Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 3

message: Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (summary), was published in December 2006. In this book Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land"Excerpt: Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, ABC News. and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.""Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) - Read an Excerpt," Simon & Schuster November, 2006, accessed January 5, 2007. Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors."Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine, Los Angeles Times December 8, 2006, Op-Ed, accessed January 4, 2007.
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter's book, specifically lauding his courage for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a media environment which they believe to be hostile to opponents of Israel's policies.  Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid are controversial, however.  Critics of the book have accused him of "factual errors", "misstatements", "plagiarism", "anti-Israel" sentiments, and "anti-Semitism".</blockquote></blockquote>
=====Notes=====
:Well, his use of the word "apartheid" isn't merely "tutular", and I want to preserve the link to the article discussing this particular libel. The excessive quote marks are an insertion of editorial POV. Critics have accused him of factual errors, not "factual errors". This is similar to the excessive use of "alleged" (not in this article, that I recall -- but rampant on Wikipedia) to indicate that the statement, though clearly attributed, is so radioactive that the editor wishes to indicate his disagreement by using both lead gloves and tongs. Andyvphil 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the whole phrase: "Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid": that is not referring to Carter's use of the word in only the title ("titular"): please read more carefully. Please read the full main articles before you comment here.  Stop commenting on editors; comment on content (after you quote it correctly):  Read the talkheader as tagged above and see WP:NPA.  I have no point of view on this book.  I'm just editing the POVs of other editors out of the passages.  See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; abide by the guidelines.  They are not my guidelines; they are Wikipedia's editing policies.  As far as any kind of "libel" goes; it is prohibited in articles on living persons: WP:BLP.  Quotation marks and uses of words like "alleges" and "allegations" are entirely called for in these articles.   See Wikipedia:Libel.  Reverting which involves deleting libelous comments about living persons is permitted in Wikipedia: WP:BLP.  E.g., see bottom of this talk page; delete the libelous comments on the subject of this article.  Comment only on making improvements to the article. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrases in quotations marks are quotations from the sources cited in the article in the "Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" article; they need to be in quotation marks; they are charges (allegations) and not facts: "scare quotes" are appropriately used in the passage. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes "scare" quotes can give the impression that the quoter finds them dubious. What we really want is for the reader to have no idea what we think. So, language such as "critics have challenged the accuracy" can be more neutral than a quote, while being just as substantively accurate. Derex 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what's meant; but they are "dubious": they are charges not proven facts.  They are charges of critics; the charges are not something that a Wiki. encyclopedia article is engaged in proving; it just reports them, in quotation marks.  To leave out the quotations marks (they are words and phrases of the critics) is misleading and gives the charges the appearance of fact, which they are not.   To leave out the quotation marks presents the appearance of agreement/validation of claims, which NPOV prohibits.  Please re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in conjunction. --NYScholar 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are charges of critics. My point is that's what we should say, using normal writing style exactly as you just did. Critics have charged X. No scare quotes necessary. I'm not going to fight you on this, but the idea apparently coming from both sides that Wikipedia can't simply describe something neutrally in plain English, without quotes, is mistaken. Derex 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I couldn't describe the criticism of PPNA without quotes. I just didn't think my proposed sentence was improved by expunging the quote marks. But that opinion is one I was willing to sacrifice to get a pungent summary. And it has nothing to do with "scare quotes". No matter how many times we follow NYScholar's instructions to reread WP:NPOV we won't find anything that says leaving out the interior quotation marks in "Critics accuse Carter of 'factual errors'" claims (~"agrees"/"validates"~) anything other than that the critics have alleged factual error. Andyvphil 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid''

message: :Well, his use of the word "apartheid" isn't merely "tutular", and I want to preserve the link to the article discussing this particular libel. The excessive quote marks are an insertion of editorial POV. Critics have accused him of factual errors, not "factual errors". This is similar to the excessive use of "alleged" (not in this article, that I recall -- but rampant on Wikipedia) to indicate that the statement, though clearly attributed, is so radioactive that the editor wishes to indicate his disagreement by using both lead gloves and tongs. Andyvphil 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the whole phrase: "Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid": that is not referring to Carter's use of the word in only the title ("titular"): please read more carefully. Please read the full main articles before you comment here.  Stop commenting on editors; comment on content (after you quote it correctly):  Read the talkheader as tagged above and see WP:NPA.  I have no point of view on this book.  I'm just editing the POVs of other editors out of the passages.  See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; abide by the guidelines.  They are not my guidelines; they are Wikipedia's editing policies.  As far as any kind of "libel" goes; it is prohibited in articles on living persons: WP:BLP.  Quotation marks and uses of words like "alleges" and "allegations" are entirely called for in these articles.   See Wikipedia:Libel.  Reverting which involves deleting libelous comments about living persons is permitted in Wikipedia: WP:BLP.  E.g., see bottom of this talk page; delete the libelous comments on the subject of this article.  Comment only on making improvements to the article. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrases in quotations marks are quotations from the sources cited in the article in the "Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" article; they need to be in quotation marks; they are charges (allegations) and not facts: "scare quotes" are appropriately used in the passage. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes "scare" quotes can give the impression that the quoter finds them dubious. What we really want is for the reader to have no idea what we think. So, language such as "critics have challenged the accuracy" can be more neutral than a quote, while being just as substantively accurate. Derex 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what's meant; but they are "dubious": they are charges not proven facts.  They are charges of critics; the charges are not something that a Wiki. encyclopedia article is engaged in proving; it just reports them, in quotation marks.  To leave out the quotations marks (they are words and phrases of the critics) is misleading and gives the charges the appearance of fact, which they are not.   To leave out the quotation marks presents the appearance of agreement/validation of claims, which NPOV prohibits.  Please re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in conjunction. --NYScholar 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are charges of critics. My point is that's what we should say, using normal writing style exactly as you just did. Critics have charged X. No scare quotes necessary. I'm not going to fight you on this, but the idea apparently coming from both sides that Wikipedia can't simply describe something neutrally in plain English, without quotes, is mistaken. Derex 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I couldn't describe the criticism of PPNA without quotes. I just didn't think my proposed sentence was improved by expunging the quote marks. But that opinion is one I was willing to sacrifice to get a pungent summary. And it has nothing to do with "scare quotes". No matter how many times we follow NYScholar's instructions to reread WP:NPOV we won't find anything that says leaving out the interior quotation marks in "Critics accuse Carter of 'factual errors'" claims (~"agrees"/"validates"~) anything other than that the critics have alleged factual error. Andyvphil 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (summary), was published in December 2006. In this [controversial] book Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land"Excerpt: Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, ABC News. and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.""Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) - Read an Excerpt," Simon & Schuster November, 2006, accessed January 5, 2007. Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors."Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine, Los Angeles Times December 8, 2006, Op-Ed, accessed January 4, 2007.</blockquote></blockquote>
[I would add "controversial" as an adjective to describe the book: see bracketed word.  I am adding it to the passage in the article. --NYScholar 08:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid''

message: I've added the following to the end, because, as I say in editing history, it seems to end abruptly; I also added the word "controversial" as an adjective describing the book:
 The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it.  Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen. --NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments on above version

message: # See my earlier comments.  --NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro

message: [Giza D: Do you want to add your numbered sentence here? --NYScholar 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what the phrase "loaded wording" means? Carter spoke to an audience of Brandeis students and faculty, after declining the initial Brandeis invitation to debate Alan Dershowitz, author of The Case for Israel. But no, the fact that Carter chose not to debate someone at some college, but spoke alone instead, does not go into the main bio. Can you even remotely conceive how many times Carter has been lambasted for things far more notable than that? Here's a clue: thousands upon thousands of times. This isn't Britney Spears, this is a President of the United States. This is an encylopedia article about him, not a book, not a newspaper. There is a place for your information in Wikipedia. This main article is not that place. Derex 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: [In agreement with Derex.] I do not support this alternative at all for the reasons that I have already stated in the "Pro" subsection and my previous comments in this talk page.  I did try to edit the part on the Brandeis visit here, but it is all already discussed, documented with sources, and fully presented in a NPOV way in the main articles and in the article one sees when one clicks on the Wiki. link to Dershowitz's name.  There is no missing it.  It should not be brought up (again) in this article; it puts too much emphasis on it w/o giving any emphasis to the rest of the information already developed in both main articles on the book; if you want quotations, then please go to Wikiquote and read them; sources are cited there too; if you want discussion of the Brandeis visit or on Feb. 22's  Carter Center "conversation" between Carter and former Sec'y of State Madeleine Albright, then please go to the sources in the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.  All that material is linked and accessible to any reader of this article on Jimmy Carter.  There is no attempt to hide anything or deceive anyone.  But negative POVs cannot be raised in absence of positive POVs in this article on a BLP and there is not room for doing adequate justice (NPOV) to both kinds.  The main article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid does that.  Unlike this article, it is not tagged with a "neutrality" issues tag. --NYScholar 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Con 

message: When I did the initial edit it was mentioning a major news story.  It was demonstrating Carter does not want an open debate.  Deshowitz has written several books on the subject. How about this:
Carter refused to debate Israeli exprert Alan Dershowitz and Brandies acceded to his demands and barred any non Brandies student and proffessors from Carter's speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giza D (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what the phrase "loaded wording" means? Carter spoke to an audience of Brandeis students and faculty, after declining the initial Brandeis invitation to debate Alan Dershowitz, author of The Case for Israel. But no, the fact that Carter chose not to debate someone at some college, but spoke alone instead, does not go into the main bio. Can you even remotely conceive how many times Carter has been lambasted for things far more notable than that? Here's a clue: thousands upon thousands of times. This isn't Britney Spears, this is a President of the United States. This is an encylopedia article about him, not a book, not a newspaper. There is a place for your information in Wikipedia. This main article is not that place. Derex 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: [In agreement with Derex.] I do not support this alternative at all for the reasons that I have already stated in the "Pro" subsection and my previous comments in this talk page.  I did try to edit the part on the Brandeis visit here, but it is all already discussed, documented with sources, and fully presented in a NPOV way in the main articles and in the article one sees when one clicks on the Wiki. link to Dershowitz's name.  There is no missing it.  It should not be brought up (again) in this article; it puts too much emphasis on it w/o giving any emphasis to the rest of the information already developed in both main articles on the book; if you want quotations, then please go to Wikiquote and read them; sources are cited there too; if you want discussion of the Brandeis visit or on Feb. 22's  Carter Center "conversation" between Carter and former Sec'y of State Madeleine Albright, then please go to the sources in the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.  All that material is linked and accessible to any reader of this article on Jimmy Carter.  There is no attempt to hide anything or deceive anyone.  But negative POVs cannot be raised in absence of positive POVs in this article on a BLP and there is not room for doing adequate justice (NPOV) to both kinds.  The main article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid does that.  Unlike this article, it is not tagged with a "neutrality" issues tag. --NYScholar 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: [Do you (Andyvphil)have to repeat this? --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, what GizaD said was that Carter was an embarrassment to his country. Which is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that Carter was the Ramsey Clark of ex-Presidents. What makes that comment appropriate on a page devoted to improvement of the article is my further comment (and GizaD's correct opinion) that this view of Carter is both widely held ("not idiosyncratic") and underrepresented in the article. WP:NPOV says "all significant published points of view are to be presented" and one of those is that Carter is "Our Worst Ex-President".. Consigning harsh criticism of PPNA to a cross-reference is emblematic of the NPOV problem of this generally hagiograpic article. Andyvphil 10:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Giza D" now posting using both a user name and an anon IP address? He/she needs to post using one user name and to identify himself/herself clearly; he/she can only post once as a user (using one user name) in a poll/survey of consensus. --NYScholar 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got some poll numbers or something we can put in demonstrating that Carter is widely viewed as a failure as an ex-president? I just read the ex-president section carefully and didn't see much opinionating besides what a fantastic cook he is. Basically, if you devote your life to building housing & fair elections & eradicating horrifying diseases & you win the Nobel peace prize, you're going to sound pretty good with or without any wikipedia flattery. I read the Commentary article you linked, and basically it complains about his post-presidency diplomacy. Reading that section, I see _plenty_ of criticism mentioned. Where's the whitewash? Derex 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost 4am here, and I just looked in to see what happened while I was out dining and dancing, so I won't now be drawn on the article's faults. I confess, anyway, it's just an impression, and it was the post-prez dip section before I worked on it that caught my eye... Anyway, NYScholar probably thinks describing Carter as "devot{ing his) life to building housing & fair elections & eradicating horrifying diseases & (winning) the Nobel peace prize" is an NPOV summary. I think you know better. And I see literacy and pungency in the crit of PPNA is now reduced to "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book"... *sigh*. Makes it hard to AGF. I'll try, I'll try, really I'll try. But it's hard.  Andyvphil 12:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course it's not an NPOV summary, but it's not in the article that way either. The point is that he's notable for a lot of good things in his ex-presidency. Covering those things, which few people find controversial, is going to sound hagiographic. That's not because we wrote about all the praise he gets, we largely didn't.  The area where he's drawn flack is diplomacy/politics. I see criticism covered there. So, I in all seriousness don't understand the substance of your complaint. I'm not saying the writing can't be improved, but your assessment sounded more like a sweeping condemnation than something a few tweaks would fix. At any rate, I've got work in the morning (wrong side of the international date-line) and I'll let you all have at it without me for a few days. Derex 12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is in the article just that way. At least in one case. It's not what's said -- it what's left out. Just did a search on "Nobel" in the article and there's no mention of the political motive of the Norwegian Parliament in awarding Carter the Peace Prize. You have to do pretty decent physics to get the Nobel Prize in Physics. It gives unjustified prestige to the Peace Prize... see . And while we're on the subject of published viewpoints on Jimmy Carter slighted in the article, see . Andyvphil 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it's not presented that way. I made a cavalier remark intended emphasize a point with humor. The text rather soberly reports the facts. However, I'll grant you that it is true that we've omitted criticism of him for supporting destruction of an endangered species. We've also neglected to mention that he has the worst golf game of any recent ex-President; I can see why he's considered an embarassment at the job. Derex 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was Gerald Ford who was famous for beaning people with golf balls. But that may have been a Pinto Effect. As probably the best athlete ever to be President I wouldn't be surprised if he was also the best golfer. That disjunction between reality and media caricature is on point here. OK, I got that what you were saying was humor. And by channelling Saudi money into fighting the guinea worm and spending the occasional weekend pounding nails Carter sought and earned some credits. But, "[t]he text rather soberly reports the facts"? Carter's Nobel Prize makes the first sentence of his bio -- isn't it worth a mention somewhere that Norwegian politicians gave it to him at least partly as a way of criticizing G.W.Bush? If not here, where? Andyvphil 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unindenting response. I was actually alluding to the fact that Carter is best known for spending his time on humanitarian work, while other ex-President's are best known for other things, such as celebrity golf tournaments (whether fair or not). I think that has quite a lot to do with Carter's favorable post-Presidential perception. I have no problem with a brief mention of the Nobel Committee chair's comment that the context of Iraq was relevant. That's entirely different than saying it was undeserved or was criticized or political or whatever. In fact, right now the article doesn't even say why he was awarded the prize, so that should be expanded and your point would fit right in. It's a big deal, so the Nobel probably deserves 4 or 5 sentences rather than the current 2. This puts my position on the Dershowitz debate in perspective. Two days ago, his non-debate had more coverage than his Nobel prize. Clearly, I'm a wiki-junky, because I vowed not to do this anymore except on weekends.  Derex 07:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the weekend for me, but it's distracting me from other things... Will be interesting to see if NYScholar allows you to cast aspersions on Carter's Nobel, next weekend or ever. Andyvphil 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If neutrally stated, it's not necessarily an aspersion. Some take it as cheapening the award by a slap at Bush, others see it as holding Carter up as a shining example in times of poor statesmanship. Properly written, the reader isn't spoonfed one interpretation or the other.  Derex 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're the one taking me too literally, although I was being ironic, not humorous. Andyvphil 08:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall NPOV of Article

message: [Edited the heading: Wikipedia talk guidelines say not to put users' names in headings.]
Look, what I put on the discussion page was an example of a POV edit.  This as opposed to my edit on the article page.  I was hoping those who object to Carter being crticized would see the difference. Giza D 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand Giza D's comment at all.  What is it in relation to? Giza D. are you pro or con the current proposal (current version)--6.4 Palestine Peace Not Apartheid-- in the article? Please thread your comment in terms of what it responds to.  [Scroll up to first occurrences of "Pro" and "Con" where I asked before what exactly your position is.] --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Which version, Giza D? Please, scroll up, follow the format for registering consensus and move (copy and/or cut and paste) what you consider your relevant comments to an appropriate place in either "Pro" or "Con", or their "Comments" sections (in each survey of consensus). Thanks.  --NYScholar 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Giza D" now posting using both a user name and an anon IP address? He/she needs to post using one user name and to identify himself/herself clearly; he/she can only post once as a user (using one user name) in a poll/survey of consensus. --NYScholar 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I had no idea the anonymous poster was Giza D, until someone else said it was.  Posts need to be signed with four tildes: see talkheader. --NYScholar 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Given what Andyvphil is saying about Giza's POV, it should be clear to anyone that Giza D has not read the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; not only has Carter's attitude toward Dershowitz been documented in it, but so has Dershowitz's attitude toward Carter been documented in (1) that article; (2) the article Alan Dershowitz; (3) Dershowitz's over two hours devoted to rebutting Carter and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in his "rebuttal" opportunity afer Carter's 15 min.-speech and 45-min. Q&A at Brandeis University; (4) in multiple publications in editorials, blog posts, and other opinion-pieces that Dershowitz has written, published in newspapers, and on internet sites: all documented in the Wikipedia articles already.  Giza's so-called being "offended" appears to result from a lack of knowledge of the subject, which could be easily redressed if he/she (and others) would read these other Wikipedia articles and the many, many documented sources cited in them (incl. Wikiquote).  One or two users' own POVs have contexts, but their POVs are not the subject of this Wikipedia article.  The subject is Jimmy Carter and only notable, reliable, and verifiable sources are allowed in it.  Not Giza D's POV, not anyone else's if they are not notable, reliable, and verifiable sources.  Wikipedia editors are not sources, they are writers, and they must write the articles in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.  What Wikipedia editors believe about the subject is irrelevant.  What are relevant are facts, not opinion.  It is a fact that this book is "controversial"; the article on the book document the controversy and the issues which those involved in the controversy dispute.  The dispute is a fact; the claims made by the disputants are not fact; they are opinion.  Taking sides with one or another such claim (opinion) is not the job of a Wikipedia editor.  A Wikipedia editor must remain neutral, however hard it is to do that.  That is what he or she has to do.  Otherwise, his or her work is of no value to this project (making a neutral encyclopedia that is of use to people all over the world).  If one has trouble reading these articles online, use the print feature and print them out and read them on pages.  Online you can follow the links to the sources and read the material cited.  In print you can see the number and kinds of citations documented in relation to one another. --NYScholar 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions to a user's comment

message: *No further comments necessary.  Comments sections are already placed above.  Scroll up.  Just sign in with your user name and participate in this poll/survey.  Sign your sentence of support or opposition to the current version with four tildes (see talkheader and Wikipedia:Consensus for directions).  Thank you. --NYScholar 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Bart is using the alias "Extremely sexy": it's confusing.  Use one user name; don't start with one and then shift to another.  This is one user, not two users.  (Click on the signature to highlight full actual user name.  That is what I had to do due to the confusing use of the alias and someone's ref. to "Bart" above.)  Please, try to make this simple, not complicated; just follow Wikipedia guidelines.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already corrected this, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 01:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.  (Editing comments sometimes cross w/ one another; or people don't see what's posting and then get an "editing conflict" message while they're still simultaneously working on something.  These glitches occur in a lot of my editing on active article and talk pages.  Sorry.  It often takes me a long time to construct an edit.) --NYScholar 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my pleasure really and you are forgiven. Extremely sexy 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Directions

message: # See my previous comments already registered. --NYScholar 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro

message: # For clarity, I ported over the "current section" (above), not as nicely as it might have been done:
#:"...although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" is both ill-written and inadequate. Andyvphil 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Con

message: [See my comments above on current "possibility" that makes sense to me, given this editing dispute here.]
It was published in December 2006. In this controversial book Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land"Excerpt: Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, ABC News. and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.""Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) - Read an Excerpt," Simon & Schuster November, 2006, accessed January 5, 2007. Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors."Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine, Los Angeles Times December 8, 2006, Op-Ed, accessed January 4, 2007.  The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it.  Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
====Notes====
[The notes are part of the material that I added earlier; don't interrupt the previous section as I posted it originally. --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved for further discussion

message: [The notes are part of the material that I added earlier; don't interrupt the previous section as I posted it originally. --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I thought we came within deletion of a few "scare" quote marks of a version minimally acceptable to me, and maybe Bart and Giza could have been brought on board without Dershowitz as long as there was something in the section to challenge Carter's self-evaluation. But, anyway...
NYScholar wrote, at one point, ":Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not a 'POV fork'; it is a NPOV article discussing various points of view on the book in a neutral way ...  --NYScholar 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go, again, telling me a mishmash of things I know and things that aren't true. Yes, "the article on POV forking is talking about subjects of whole articles". And Jimmy Carter is, exactly, the subject of a whole (main) article. And you deleted the PPNA content in order to exile the criticism of PPNA "so that the main article can favor some viewpoints ((the uncritical ones)) over others". That's what creating a POV fork is. You've just created a POV fork. If you can find an exception in the guidelines to allow this, quote it, don't just assert it's there somewhere and ask me to find it. Andyvphil 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I agree with you once again. Extremely sexy 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. Neither non-book topic needs mentioning. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely has something to do with it. Extremely sexy 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez: huh? Extremely sexy 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of PPNA content as a POV fork 

message: [Use a number sign before your answer. I have edited signatures by users who use more than one name in commenting on this talk page to indicate that they are the same person. --NYScholar 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? I am in a quantum superposition. I reject your narrow yes/no dichotomy. I am curious as to the purpose of this poll. I thought talk pages were reserved for discussion on ways to improve articles. How will this poll accomplish that objective? Derex 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the question was supposed to: read "How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read EVERY WORD OF both articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and also read EVERY WORD OF the sources linked in them?"? I certainly haven't. A while back I tried reading the Crit article, and got as far as "Selected negative..." without finding any positve reaction that warranted further investigation. The priviledged position of positive reaction is a minor structural POV problem if the article is viewed as a true main article, but since it's really an appendix I won't suggest rotation or other remedy, at this time -- when referring to neg crit one can link directly to the subsection, after all. The PPNA artcle goes into Carter's thesis in greater detail, plus the Brandeis kerfuffle and other details, and I've dipped ito it on occasion, but I am frankly uninterested in Carter's expounding on a misbegotten and fully rebutted premise. I haven't read Carter's book, beyond the excerpt. So, I've scanned and dipped into both articles on a number of occasions, and am familiar with what seems to be a representative sample of the critical response. So my answer to your question (clarified) is "no" -- and what's your point? Andyvphil 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I deleted Derex's name again from the "Yes" sub-section; his putting it there is not an honest answer to the questions asked in this survey of which users have actually read the two main articles that they are commenting on.  If they haven't read them and the sources cited in them, then their "opinion" about the articles is not worth much (in my view) and I give their comments no weight at all. [Point is that other users' knowing who read these articles enables them to evaluate various comments in this talk page section about the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (the two inter-linked articles in Wikipedia: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.] (If one doesn't want to participate in the survey, then don't; but one should not add one's name at all in either subsection then.  Derex: stop mucking up the works here.)--NYScholar 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your attitude arrogant and unhelpful in the extreme. I see very little effort by you at reaching a consensus, and very much effort at trying to dictate to and denigrate others. I refuse to answer your question exactly because it's fairly obvious that it's your little litmus test. You don't know what I have and haven't read. If you want to play little games, there is statistically an extremely high probability that my scholarly credentials trump yours. So, I place very little weight if any on your comments .... Now does that attitude make you respect me more or less? Take a clue from your reaction and quit trying to boss people around and play little power games. (not really to the immediate ellipses antecedent). Derex 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in the process of discussing compromise with Derex, in case you didn't notice. I didn't have time to respond to him further last weekend, but this article isn't going away, and PPNA won't be left blank forever. If you have a more recent proposal for a text that adequately reflects the critical respose to PPNA than "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" (the last proposal from the deletionist duo that I can identify), let's see it. Andyvphil 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read both articles [[Palestine Peace Not Apartheid]] and [[Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid]] and also read the sources linked in them?

message: # I have read both of these articles and the sources linked in them. --NYScholar 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # I haven't read either of these articles and the sources linked in them. Bart Versieck 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? I am in a quantum superposition. I reject your narrow yes/no dichotomy. I am curious as to the purpose of this poll. I thought talk pages were reserved for discussion on ways to improve articles. How will this poll accomplish that objective? Derex 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the question was supposed to: read "How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read EVERY WORD OF both articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and also read EVERY WORD OF the sources linked in them?"? I certainly haven't. A while back I tried reading the Crit article, and got as far as "Selected negative..." without finding any positve reaction that warranted further investigation. The priviledged position of positive reaction is a minor structural POV problem if the article is viewed as a true main article, but since it's really an appendix I won't suggest rotation or other remedy, at this time -- when referring to neg crit one can link directly to the subsection, after all. The PPNA artcle goes into Carter's thesis in greater detail, plus the Brandeis kerfuffle and other details, and I've dipped ito it on occasion, but I am frankly uninterested in Carter's expounding on a misbegotten and fully rebutted premise. I haven't read Carter's book, beyond the excerpt. So, I've scanned and dipped into both articles on a number of occasions, and am familiar with what seems to be a representative sample of the critical response. So my answer to your question (clarified) is "no" -- and what's your point? Andyvphil 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I deleted Derex's name again from the "Yes" sub-section; his putting it there is not an honest answer to the questions asked in this survey of which users have actually read the two main articles that they are commenting on.  If they haven't read them and the sources cited in them, then their "opinion" about the articles is not worth much (in my view) and I give their comments no weight at all. [Point is that other users' knowing who read these articles enables them to evaluate various comments in this talk page section about the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (the two inter-linked articles in Wikipedia: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.] (If one doesn't want to participate in the survey, then don't; but one should not add one's name at all in either subsection then.  Derex: stop mucking up the works here.)--NYScholar 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your attitude arrogant and unhelpful in the extreme. I see very little effort by you at reaching a consensus, and very much effort at trying to dictate to and denigrate others. I refuse to answer your question exactly because it's fairly obvious that it's your little litmus test. You don't know what I have and haven't read. If you want to play little games, there is statistically an extremely high probability that my scholarly credentials trump yours. So, I place very little weight if any on your comments .... Now does that attitude make you respect me more or less? Take a clue from your reaction and quit trying to boss people around and play little power games. (not really to the immediate ellipses antecedent). Derex 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in the process of discussing compromise with Derex, in case you didn't notice. I didn't have time to respond to him further last weekend, but this article isn't going away, and PPNA won't be left blank forever. If you have a more recent proposal for a text that adequately reflects the critical respose to PPNA than "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" (the last proposal from the deletionist duo that I can identify), let's see it. Andyvphil 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Derex, please post appropriately: add a sentence saying what you are saying "No" you have not done; if you have read only one or only parts of both articles and not read all the sources provided in them, you cannot put your user name in the sub-section headed "Yes."  I think that you know that.  I deleted your name from the "Yes" sub-section because you also put it in the "No" sub-section.  There is no "either/or" choice re: the articles in my section heading; you have to have read both articles and all the sources cited in them to be able to post "Yes." Otherwise, your answer is "No." --NYScholar 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? I am in a quantum superposition. I reject your narrow yes/no dichotomy. I am curious as to the purpose of this poll. I thought talk pages were reserved for discussion on ways to improve articles. How will this poll accomplish that objective? Derex 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, the question was supposed to: read "How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read EVERY WORD OF both articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and also read EVERY WORD OF the sources linked in them?"? I certainly haven't. A while back I tried reading the Crit article, and got as far as "Selected negative..." without finding any positve reaction that warranted further investigation. The priviledged position of positive reaction is a minor structural POV problem if the article is viewed as a true main article, but since it's really an appendix I won't suggest rotation or other remedy, at this time -- when referring to neg crit one can link directly to the subsection, after all. The PPNA artcle goes into Carter's thesis in greater detail, plus the Brandeis kerfuffle and other details, and I've dipped ito it on occasion, but I am frankly uninterested in Carter's expounding on a misbegotten and fully rebutted premise. I haven't read Carter's book, beyond the excerpt. So, I've scanned and dipped into both articles on a number of occasions, and am familiar with what seems to be a representative sample of the critical response. So my answer to your question (clarified) is "no" -- and what's your point? Andyvphil 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I deleted Derex's name again from the "Yes" sub-section; his putting it there is not an honest answer to the questions asked in this survey of which users have actually read the two main articles that they are commenting on.  If they haven't read them and the sources cited in them, then their "opinion" about the articles is not worth much (in my view) and I give their comments no weight at all. [Point is that other users' knowing who read these articles enables them to evaluate various comments in this talk page section about the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (the two inter-linked articles in Wikipedia: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.] (If one doesn't want to participate in the survey, then don't; but one should not add one's name at all in either subsection then.  Derex: stop mucking up the works here.)--NYScholar 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your attitude arrogant and unhelpful in the extreme. I see very little effort by you at reaching a consensus, and very much effort at trying to dictate to and denigrate others. I refuse to answer your question exactly because it's fairly obvious that it's your little litmus test. You don't know what I have and haven't read. If you want to play little games, there is statistically an extremely high probability that my scholarly credentials trump yours. So, I place very little weight if any on your comments .... Now does that attitude make you respect me more or less? Take a clue from your reaction and quit trying to boss people around and play little power games. (not really to the immediate ellipses antecedent). Derex 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in the process of discussing compromise with Derex, in case you didn't notice. I didn't have time to respond to him further last weekend, but this article isn't going away, and PPNA won't be left blank forever. If you have a more recent proposal for a text that adequately reflects the critical respose to PPNA than "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" (the last proposal from the deletionist duo that I can identify), let's see it. Andyvphil 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem in way a user is posting above