Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 3

message: To those making changes without discussing them first: please make sure that you avoid tossing in external links wily-nily as you are doing; please use the consistent notes format already prevailing in this article.  It's a waste of time to add these external links, and it is confusing; the notes have a logical numbered format; the external links throw that off.  Please take the time to convert your external links into notes that come at the end of sentences (preferably; don't interrupt the flow of a sentence w/ a note number when the note can be better placed at the end). --NYScholar 03:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  --64.230.125.2 03:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid I merged the extern links with the further reading section.  Also, the ordering I used for the "see also", "further reading" and "notes" sections was the same one I noticed was being used on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article.  I also copied the double column thing for the notes from that article.  --64.230.125.2 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In most Wikipedia articles, Notes follow the text.  That is the most logical place for Notes section.  References (or a bibliography, incl. Further Reading, etc.) follow Notes; External links follow that, and usually See also sec. is last (as those are generally Wikipedia internal links. I or someone else can fix the article another time. I've moved this exchange to the Talk page of the article.  It doesn't belong on my talk page, where you initially posted it.  This section "Notes format" is the context for these comments. --NYScholar 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Removing previous material that I was going to move to note to Robert Fisk comment, but it is a blog post by an unknown author of unknown authority, and I do not think it reliable and worthy of citation in the main body of the article, even though it is positive (praise); the Robert Fisk quotation says basically the same; see WP:BLP and W:Reliable sources:
<<Fisk echoes a metaphor used in a blog post by Ben Tanosborn, who calls President Carter "Saint James of Plains" and comments "Let’s have for the first time ever in this country a thorough and honest debate on the issues that create this conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and make America part of the solution instead of being the lion’s share of the problem" ("Saint James of Plains, American politician-martyr," The Middle East Online [blog] December 15, 2006, accessed December 26, 2006).
>>
Is this blog post even a reliable source? Who is Ben Tanosborn? Why is this blog post being cited at all here? See W:Reliable Sources policy on blogs.  It is self-published on the author's own website, but, other than his self-description, I do not know who he is or what the nature of his authority is for being cited in this article.  It is a post in his personal blog, not an article published in a peer-reviewed newspaper or journal. --NYScholar 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Risk's original piece can be found here.  --64.230.127.25 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable reliability of citations to blogs/unreliable sources

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

message: If someone knows how to do this, could someone please make the TC into two columns; I've already made it small print to save space.  (See talk above re: TC.) --NYScholar 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gni 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Gni for the columns and to the later editor(s) for the more recent changes to that section.  The Table of Contents is quite useful now, I think.  I don't mind the changing of the small print to larger print if others don't mind it.  The larger print is more legible; the columns already save some space. The linking to W articles as sugg'd earlier is very useful. --NYScholar 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents

message: Konner's criticisms seem to be very similar to Stein's. I'm also not sure whether I feel that Troy or Konner meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the article because I haven't seen their claims anywhere in the 'mainstream media' (Stein and Ross seemed to generate the most coverage from what I could tell). If Troy and Konner indeed warrant inclusion, then we need to 'balance' the article, there is plenty of verifiable information to do so. 
Once again, I don't claim these sources are perfect or notable, but there does need to be balance.
*Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and Comparative Literature at UCLA and a frequent commentator on Middle East issues, writes here: 
*Norman Finkelstein, an assistant professor of Political Science at Depaul University, writes here: 
--76.214.110.18 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HNN, where Troy Konner's piece is "published", is a blog.  It shouldn't go in.  --64.230.127.25 15:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears he also wrote an op-ed in a newspaper. The blog is just used for a quote from him, so I think that is reasonable. My problem is that his complaints completely mirror Stein's and that I haven't seen a lot of coverage about about his particular incident. It just seems innotable and redundant. Troy just seems innotable. I just don't think Wikipedia should list every opinion held by a professor or printed in an op-ed. --76.214.110.18 15:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor including the debate in the article - thus the more opinions the better, as long as they all meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.  We should use the citation from the original source (in the case of Troy) or it is likely someone else in the future will raise the same objection.  --64.230.127.25 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I'll just wait for a few more opinions about notability. Thanks for your input atleast. I don't know what you mean with the Troy citation objection though. --76.214.110.18 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction: HNN is a project of George Mason University. Troy is on their advisory board. I don't know how I feel about it (according to Wikipedia:RS), but I'm not sure if it should be called a blog. It's put out by an organasation. --76.214.110.18 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Finkelstein piece above is self-published thus it should not be included in the article (self-published material is out unless it is describing the person who is publishing, and in this case that is not the case), but the Saree piece is legitimate and I'll include it now.  --64.230.127.25 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't know whether I feel that the Saree piece is notable though. I'd like to define a threshhold for inclusion first. If it means printing dozens of opinions and seeking balance then fine, but that just isn't my first preference. --76.214.110.18 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested in following the debate, thus I like to see all the pieces that are published in the mainstream about the topic.  Eventually, we can filter down the statements and just quote one representative individual and then list all the other names of those that support/echo that general position.  That would help cut down the article length without cutting down the number of people cited or the quality of the final article.  --64.230.127.25 15:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Melvin Konner, a professor of anthropology at Emory University, . . . [interprets] a passage in . . . [Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as condoning] . . .  terrorism, arguing that the sentence--
". . . ." [quote the sentence in a blockquote if lengthy; within quotation marks if short]--
condones "the murder of Jews until such time as Israel unilaterally follows President Carter's prescription for peace."Emory professor: Carter will hurt center, Journal Constitution
</blockquote>
>>
-NYScholar 07:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason I didn't want to include it was because I didn't want the page to become a long list of any academic or media mention of the book, but it looks like that has already happened, so if we remove Konner I'd want to remove Finkelstein and others now also. I didn't find some of the information in the quote completely relevant to the book, but once again, I now have this problem with other content in the article. I am going to leave most of it alone, but I would remind you that Wikipedia has the 3RR policy regardless of discussion on talk page. --75.46.88.60 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Hi all, This article is really coming along.  Because this article is about a high profile book by a former President and it generated significant media coverage and debate, it could likely be a feature article if the material is presented appropriately.  Here is the process:
# Try to meet the criteria for a featured article as best as possible, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article?
# Then request a peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review.  That will provide a lot of useful, non-partisan feedback which should improve significantly the article.
# Then initiate the FA candidate process, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.
# If the first FAC attempt fails one can try again after a period of time, but even having the article designated as a Good Article is an achievement and is a service to our readers.
A recent precedent for a featured article on a recent and political topic was Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.
--64.230.123.128 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is of course a good idea, but I think the very first task should be getting the NPOV and Cleanup tags down. It might be a good idea to collect a list of reasons for the tags to be up from editors, remove the listed reasons, and then have a consensus to take them down. This is probably included in your first step anyways, I just felt the need to explicitly state it. --75.46.88.60 08:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aiming for [[Wikipedia:Featured_articles|Feature Article]] status

message: I just added a tag alluding to WP:BLP especially for newcomers and those unfamiliar with how it pertains directly to the subject of this article (the book and its author, a living person). Please consult the links in the tag at top and here for further information about special concerns and policies pertaining to editing such articles as this one.
Here is a key passage from WP:BLP:
Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:
* Verifiability
* Neutral point of view
* No original research
We must get the article right.Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced  controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material  about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006 These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.  The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.  (Some italics and bold print added.)
These policies are very important to keep in mind when composing and editing this article.  For example, there are some claims currently presented in this article citing sources using words like "mendacity" and "lies" in relation to what they are regarding as "inaccuracies" and "mistakes" in Carter's book or making allegations skirting on claims of plagiarism (like the parts relating to derivations of maps of Palestine), which in my view are still highly dubious, as the origin of the maps and Carter's sources of the maps still may not be the book by Ross as Ross claims, despite his claims. [E.g., Carter's source can be the one that he does cite, whereas Carter's source may have used Ross, without Carter realizing that connection.]
Quoting sources making such claims and thus giving them attention and perhaps credence (belief in their value) without giving any support for the allegations of intentional deception on the part of the author, President Carter, is highly problematic and such references might be considered libelous and subject to deletion (see tag at top), given Wikipedia's current editing policies (see the notes to Jimmy Wales). In some instances, the allegations are quoted and then the article goes on to say that no specific evidence has been presented yet by those alleging such claims.  That material may still need to be deleted.  It is not of the "high quality" that adherence to current content policy in WP:BLP requires: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard" (see tagged links above; some italics and bold added).
To new editors: again, as I've stated earlier and in editing history comments: Please do not just toss in external links; if adding material, one needs to provide complete information about the source in a full citation in a note (prevailing format).  Anything less than that is going to be considered either "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" and subject to deletion (following Wikipedia policy just quoted). One needs to provide both reliable and verifiable sources.  External links are not enough; they do not identify clearly the nature of a source and one needs to know the authority of the source added (who the person is and what the publication is, so that one can verify and evaluate credibility). --NYScholar 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP tag

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