially considering that the source is far too minor to warrant inclusion. No reader is going to be reading this article to find out what Michigan Media Watch thinks. Major national publications that actually are capable of shaping opinion are notable, small local groups are not. GabrielF 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is the publication that the article is posted in: it is the largest newspaper in America for Arab Americans according to its publisher's website; this material needs to be restored to the article.  Who the writer is is less significant than who published her article and the size of its audience.  (Large.)  --NYScholar 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this contribute to the article? GabrielF 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Is there any reason why we need to have six paragraphs on the democrats statements about the book? All of them are essentially saying the same thing. Why can't we just summarize it into two paragraphs quoting Dean and Pelosi and then list the other members of congress who issued similar statements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten this section to condense it down to two paragraphs. This new version is still rough, but it eliminates at least one place where we are duplicating text, (no need to introduce John Conyers twice). I cut the Steve Israel quote, as it doesn't really contribute anything.GabrielF 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by democrats 

message: I have to say, that this is one of the strangest articles I've seen in Wikipedia.  It reads like a treatise rather than an encyclopedia article.  Encyclopedic articles are, by their very nature, designed to be simple summaries of a subject.  If someone wishes to know more, they can do further research elsewhere.  Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this much information about one book.  Also, why are there Notes on a talk page?  They don't belong here.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was answered above.  Read the talk page before making such comments.  Clearly, if people are moving material with embedded notes in them, in order for the notes to show up, there needs to be a Notes section.  See above.  It's already been discussed. Plenty of other talk pages that I've seen have notes sections in them. --NYScholar 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, but I have read the talk page, and the complaint about length has been made many times.  No adequate response has ever been made.  This article should be about 4 paragraphs long, similar to other books of its stature.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is somewhat long right now, but your suggestion that it should be 4 paragraphs long is out in left-field.  Where is the precedence for such a thing?  The important thing is to have balance, NPOV and to be well written.  Right now this article isn't that well written, but that has to do, in my opinion, with the organization not yet being topically organized as I have suggested previously.  We should not just cut out all the debates around the book because you find them uninteresting.  If you find this book uninteresting, it may be better to contribute to other articles that more satisfy your need for stimulation.  --70.51.228.233 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You assumptions are incorrect and insulting.  I am interested in the book, and am aware from both NPR, other talk radio, and newspapers the nature of the controversies surrounding the book.  Nonetheless, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias summarize subjects.  That should be our objective here, not to recite endlessly every debate and mention of the President's work.  To the extent that I'm biased about this work, I am biased in favor of it -- I respect President Carter, his grasp of foreign policy, and have read many of his books.  That's not the problem.  The length of the article is the problem.  Please try to reduce the volume of material presented here, and present it in a summary fashion.  Thanks.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre Article

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

message: In due course I will report this article and the recent vandalism by some users editing it to administrators.  Cease and desist.  I have been working to present sources in an article that had few sources cited originally and which had completely-screwed up format.  See the editing history over the past week or so. (updated)--NYScholar 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that I'm vandalizing, than report it to WP:ANI, there's no need to threaten. We'll see if people actually think I'm vandalizing. GabrielF 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism to this article

message: I think you need to seriously read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Accusing someone of vandalism, having alternative motives, etc. is not appropriate. I could argue that you're pushing a POV just as easily as you could argue that I am pushing one. Further, see WP:OWN, you do not own Palestine:Peace not Apartheid, you are going to have to go with the consensus, and the editors who have recently looked at the page, including User:-Slash-, User:Morton devonshire, myself and User:Leifern all agree that the page is too long and difficult to read.GabrielF 09:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slash and Mortondevonshire and Leifern have not posted in this talk page in response to any of your comments, however.  Leifern appears obsessed with a verb that for some time no longer appears in the article ("alludes to") in his section called "allusion" which I Wikified to no avail.  Either you or Slash or Mortondevonshire seems to have lost all the note formats at some point, which I restored so that there were notes in the article.  What a mess that created.  I see no "consensus" here; it's the middle of the night and most people are asleep.  Let this article alone for a few days so that other people can read it over the course of time and comment.  I'm fed up with it at this point, given all the POV changes that you have engaged in. --NYScholar 09:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not belong on the article talk page. You can dish it out but you can't take it. You have no problem calling people vandals and trolls, but it isn't acceptable for someone to advise you to read policy. You have no problem accusing others of pushing a POV at every turn, but you ignore comments on the POV that is inherent in the article at the moment (e.g. undue weight) and you happily promote insignificant pundits in order to fix what you perceive to be a bias in our culture.GabrielF 09:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  note 

message: Some general thoughts on improving this article:
1.The "Review and commentaries" section needs to be cut down considerably. Much of this comment needs to be moved to OTHER sections, because it is not a review or commentary on the book, but rather a specific issue unique to the book. Some examples of this are the Ross controversy, the Stein controversy, the use of the term "apartheid", the question of media suppression and anti-semitism. Carter's responses should be moved into these new sections so the response is right after the criticism and not 13 paragraphs away.
:I disagree with these points.  The material mentioned is from commentaries on the book and not on specific issues unique to the book.  That is an absurd distinction; you are fudging things, clearly, to eliminate comments on the book. Carter's responses followed the sections of comments earlier, but other editors complained that the controversies were taking over the section on reactions.  Carter deserves his own section of responses to the reactions (in general, and spefically; only a handful of sentences separate the sections and there are clear transitions reminding a reader what Ross, Dershowitz, Stein et al. said (briefly); anyone who reads the article from beg. to end (and not just piecemeal) can understand it. People print out these articles and read them offline too; one doesn't read articles only online as editors may do. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you propose the entire rewrite in talk; let's see what you can do.  But don't delete the current version until you get a consensus on what you are proposing (an actual text); use sandbox for trial version.--NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested something similar earlier, see #Proposed new article structure.  --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already checked all of them.  They were accurately rendering what the person was saying as quoted until you started tinkering with them.  The sources are all cited in the notes; try reading them yourself.  I've already done all that work. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of people checking quotes and looking over the changes NYScholar and others make.  --70.51.228.233 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Readers vary; their knowledge varies.  Wikipedia operates with the assumption that its readers are of varied backgrounds and that articles must supply information either through Wikifying links to identify the person or item mentioned and/or through clear transitions.  Apparently, you are unaware of the function of source transitions in identifying the nature of a source's authority.  They are necessary. All sources are not equal in the nature of their authority.  You are apparently a student, and perhaps you are not that well-versed in what teachers of research and writing (and Wikipedia) call "evaluating sources." --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-notability can not be judged by the number of sentences introducing an individual.  For a while, most commentators were not being introduced in this article, just simply named, but after some discussion it was decided to describe them fully in this article.  The question of notability is an important one, but it is better to use more objective measures.  I strongly felt that GabrielF's removal from the article of Norman Finkelstein and Tom Segev based on claims of non-notability were prejudicial and inappropriate.  --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not remove those quotes because the authors were not notable, I removed them because, in the case of Finkelstein, he wasn't talking about the book but the state of discourse in the US, which is redundant and not a review/commentary and in the case of Segev, sentences were cherrypicked from his article and his comments on the book itself were ignored (even though this is a section on reviews and commentary) in favor of his comments on accusations re: anti-semitism. GabrielF 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, if we went with the topic organization I suggested at the top of the talk page, we could have Segev' review in the review section and include his comments and Finkelsteins comments in the appropriate debate sections -- I would favor such an arrangement, it would make things a lot more clear and easy for the reader to follow.  --70.51.228.233 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be one or two sections discussing allegations of suppression in the media and accusations of anti-semitism. It should start with Carter's op-ed claiming this. There are a number of quotes in the article regarding this allegation and many of them are redundant. I don't mind quoting Finkelstein and/or Segev but it should be one or two paragraphs summing up what critics are saying and then one or two paragraphs summing up the response. GabrielF 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all of these organizations are specifically "Jewish" organizations; e.g. the ADL deals with anti-defamation against others who are not Jews.--NYScholar 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Several people in this talk page have already questioned whether CAMERA is notable enough and reliable enough to include at all.  People could add other organizations in the future that are not at all Jewish in make up; "Representative" implies that the organizations represent a community of people.  The Wikified links make clear what the organizations are and who they represent (mostly).--NYScholar 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It is definitely notable enough to include.  It is a controversy about the book that received a lot of press attention.  To omit it is to mislead. --NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting.  Why not summarize it into a few sentences -- 4 sentences with links to the original articles.  It has become a non-issue because of how people reacted (and skillfully handled that hot potato), although it had the potential of being an issue for a while.  (I should state that I am referring to the whole of the Brandeis incident, the invite requiring debate from Brandeis, the Op-Ed's from Dershowitz challenging and then mocking Carter, the refusal to debate from Carter and response to Dershowitz comments, and the pending (?) invite from Brandeis students to Carter and the clarifications from the Brandeis admins about the original invite.)  --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It too is highly notable.  It is absurd to omit it. The book represents a "current event": see the tag.  The programs are in the works (forthcoming), and updates to this article will add dates when they become available. [Had to add numbers so replies would post.]--NYScholar 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why NYScholar put these links in, but they are pretty unusual for a Wikipedia article.  It would be better if we linked to a single website which tracked up coming events of that nature.  If you think about it, an Encyclopedia isn't for advertizing upcoming events.  Anyways, once the event happens the notable results should be included in this article.  --70.51.228.233 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is "sold out"; this information is not an "advertisement" in any way for the event.  The update is also that it is "sold out."  It is noteworthy (see editing history for explanation).--NYScholar 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some general thoughts

message: One major suggestion that incorporates some of the above items (see tag re: quotes on article currently) would possibly be to reorganize most of the representative-reactions quotations into a very well-organized and very well-documented page of "sourced" Wikiquotes, with a tag to Wikiquotes placed appropriately in relation to a very brief summary about reactions.  I've placed some summary sentences in the introductory part of this article entry (as a kind of guide for what follows).  One could possibly rewrite very brief summary sections for topics relating to reactions if needed (but maybe they would no longer be needed, since the introduction now introduces the main issues of controversy [thus far; keep in mind: this is a "current event" and that could change).  Almost all of the structure now organized as categories of organization and individual reactions (positive and negative) can be re-done as categorized sections in page(s) of Wikiquotes, in my view, as long as the material regarding sources in the notes remains properly and fully documented in a "Notes" or "References" section for such (a) Wikiquotes page(s).  I would hate for all that sourcing work to go to waste. --NYScholar 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey NYScholar.  It is a great idea to have proper notes on the talk page but they just aren't designed for that and its pretty non-standard.  You can push for it, but if GabrielF doesn't want to do it, there is little you can do.  If you complain about it GabrielF can use it against you to claim you are disruptive or what not.  Such arrangements only work if everyone wants to play together nicely, which isn't the case at the moment.  The biggest issue with the notes is that the standard way of adding comments to the talk page, via the use of the "+" button at the top of the page, always places the new comments below your notes section.  --70.51.228.233 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk pages don't need notes.  If you need to mention a citation, just run it in-line like this: Whitehouse Pushes Hard on Iraq Plan, NY Times, January 11, 2007.  Others need to be able to edit this talk page.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're missing the point; the note numbers are embedded notes (citations) in material that (mostly) GabrielF has been deleting from the article or embedded notes in other material quoted earlier.  Without a "Notes" section, none of those reference citations show up.  Yet there are numbers keyed to notes.  I've archived them up to this point in time in Archive3.  Much of what is on that talk page is in archive3 now.  This page is getting too long for usefulness. It's time to start a new talk page? People can read the three archived pages up to today. --NYScholar 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquotes alternative

message: This is a dispute over the length and readability of this article.
*GabrielF believes that at 70+kilobytes of text, this article is too long. Further it is difficult to read because it contains too many quotes which are poorly organized. Further, in a number of cases a one-sentence quote is preceded by as many as three or four sentences explaining the background of the person being quoted, and GabrielF believes this information is unnecessary. GabrielF believes that the Reviews and Commentaries section needs to be considerably paired down, with non-notable quotes removed and other quotes reformatted so that the opinion is in the first sentence of the paragraph and not the last. Further, he believes that some material about specific disputes should be taken out of the giant Reviews and Commentaries section and placed in new sections describing those specific disputes. (E.g. disputes over the use of the word "apartheid", the resignation of Kenneth W. Stein, etc.)
*NYScholar appears to object to deleting any sourced material from the page.13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not exactly restate my objections; please see them above.  I object to removing sourced material violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  That is different from "any sourced material"; I do not object to removing "sourced material" that violates WP:BLP.  See the links in the tagged notice and on that page; scroll up.  The deletions are largely deletions of positive sourced comments from reliable and verifiable sources.  That results in creating POV in this article; again, all this has been discussed at length by others earlier; scroll up.--NYScholar 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think the article is too long. But I think it's premature to reduce it, while it's controversial. My recommendation is that we let it grow organically until the "real world" controversy continues, and then work to shorten it while maintaining NPOV. --Leifern 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is long, but one must admit that the debate over this article has been more charged and more wide ranging than most book discussions.  GabrielF seems to favor trimming out those who defend Carter such as the very notable Tom Segev (removal ), and Norman Finkelstein (removal .)  I would recommend that GabrielF, instead of just removing the people he doesn't like, work to summarize the opinions of them clearly thus reduce the quote bulk.  Another way of shortening the article is to group similar quotes together where they are presented together in one summary, although with a slight extra for where they are different (an entropy reduction approach -- based on the idea of compression techniques, a subject that GabrielF as a computer science major should be familiar with -- if you will.)  Outright removal of information, especially of notable individuals, is a disservice to our readers and will only lead to conflict -- imagine if I decided that Alan Dershowitz, who has written less books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and context than Tom Segev and Norman Finkelstein, wasn't enough of an expert to comment, it would cause an uproar of perceived censorship.  --70.51.228.233 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are failing to assume good faith and ascribing motives to me where there is no basis in fact. You will note that I cut out Steve Israel's criticism of the book and cut the democrats criticism from six paragraphs to two. Also, I advocated cutting the ADL, AJC and CAMERA criticisms from three big paragraphs to a couple of shorter summary paragraphs. I think the letter to the carter center should be cut down to one or two sentences and the rest moved to that article. Dershowitz's stuff could also be cut down. I removed the positive reactions because they were from the most non-notable people (come on, Michigan Media Watch??) and because some of them were not really "positive reactions" to the book at all, but comments on the state of debate on the issue in the United States. My plan is to ultimately compress things, by adding introductory paragraphs to each section, summarizing the various positions, but if I just rewrite, I feel that someone will just add caveats and more quotes further contributing to the bloat. GabrielF 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you propose your topical organization on the talk page here in outline form for comment as I did earlier?  You may be able to get some agreement if you approach it this way.  BTW what is the difference from your position between Michigan Media Watch and CAMERA besides their stated POVs?  --70.51.228.233 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Michigan Media Watch" gets 81 google hits, a fair comparison with CAMERA is not possible, because camera is a common word, but "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" gets about 42,000GabrielF 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already responded to this misperception of the source; the article is not published by Michigan Media Watch; the article is published in a newspaper that says that it is the most widely-read Arab-American newspaper in America; Detroit, once the capital of Michigan, where it was established, has the largest population of Arab-Americans, including Palestinian-Americans, in the country; it is now published in Dearborn, Michigan.  The notability and representativeness is the publication; the writer is simply identified by her position w/ Michigan Media Watch, which is defined for those who otherwise would not know what it is (most people who don't live in Michigan and who are not Arab-Americans.  Apparently, she is a prominent Palestinian-American in Michigan.  That is part of her notability; but the reason for including the information is so that people will know her affiliations (not that the affiliations themselves are notable).  It is important to identify people who are otherwise unknowns by such information.  This should be clear to anyone who understands the importance of evaluating sources in determining their reliability and notability.  GabrielF misidentifies the organ (publication) by focusing on Michigan Media Watch as if it were the publisher, when it is not.  The publisher is identified in his "about" webpage linked in the source citation note.  One needs to read notes and follow the material linked in them!--NYScholar 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will propose a new article structure sometime today. GabrielF 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: New article structure:
I think the ipusers proposed article structure is a good start. 
For the first part of the article (up to Reviews and Commentaries) there are too many quotes. It is not encyclopedic to reproduce the author's words pretty much verbatim. We need to put this section into our own words.
This is very rough, but it will give you a sense of what I'm talking about.
:2. Critical Reaction
::2.1 Summary - One paragraph summarizing the critical reaction to the book - mixed reviews, most notable reviewers (NYTimes, WaPo) criticized x,y,z. Other reviewers praised x,y,z.
::2.2 1-2 paragraphs quoting from the most notable reviews, e.g. the reviews readers are most likely to encounter and are most likely to find useful in deciding whether to buy the book or what they think about it. This means the NYTimes and WaPo reviews, if there are reviews from other highly-notable sources (NYReview of books, London Review of Books, etc.) they should be included as well
::2.3 Praise - One paragraph summarizing who praised the book and what they liked about it
:::2.3.1 Arab-American community (optional) - NYScholar thinks we need to include what the Arab-American community is saying about this book (see the Michigan Media Watch section above). Choose one or two representative quotes. If you label the section as support from the Arab-American community you won't need to spend three sentences explaining people's biases in the body of the paragraph (note that this applies for many different sections).
:::2.3.2 Carter's courage for speaking out despite a difficult climate - the electronic intifada quote and the Bisharat quote can go here
::2.4 Criticism - one paragraph summarizing the reasons people are criticizing this book
:::2.4.1 - Fairness and accuracy - the David Harris quote can go here. The CAMERA quote can also go here, although it can be cut down a bit.
:::2.4.2 - Use of the word apartheid ( this might be better off in 3.something) - there are multiple quotes saying the same thing here, pick one or two that are notable, get rid of the rest. The Democrats could probably be moved here since that seemed to be the focus of their criticism
:::2.4.3 - charges of anti-semitism (brief) - response should go at the end of 3.1
:3 - Carter's response to criticism
::3.1 - Media bias - lead with a quote from Carter's op-ed piece, have a few sentences that put it in context (e.g. walt & mersheimer (sp), etc.) note that other's have agreed with him but don't spend a huge amount of space quoting them. In 1-2 paragraphs put responses to the criticism.
:4 - controversy - a few sentences to summarize
::4.1 - Stein resignation
::4.2 - Ross stuff
::4.3 - Brandeis stuff - I don't think it should be included, but here's where it should go
:5. See also
:6. Further reading
:7. Notes
The public appearances section should be cut entirely. If the appearances are notable, they should be inline in other sections. GabrielF 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the semi-topical focus.  A number of comments: (1) it is inappropriate to well poison any praise from the Arab American community by grouping them together, while you state that they have "biases" that the reader needs to be aware of the same can be said for other ethnic/ideological descriptors and we really don't want to start prefixing commentators as being simply "Jewish" or "Zionist" or "Christian", it leads to a poverty of thought and discussion because it is based on triggering prejudice, (2) the use of the term apartheid should be a controversies (although I prefer the term debate since it results in cooler discussions) since there are many that support its use (for example , triggered by Carter's book), (3) the charges of anti-Semitism should go in the debate section because there is a lot of responses to it, including from Carter.  I still favor merging together Carter's response into the debates/controversies -- since I view it as part of the debates triggered by the book.  Debates are what provocative books are supposed to do in open and free societies and I prefer describing it as such.  It would be instructive to get the opinions of others as well.  --70.51.228.233 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the arab-american section as well-poisoning at all. NYScholar insisted that the quotes were notable because "The relevance is the publication that the article is posted in: it is the largest newspaper in America for Arab Americans according to its publisher's website; this material needs to be restored to the article.  Who the writer is is less significant than who published her article and the size of its audience." The only way I can see that this quote might be notable is as an example of the reaction to the book from one particular community. Otherwise, its redundant and non-notable. All I'm saying is that if you want to keep some of these quotes they have to contribute something and I'm suggesting that what they contribute is an understanding of one particular group's perspective. It might be better to get rid of the Institute for Middle East Understanding and  Arab American News altogether. Your other two points are things that we can work out once we see what the text looks lie. GabrielF 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's move in this direction slowly?  I would suggest pulling out the specific controversies and debates first into a separate section.  That is straightforward and I think most will support it.  I wish we didn't have so many parallel discussions going on, because it makes it difficult to get consensus decisions, we are like an ADHD kid off in all directions.  --64.230.127.30 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal A

message: [moved to talk page for work]
<<
====Resignations====
In January 2007, fourteen advisors to Carter's human rights organization resigned in protest of the book.
>>
This external link was thrown in by someone without regard for the prevailing style of formatting of notes for sources in this article (see editing history and this talk page re: that problem earlier).
The source needs to be listed properly (information such as: author, title, publication, date of publication [online posting], date accessed); it needs to be deemed reliable; and it needs verification.  The heading does not match the rest of the article's structure; items included are published sources of "Reviews and commentaries" on the book; not "actions" (e.g., "resignations").  This needs rethinking.  This is an article relating to a living person: see tag above.  Deletions of unverified material from unchecked potentially unreliable sources are appropriate; restoration can occur after checking, verification of reliability of the source, and re-formatting of the source as a note citation. --NYScholar 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs reconsideration (re-formatting) before re-incorporation in article

message: In January 2007, fourteen advisors to Carter's human rights organization resigned in protest of the book.
>>
This external link was thrown in by someone without regard for the prevailing style of formatting of notes for sources in this article (see editing history and this talk page re: that problem earlier).
The source needs to be listed properly (information such as: author, title, publication, date of publication [online posting], date accessed); it needs to be deemed reliable; and it needs verification.  The heading does not match the rest of the article's structure; items included are published sources of "Reviews and commentaries" on the book; not "actions" (e.g., "resignations").  This needs rethinking.  This is an article relating to a living person: see tag above.  Deletions of unverified material from unchecked potentially unreliable sources are appropriate; restoration can occur after checking, verification of reliability of the source, and re-formatting of the source as a note citation. --NYScholar 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignations

message: Talk pages don't function well with notes -- please show some consideration here.  If you need to mention a citation, just run it in-line like this: Whitehouse Pushes Hard on Iraq Plan, NY Times, January 11, 2007.  Others need to be able to edit this talk page.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes function if you leave them alone; GabrielF has removed so much sourced material that all the sources are lost without the Notes showing up here.  Talk about "consideration!"  Plenty of other talk pages that I have read have Notes sections in them.  Removing the Notes is removing sources in material that GabrielF (mostly) removed earlier.  See vandalism re: guidelines about such deletions.  (I have to go back to the history to get something I lost in moving Introd. below.  Bear w/ me.) --NYScholar 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, it appears to be just limited to the section above [below]. That really shouldn't be at the bottom of the page; I thought someone had put a specific references section here for some reason. F.F.McGurk 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for help with getting this Notes section to work for people; I don't know how else to do it.  See my "N.B." below.  I just click on "edit" this page to add things.  I don't think it's much more different than clicking on a "+"; it's just a question of trying to retain the sources that editors have moved into talk from the article.  One does not want to lose the sources; they are needed for future editing and fixing problems in this article introduced by deletions being done, particularly in the past day or so. --NYScholar 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them.  It is very non-standard.  I suggest to NYScholar that he push for a change in Wikipedia software to this extent.  I think he/she can make a good case.  But I have removed them as that is the consensus.  Sorry.  --64.230.127.30 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I archived them.  They are in Archive 3.   The previous user engages in vandalism otherwise, deleting links and sources. --NYScholar 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes are not appropriate.  It is idiosyncratic and unnecessary.  I recommend you bring up the issue in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Village pump - because it is an issue all Wikipedia talk pages have, and thus we should strive for a global solution, not fight it out repeatedly on this one particular talk page.  --64.230.127.30 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Pages Don't Function Well With Notes

message: Can we lose this or move to a subpage or something? It makes it hard to see what is happening. F.F.McGurk 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it appears to be just limited to the section above [below]. That really shouldn't be at the bottom of the page; I thought someone had put a specific references section here for some reason. F.F.McGurk 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for help with getting this Notes section to work for people; I don't know how else to do it.  See my "N.B." below.  I just click on "edit" this page to add things.  I don't think it's much more different than clicking on a "+"; it's just a question of trying to retain the sources that editors have moved into talk from the article.  One does not want to lose the sources; they are needed for future editing and fixing problems in this article introduced by deletions being done, particularly in the past day or so. --NYScholar 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them.  It is very non-standard.  I suggest to NYScholar that he push for a change in Wikipedia software to this extent.  I think he/she can make a good case.  But I have removed them as that is the consensus.  Sorry.  --64.230.127.30 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I archived them.  They are in Archive 3.   The previous user engages in vandalism otherwise, deleting links and sources. --NYScholar 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes are not appropriate.  It is idiosyncratic and unnecessary.  I recommend you bring up the issue in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Village pump - because it is an issue all Wikipedia talk pages have, and thus we should strive for a global solution, not fight it out repeatedly on this one particular talk page.  --64.230.127.30 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References here on talk page 

message: Revised version:
Palestine: Peace not Apartheid received mixed reviews from critics.  Whereas a number of journalists and academics have been praising Carter's book, specifically lauding his courage for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in a media environment which they believe to be hostile to opponents of Israel's policies, two reviews,  appearing in The Washington Post and The New York Times, respectively, have faulted Carter's "anti-historical understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and his "narrow perspective."Jeffrey Goldberg, "What Would Jimmy Do?" Washington Post December 10, 2006.Ethan Bronner, "Jews, Arabs and Jimmy Carter," The New York Times Book Review January 7, 2007, accessed January 7, 2007.  Their negative views have been echoed by some Democratic politicians and leaders of American Jewish organizations.
This introduction requires discussion on the talk page; an earlier version veered back to POV and away from neutrality; it is not permissible to inject the editors' own POVs into this article.  See the neutrality tag on the article.  Highlighting negative reviews of the book is not in keeping with neutral point of view guidelines in Wikipedia.--NYScholar 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the introduction; more sourcing would be helpful for the first sentence, I think; others may not think it necessary, but it would be more convincing with a source and look more neutral than that first sent. looks now. --NYScholar 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The last version by NYScholar sounds best so far and more NPOV. Needs more sourcing though. F.F.McGurk 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the introduction; more sourcing would be helpful for the first sentence, I think; others may not think it necessary, but it would be more convincing with a source and look more neutral than that first sent. looks now. --NYScholar 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Introduction

message: Added some new information to the article (refer to "current event" tag); see editing history for explanations. --NYScholar 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is tagged as a "current event" 
GabrielF keeps deleting relevant material from this article:
restored:
On February 22, 2007, former President Jimmy Carter will participate in a "conversation" about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Carter Center, moderated by Conflict Resolution Program Director Matthew Hodes. The event became sold out in early January 2007.Conversations at the Carter Center 2006-2007, accessed December 24, 2006. (Free admission, RSVP required. [Updated: "This event is sold out."])
This is a current event and updating it is within guidelines of current event articles.  This is not an "advertisement" for the event; the event is now "sold out."  It is notable, given that it involves both a former president of the U.S. and a former secretary of state of the U.S.
As there is a note number in that passage too, I've added a "Notes" section for it to post in [updated due to archiving; Notes now appear in Archives 3 and 4 (this one).--NYScholar 23:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current event

message: I believe a review of current policy in the region should be revisited in order to provide clarity in deciding which reviews of President Carter's book, whether pro or con, can be considered a useful or meaningful contribution to this article which attempts to tackle a very difficult issue. Any reviews that are linked should, in my opinion, offer some type of alternative peace proposal to President Carter's. If not, why bother posting it? Israel and Palestine have both contributed in derailing the peace process.  Its easy to post someone's book review but maybe more emphasis should be placed on identifying objective reviews. Neutrality is not always a good thing. The golden mean rule for example does not neccessarily reflect objectivity. Objectivity should always trump neutrality. I would try to stay away from news publications and the associated press reviews as they tend to parrot declarations. Emphasis should be balanced more toward  academic or scholarly reviews, and former negotiatiors- specifically Dennis Ross and Zbigniew Brzinski. Maybe Kissinger but he does not reflect the expertise or depth of knowledge for this region. Their thoughts should be considered more appropriate for further analysis since they had each participated in negotiations along with Carter. Who the heck cares what a blow hard from the AP press has to say. They just want to sell papers. They provide more depth for people interested in learning about this horrible maestrom of failed leadership and unkept promises.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.65.188 (talk • contribs) 18:15, January 12, 2007 (UTC)
:Your suggestions really do not seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or to follow entirely the instruction at the top of [the talk] page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." "Neutrality"  not "objectivity" (See the distinctions following links in W:NPOV) is Wikipedia's editing policy.  Please see the various Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies linked in the tag at top for WP:BLP.  For earlier comments pertaining to editing this article, please read the previous discussions archived now in archives 1-4, with 4 being the most recent comments posted on this talk page.  Please sign comments.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity over Neutrality