Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 5

message: Please see the passage that someone originally added about a "lecture" that Stein was scheduled to give on Jan. 11, 2007, stating erroneous assumptions about the content.  In the article, I've corrected that, adding sources to document the changes:  See my editorial comments embedded in that section of the article (negative reactions from academics).  Here is the passage on which I am basing some of those changes; other sources are cited in the Notes as well.  There is an embedded note in this passage that needs to show up.  I'll post a "Notes" heading for the section so that it will show up; feel free, however, to add comments afterward with the + feature etc.; if you do add something with Notes, you may want to post your own "Notes" section so that it can appear and so that people can read and verify your sources cited.  Other than to suppress actual publication citations in the form of only ext. links in talk pages, there is no other way to post note information keyed to note numbers embedded in moved portions of text from the article:
Stein is adamant in his statement [to the newspaper cited] that neither the publication of the book nor his own actions with respect to the Carter Center have any bearing on his participation in the AIPAC event or on the content of the address he will give. Regarding the possibility that his resignation has become iconic of the current storm of Carter denunciation, Stein told the Advocate such an assessment is “up to other people to decide.”
Stein explained that the often-missed context is that he and Carter worked very closely together for 10 years and co-wrote “The Blood of Abraham.” Upon publication of “Peace Not Apartheid [sic],” Stein learned that many people were incorrectly assuming his involvement with the book.
“It reached a point where one close family friend said ‘Ken, you’re being tarnished by a book you didn’t write,’” Stein said. Therefore, his resignation was primarily personal, he said, with the objective of disassociating himself from the work.
“I did something because I thought the book was intellectually dishonest,” he said. “I thought there were falsehoods. I thought there were inventions, glaring omissions and materials that were taken from someone else without citation. That’s not good scholarship or the kind of writing you would expect from any smart person, let alone a former president of the United States of America.”
Stein said that he has given at least 30 talks to Jewish community organizations each year since 1983, to AIPAC as well as the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah chapters, men’s clubs and congregations, among other groups. “Likewise, I’ve done the same thing for civic [non-Jewish] organizations,” he said. “I’ve never given a different talk. I don’t trot out different speeches for different audiences. That would be intellectually dishonest.” Rachel L. Axelbank,  "Stein to Speak at Local Shul: Professor Critical of Carter Book," The Jewish Advocate January 9, 2006, accessed January 12, 2007.
:I added the update to Kenneth Stein.  I am an audio/visual specialist and I happened to have been at the lecture operating the projector for the Powerpoint presentation he had created specifically for the event with specific outlined bulletpoints complete with comparisons between primary sources and Carter's claims in his book.  Of course, there is no way to prove that I was there short of showing the invoice for the service I provided, but it is a 100% true undeniable fact that on 1/11/07, Kenneth Stein gave a lecture that criticized specific passages in Carter's book.  The problem is not one of WP:NOR; it is WP:Verifiability.  --GHcool 08:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting this reply.  I wondered if the person who had posted the Stein lecture info (re: the lecture that by then had already taken place on the 11th of Jan. 2007) was possibly in the audience.   There should be some news account by now defining the contents of that lecture.  Of course, from the vantage point of a reader, there was no evidence earlier given to support the statement that the lecture "provided a full outline of" the errors that Stein perceives in the book.  See my editorial interpolation embedded in the article (or in the history version); I ask for updating of this information once a reliable verifiable source is located.  Since you were there, perhaps you can find such a source in a local news account (LA).  At this point there is both a NOR and a missing reliable verifiable source for any information provided about the contents of that lecture.  But that is perhaps eventually easily resolved once an adequate source is cited and provided in a note citation.--NYScholar 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update re: Stein

message: The silent change made w/o a comment posted directly in talk is okay with me.  It may be asking a lot for people to convert embedded notes (from material moved from the article proper) into the format just provided, but it does function okay in getting across the full citation.  I just don't know how many other users are going to be willing to go to that kind of trouble to convert notes, or will be able to do so w/o introducing errors; that remains to be seen.  But I have no objection to it. [I restored the accidentally-deleted code for the block quotation that occurred in the editing of the note by M_d.] --NYScholar 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silent change (see editing history)

message: This article needs to be cut way down.  Dump the hagiography stuff and simply describe the book.  Tbeatty 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut way down

message: [someone altered my original heading, which was actually about "alleged vandalism".  It is my topic, it was my own heading, and no one has authority to change it to "accusations" and/or to put "Morton" in the heading; see guidelines for talk page headings: People should not post headings focusing on users; the headings are supposed to focus on editing issues and how to improve the articles. --NYScholar 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, he [M_d] has reverted my change; this time he posts (dishonestly) in the editing history: "there is no consensus for this material to be included."  I doubt if he has read all four of the archived talk pages dealing with some of this material.  To vary his emphasis: there is no consensus for his deleting it. His deletions leave no focus on the contents of the book in the discursive section of the article.  The article is now a horrendous violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, given that the introductory section is not followed by development on the content of the book.--NYScholar 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See: WP:BLP for the damage that this user [M_d] may be doing not only to this article but also to Wikipedia.--NYScholar 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's important that you allow others to edit articles.  Domination of an article by an editor is prohibited under WP:OWN.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important that you not engage in apparent vandalism to articles and in ignoring the previous discussions of their content.--NYScholar 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow others to edit this article.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have let many other well-intended people who are editing in good faith to edit this article (see the history); you, however, are not doing that.  See the other editors' editing summaries as well. --NYScholar 08:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you don't tolerate GabrielF's edits.  Also, you don't get to "let" anyone edit here.  Everyone gets to edit this article should they desire.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You both want to improve Wikipedia and this article. So why not list your reasoning for your edits and let everyone reach a decision together? --YoYoDa1 08:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already listed all my reasons for every editing change that I've made either in talk and/or in editing history. --NYScholar 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "let" was a synonym for M_d's own devious word "allow": see his comment.  He is continually turning this article into a free for all for veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks.   That is intolerable.  As far as GabrielF's attempted edits go, they were not supported by other editors as well.  Read the archive page 4.  It's all there.  I have not restored the material; another editor did.  I have no communication outside of the talk page of this article and the talk pages of other articles with Wikipedians.  I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia, nor do I engage in using so-called "sock puppets," as apparently M_d and some other users editing this article may do.  What you see is what you get.  No deception.  No unfairness.  Just up-front editing.  Try honesty and openness.  They work better than strategies of deception.  If you don't like the book [and if you can't tolerate any focus on its content from Carter's point of view (which is the subject of the article)], work on some other article. [You are beating a dead horse. The book is what it is.]--NYScholar 08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate it if you would cease with the baseless accusations. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:NPA. The policy applies to Wikipedia users and to the subjects of articles in WP:BLP.  Avoiding slanderous and libelous remarks against the subjects of articles who are living persons is strict Wikipedia policy; Wikipedia:Etiquette governs behavior toward other users. Some who post in Wikipedia talk pages appear to need a refresher course in such etiquette and netiquette.  --NYScholar 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling me a sockpuppet is not exactly civil.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not "call" you a "sockpuppet"; someone on your talk page alleges that you have (or use) a "sockpuppet" [I re-read the comment, and it appears that M_d contests that other user's allegation; I misread it earlier.]  If you hadn't been "allowing" so much commentary about other users like me to appear on your own talk page, I would not have noticed that, but being directed to your talk page led me to read that there.  [As per CSTAR, I have removed yet another reference to my name in your own most recent comment on your talk page; I think you just don't get the concept of Wikipedia:NPA somehow.] Anyone else can read your talk page for evidence of what you are not admitting here.  It is not a question of civility or incivility to point out that some people (including apparently you [?]) use so-called "sockpuppets"; I do not.  You tend to sign your posts on this page with various versions of a signature, making it appear that you are more than one user, when you are the same user.  It is confusing.   I refer to you as "Morton_devonshire" (or "M_d") because that is what I see first in the signature in editing mode (now); but that name does not show up in saved mode; "The Illuminated...." does.  I never saw your signatures until Jan. 11 (2 days ago now); so I was not familiar with your name(s).  I had to go to your talk page to figure out the relationships among the various names (and there are more than one provided there too).  That is where I saw another user posting about "sockpuppets", which made me realize that it is possible that people are posting and editing this talk page and this article using more than one identity (anon. IP adds., various names, etc., when they may be one user). --NYScholar 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you accuse me of being a sockpuppet of someone else.  I most assuredly am not.  Please stop making these baseless accusations. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Morton devonshire is likely not a sockpuppet, that's a non issue.  Although he is cutting down the description of the book too far.  I'll give it a few days, but I will try to write a better, fuller summary from a mix of primary and secondary sources (book reviews, etc) if it is still in the currently overly paired down state.  There is no rush to revert Morton's changes, he is just expressing his opinion and being bold about it, which is allowed.  --70.48.240.99 17:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You just said in your edit summary that you agree with the reduction in the summary.  There's your consensus.  The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's clearly not what I said. I edited back in NYScholars. Thanks! I support his version at this time. F.F.McGurk 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions of relevant material from the article

message: Someone recently deleted a quotation of the word, saying that only one person (Foxman) had applied it to Carter.  That is incorrect; Foxman is being presented only as "representative" of many commentators who have applied it to him; Carter himself, as quoted in the article, says: "Instead, there has been a pattern of ad hominem statements, alleging that I am a liar, plagiarist, anti-Semite, racist, bigot, ignorant, etc."  There is really no justification for removing the reference in a part of a sentence that says that "some" of his critics allege that he is "anti-Semitic": the observation of that allegation is factual; the allegation may not be true, but it is still an allegation that has been made by more than "one" person, as Carter himself acknowledges and defends himself against.  One really has to be careful to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies and guidelines (and also WP:BLP).  Distinctions between what is factually accurate and what is true are defined in such W pages.  Wikipedia articles strive to present correct facts (verifiable statements about reality) not truths (matters of interpretation). --NYScholar 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added further source citations as documentation of the multiple people who have made this allegation (of "anti-Semitism") against Carter ; again, in citing them, not claiming truth of the allegations but rather establishing the fact that the allegation has been made by more than one ("some") notable representatives of major organizations reported by reliable sources which have been verified. --NYScholar 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics' allegations (plural) of "anti-Semitism"

message: [tag re: split added]
Proposal:
See Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.  See embedded editorial interpolations re: purpose of creating that article and caution about work that will need to be done to coordinate new citations structure in that article with older version of it in this article.  All of the notes show up all right in the split-off portion in the new article (Commentary . . .).  Plus, there is more poss. of non-distracting sub-headings (which were put back in and then taken out of recent versions of this article due to concerns about avoiding appearance of POV).
Please see what you think about this alternative: the above and Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version.  I can't remember the template tag to put on this article indicating the consideration about breaking up, but it's on a lot of articles and either I or someone else can find it and tag this article w/ that template. [I've added the tag since posting this. (updated.)]  This possibility has been discussed for a long time in archived talk pages 1-4; I suggest this alternative for a way of moving forward.  People who have more interest in the commentaries than in the book may feel more comfortable working on that article ("Commentary . . ."), whereas people who are more interested in the book may feel more comfortable working on this article (without that portion in it).  Right now, I haven't deleted (moved) the portion out of this article; I have only copied and pasted it and made typographical adjustments, so that people can see the alternative clearly.  Please comment.  Thank you. --NYScholar 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Criticisms" is negative POV; need more neutral language; that is why I chose the word "Commentary"; it is neutral. --NYScholar 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the compromise solution of having a separate page for commentary as exemplified by Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.  --70.48.240.99 21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative manner of reducing size of this article

message: [Edited heading due to WP:BLP--NYScholar 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for info. (Haven't yet gotten my Sunday NYT due to bad weather! Reading website version.)  See additions incorporated in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. --NYScholar 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See particularly the information added via cross-link to Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#The_ Anti-Defamation_ League in the Critical reactions and commentaries sec. --NYScholar 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Traub's article contains the following passage, in which Foxman denies having called Jimmy Carter an "anti-Semite," even though he is quoted as having applied the word "anti-Semitism" to Carter in interview cited in this Wikipedia article.  There are contradictions between what he Traub reports that he says in their interview and the newspaper interview cited in this Wikipedia article" by James D. Besser.
Here is the passage by Besser as cited in the Wikipedia article:
“I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “For a man of his stature and supposed savvy to hold forth that the issues of Israel and the Middle East have not been discussed and debated because Jews and Zionists have closed off means of discussion is just anti-Semitism.”
Foxman particularly objected to Carter’s claim in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that while issues of peace are hotly and freely debated in Israel, “for the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee [sic] and the absence of any significant contrary voices.”
That, Foxman argued, is anti-Semitism because it reinforces the anti-Semitic canard that “our power is so great that you can’t even talk about these issues.”James D. Besser, "Jewish Criticism of Carter Intensifies: Charge of Anti-Semitism from One Leader as Ex-president Deepens His Critique of Israeli Policy in West Bank," The Jewish Week December 15, 2005, accessed January 8, 2007.
Here is the related passage by James Traub:
I [James Traub] asked, isn’t slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism at people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Judt and Mearsheimer and Walt really a way of choking off debate? No, it isn’t, Foxman said. This was at our lunch; Foxman got so exercised that he began to choke on his gratin. I asked if it was really right to call Carter, the president who negotiated the Camp David accords, an anti-Semite.
“I didn’t call him an anti-Semite.”
[Foxman is apparently referring only to the conversation which he is currently having with Traub in their interview for the NYT Mag. art.?--NYScholar 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like Besser, Traub is apparently quoting some of Foxman's earlier comments in this NYT Mag. article [on page 32, col. 1]:
But what really makes Abe Foxman shray (cry) gevalt is the claim that an “Israel lobby” or a “Jewish lobby” — Aipac and the A.D.L. and a few others — has effectively gained control over U.S. policy toward the Middle East and suppressed voices calling for alternative policies. Foxman himself became entangled in this debate in October, when he was accused of intimidating the Polish consul general in New York into canceling a talk to be given by Tony Judt, a highly regarded professor of European history at New York University and a supporter of the “Israel lobby” view — which seemed to confirm Judt’s thesis.
Foxman says he is innocent of the charge, and his sense of outraged virtue makes him all the more incandescent. Abe Foxman isn’t doing the stifling — he’s the one being muzzled with the charge of stifling. But the stifling won’t work: Foxman says he will not be intimidated; people all across the Islamic world already believe every kind of pernicious fantasy about the Jews and about Israel. And now here come credentialed American — even Jewish! — scholars saying, as he put it, “The Jews control the media, control the government, control Congress.” The Jewish people, Foxman said gravely, “have paid a very, very significant price for that canard.” And yes, he’s willing to shray gevalt until he’s blue in the face.
So what’s the problem, the thing Abe Foxman is fighting or Foxman himself?
[The same quotation within the quotation appears in Besser's article which pre-dates Traub's article; although, as presented by Besser, at first it may have appeared that those comments came from an interview of Foxman by Besser, given how Traub also quotes and adapts them in his own NYT Mag. text, they could be from a third (published) source.  [E.g., both of them could be quoting and adapting Foxman's own statements published in his book Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (2003); Traub's title echoes (plays upon) Foxman's in the phrase "Anti-Anti-Semite" paralleling "New Anti-Semitism?"]Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?, New York Times Magazine January 14, 2007, accessed January 14, 2007.
Traub's article appears on pages 30-35 in print; I've added the relevant page and col. nos.; it is also accessible online (free for at least 7 days from Sunday Jan. 14, 2007, publication date); I've updated Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version with the page numbers too.  This longer version of the article does not currently cite the page numbers.  I have examined and verified this source both online and in print. [updated: since first writing this, I've added the page references to the article.] --NYScholar 10:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYT Magazine article on Abraham Foxman entitled "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?"

message: [Missing notes result from deletions of material by earlier editors and restoration of material in talk page.  Restored source citation also so people could see what it is.  Feel free to post below this section with "+" feature as needed. --NYScholar 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: [Please see related discussion re: split and requested move and rename also on Talk:Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid  and Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version.  Thank you. --NYScholar 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reached? 

message: [1] [as stated throughout this and the related talk pages --NYScholar 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: [1] I don't agree, its not going to be a stable long-term solution.  We should be summarizing the debates, with links to the full texts of peoples opinions.  We should name all the notable people who commented, but the extra article for commentary is really arbitrary and subjective -- why are those particular snippets worthy of its own article.  I strongly favor a single article with a topical organization that tries to summarize and combine the opinions expressed.  To do otherwise will likely be a waste of time and effort.  --70.51.232.12 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not support

message: I constructed a sample page for purposes of illustration and editing.  Go to the main page of Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to access it.  I'm putting the template tag to "Wikiquote" there (by way of illustration).  --NYScholar 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people having problems with there being (in their view, not mine) too many quotations in this article should be able to contribute some hard work to developing a compromise that incorporates Wikiquote in the place of a so-called "quotefarm" (in their view); let's see what they can come up with that does not suppress the notable "commentary" that has already been legitimately provided in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Other editors can construct Wikiquote for the book itself. Then the red link will become a blue populated Wikiquote link for the title of the book. --NYScholar 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: --NYScholar 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Wikiquote

message: In some instances this article places the book title in boldface. The title of a book should always be italicized, but I've never seen an article where the title is bolded after the first occurrence. I would suggest that we place the title in italics but not boldface after the first use for the sake of consistency. GabrielF 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia style is to bold the subjects of an article in the text of the article; the title of the book is the subject of the article; thus, it is both italicized and in bold print.  If the subject of this article were the name of a person, e.g., it would also be in boldface. --NYScholar 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See paragraph one of this article (and all other Wikipedia articles) and throughout this article and other Wikipedia articles (e.g. on BLP).  It is customary for readers to be able to find the subject throughout the article more easily due to the bold print.  It is a Wikipedia style format, not a bibliographical style format. --NYScholar 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is completely incorrect. Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the article title and any synonyms of the article title (including acronyms)." GabrielF 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So change them, then.  Have fun. --NYScholar 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. GabrielF 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!--NYScholar 06:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  title in bold 

message: Due to new developments in the news on Jan. 18 and 19, 2007, I have updated Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version.  For the updates, please see that version.  The material added relates directly to the book review by Goldberg that is cited in this article and to the Amazon.com listing for the book.  I've also restored the deleted material in the book reviews section (see editing history).  [I added it here too later.] Thanks. --NYScholar 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Developments (Update) 

message: To people still concerned about the length of this article: Please examine the proposal to split it into two articles (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, along now with the "Wikiquote") [move/rename proposal], which already has achieved some consensus. --NYScholar 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing concerns about length of this article (as related to the rename and move proposal)

message: Why did you remove the name and credentials of Yossi Beilin, while leaving the reference to his article? He is a well known person. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yossi Beilin is a good guy.  Also James Zogby has a post on the issue here .  --70.51.231.96 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone mind if I restore his name, and the fact that he is a member of the Knesset and former cabinet official? --HonourableSchoolboy 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Speaking for myself, I do mind.  His name is in the appropriate section of the article.   The paragraph that you initially added it to is a summary.  The article citation supports the generalization.  Names have been removed in the general summary.  See the section on "positive reactions"; that's where the specific information is placed.  Please follow the prevailing format.  Moreover, the view that "he is a good guy" (70....) is POV and trying to insert material in the article due to promote a POV violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Wikipedia editing policy).  [One can, however, click on the Wikipedia internal link in the citation to find out more about the source, in this case Beilin, to learn more about who he is and his "credentials".]---NYScholar 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah-- I didn't notice that you had moved it. It's fine where it is. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, citing blogs--like the ref. 70.... makes to James Zogby (President of the Arab American Institute) in HuffPo--is not (it would seem to me) in keeping with Wikipedia policy on citing only reliable sources (not blogs except in specific exceptions: e.g., info. that a blog is written by the subject of the article; not Zogby here, but the book): Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Citing Zogby's blog post amounts to inserting POV (opinion) from an unreliable source (a personal blog) in this article.  [This article does  not cite what may be hundreds of thousands of blog posts about issues relating to the subject of this article (the book).  Such blog posts are the "opinions" of their writers, and citing them is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources.]--NYScholar 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do note, however, that, much earlier, editors posted links to the HuffPo blog posts written by Alan Dershowitz.  But they are not here now; they are in the article on Dershowitz himself (subject), which is cross-linked in this article.  But Dershowitz himself is a name raised directly by President Carter, the author of the book and subject of this article, and so Dershowitz's blog articles (posts) pertaining to this book may seem more (indirectly) notable.  W policy re: this matter may need further discussion.  [It's a "slippery slope"....]  See also WP:NOR. --NYScholar 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one (e.g., 70....) is thinking of inserting Zogby's HuffPo blog post as a source in this article, one needs to discuss the matter of doing so in more detail on this talk page? --NYScholar 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked the official website of the organization that James Zogby heads, and it is not currently posting (publishing) a position on Carter's book on its site.  Zogby's POV on the book is posted in his personal blog and not yet in another kind of published source that Wikipedia defines as allowable (though see "exceptions"): Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources and WP:Cite.  See those W links for more guidance. --NYScholar 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Note: It may be that, in the near future, the organization website may add that blog post, because the previous post is featured there currently. --NYScholar 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is now on the AAI USA site here.  --70.48.241.47 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If needed, please see the tags at the top of this talk page and visit the links in them for further guidance on this and related matters; e.g., see "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."   (Please put headings in your comments in talk.)  Similar editing information links are given to newcomers on their talk pages.)  Thank you. --NYScholar 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: It may be that this page needs further archiving (archive 5): it is now 100 kilobytes.  See the archived talk pages for relative length of them. --NYScholar 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further archiving?

message: Deleted reference to a personal blog (not in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which was inserted by anon. IP user.  Deleted otherwise POV presentation; replaced with cross-ref. to source already cited in later sec. of article (#Protests and boycotts related to the book and its reception). See editing history for explanation too.  --NYScholar 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised material