Talk:Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

message: Please see Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version.  Thank you. --NYScholar 12:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article on the book should just speak about the book and any reviews that are not merely limited to condemning Carter. This article should be renamed from Commentary to Controversy as things like 14 people quitting is more than just commentary and words but political action.--Wowaconia 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to: Controversy on "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" 

message: I generally support the idea of moving some of the content out from the parent article in to one or more articles for readability purposes. I have a concern with this version because it lacks Carter's response, which is pretty relevant to this information. The proposed version would also leave a much longer response than description of criticism in the main article, which doesn't seem like a very logical layout to me. Just my two cents. If we included Carter's response here, I don't know if that would require renaming the article to something more appropriate. --YoYoDa1 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant content for this article

message: See Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Consensus reached?.  --NYScholar 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reached? 

message: I created a sample Wikiquote page (for purposes of illustration) in the event that the consensus reached is rather to have a short page or section re: "Critical reactions and commentaries on the book" in the longer article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and to add a Wikiquotes template tag to it.  Then there could just be a paragraph of introduction (as in the first paragraph of that section) w/ such a tagged template to Wikiquote.  The format of that Wikiquote page needs more work, but that is an illustration of its potential usefulness in resolving some of the arguments about the quotations alluded to in the talk pages of the main long (too-long?) article, where people complain of a so-called "quotefarm".   --NYScholar 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: --Shamir1 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the letter is already linked in the New York Times article cited (The Lede) in the main article and in the section dealing with the Carter Center's Board of Councilors. (See note 38 in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and note 36 in this article and note 34 in the Wikiquote.; see also the references section (cross-linked in this article).  Comparable articles incorporating links to the letter (and also from SPME) are already cited in the introduction and elsewhere in the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.  It refers to "over a dozen resignations"; if one says "fifteen" and more people resign, one continually has to revise the number.  "Over fourteen" would do but is awkward.  The earlier resignation (prior to the 14 more) was Stein's I think (first, then 14 more), and he has a considerable amount of space devoted to him in this article.  The fourteen resignations apparently followed his.  Maybe this could be clearer.  Someone else can work on it if deemed necessary.  I added brackets so your link posts as an external link now.  I, you, or someone else can look into seeing how else possibly to incorporate it if not already cited in the article, in proper prevailing citation format.  Please check the sources about these (additional fourteen) resignations already cited. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifteen resign 

message: Removed the photo of the critic w/ the caption quoting his criticism; not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; the privileging of that critic's criticism through linkage of his image and caption is POV editing; removal of this image was already discussed in archived talk page of main article from which this "Commentary" has been split off.  See the talk pages before adding content to this and related articles.  There are various tags on the article indicating the controversial nature of the subject and the reason for increased vigilance about neutrality and avoidance of POV editing throughout articles about this subject. --NYScholar 13:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of photo of one of Carter's critics

message: Paul Findley,   --64.230.121.192 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Findley's Op-Ed on Carter book 

message: Added in Lipstadts accusation of "soft-core denial" against Carter. Not sure why Lipstadt isnt listed as an academic/journalist critic already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSemtex (talk • contribs) 15:50, February 10, 2007 (UTC)
:She's an academic.  Quotations from Lipstadt (along with linked sources) are already in Wikiquote regarding both the book and commentary about the book: see Wikiquote: Negative...Academics.  This article includes "selected" negative comments, not every single negative comment: Please read the archived talk pages for this article and the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; consensus is to avoid a so-called "quotefarm".  This material does not need repetition in this article.  (See the replies to your unsigned comments already made in the article on the book.)  Lipstadt's article about Carter's book is also already listed in the references; her name is linked and the discussion is already in a section of the article on her.  See the tag re: WP:BLP as well.  "Accusation[s]" against a living person are libelous and putting them in an article on a living person for the sake of putting in such "accusation[s]" violates Wikipedia policy.  She is already listed both in Wikiquote (Please click on the link to it in the main articles) and in the references list and in the link to her own article (Please read it).  I do not think that this is notable enough to highlight further; it is already accessible in the article about her, with corrected citations.--NYScholar 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deborah Lipstadt

message: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 
(Personal attack removed) --NYScholar 13:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of personal attack

message: By 69.229.8.34.  Warning to this user.  You will be blocked if you persist in this behavior.  --NYScholar 08:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of obvious vandalism

message: NYScholar, why did you delete my quote of Shulamit Aloni arguing that Israel has "apartheid"?  It supports Yossi Beilin's acknowledgement that Israelis themselves use that kind of criticism. This is an important issue, because Americans were accusing Carter of anti-Semitism by using the word "apartheid". This shows that even notable Israelis like Aloni, a former Knesset member, use the word "apartheid" themselves to describe Israeli policies, just as Carter does. Nbauman 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just re-checked the paragraph.  Yes, note 9 is still there; it links to the title of her article, which makes her point clearly.  Anyone who wants details can read the cited source.  No more is needed. Note 9 is cited twice; in both places where the topic occurs. --NYScholar 12:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation you supplied went off topic in its own direction.  I linked her name; I added a brief sentence about who she was in note 9 before you wrote this comment.  Please read the whole note and click on all links there.  The subject is well covered via those links. If you want, follow the format already in Wikiquote and add her quotation and note citation there in a way that is parallel to rest of that format.  Anyone who clicks on Wikiquote will be able to read a quotation that she might be making directly about the book; but the quotation has to be directly about the book; what you supplied was generally about apartheid, not the book per se.  The title of her article concisely presents her perspective on the book; one realizes that she is answering a question posed about Carter's use of the word apartheid. It's clear enough, I think, as it is. --NYScholar 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shulamit Aloni's "aparatheid" quote

message: [moved from my personal talk page. --NYScholar 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching the Academy Awards and just saw this message before turning off my computer for the night.  I don't agree that there is any justification "to add the bulk of the op-ed to the article" (that would be POV pushing). Quotations from Ross's earlier interview etc. are already in the part of the main article (Commentary) on his views.  I have added a source reference that should suffice.  The source is an op-ed; I've added it as a source in the appropriate sec. of references in the main article on the book and as a note citation in the main article on commentary on the book.  It is now referred to.  Any more would be POV pushing.  You might choose a short quotation and add it to Wikiquote for the Commentary article following the format there.  The Wikiquote is a selection of representative positive and negative comments re: the book. [Note: To Shamir and others: I have moved this exchange to the talk page of the article.  Please place such comments in the talk pages of articles in the future and not on my personal talk page.  You can easily bring a source to the attention of everyone else reading the talk page.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dennis Ross

message: Moved here for discussion as to whether or not this personal blog post is citable given Wikipedia:Reliable sources in an article pertaining to a living person;: WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:
<<
Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, includes a short review in his personal blog, stating:And it's not just that he admired Hafez Assad, admired him more than any other poltical leader--Carter called him a "statesman"-- in the region. Or that he always had good words to say about Arafat. Or that he now has good words to say about Hamas. He almost never has a sympathetic or empathetic word to say about the Jewish state... But if anybody else is killed in the area it is the fault of the Israelis. Even the suicide bombers are the fault of the Israelis. And the arms smugglers. Plus the rocket wielders... It shows just how silly he is ... and malicious. And ignorant, since it also proves that he knows next to nothing about what apartheid was like in South Africa.Marty Peretz, "Carter's Legacy", The Spine (blog) of The New Republic November 28, 2006, accessed March 10, 2007.   
===Notes===
>>
It seems to me that the person cited (Peretz) is a "notable" source; but if he were writing a review that could appear in a peer-reviewed publication (his own--The New Republic)--why is it in a personal blog (posted on the website of the journal due to his being its editor in chief) and not a published bonafide book review?
One may want to restore this after further discussion and a convincing rationale for its inclusion.  The description of Carter as being personally "silly" and "malicious" and "ignorant", for example, are problematic, given WP:BLP.  They really seem to amount to a kind of name-calling and are not backed up by the kind of development needed in a published book review in a peer-reviewed journal. They are his personal views (POV).  Does his "notability" overcome the personal blog placement of the piece? --NYScholar 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Given the links to other blog posts in Peretz's commentary (it's not a book "review" at all), its inclusion appears to be a back-door way to including non-permissible blog posts in this article.  I think that perhaps it should be deleted entirely.  Quotations can appear in Wikiquote perhaps; but I really do not think it should be included in this article, given the policies in Wikipedia already linked re: reliable sources and BLP. --NYScholar 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peretz is notable and a reliable source for his own opinions. The fact that the editor-in-chief of The New Republic thinks PPNA is the work of a jackass is a fact that should not be suppressed. Andyvphil 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal blog post (Reliable source?)

message: >>
It seems to me that the person cited (Peretz) is a "notable" source; but if he were writing a review that could appear in a peer-reviewed publication (his own--The New Republic)--why is it in a personal blog (posted on the website of the journal due to his being its editor in chief) and not a published bonafide book review?
One may want to restore this after further discussion and a convincing rationale for its inclusion.  The description of Carter as being personally "silly" and "malicious" and "ignorant", for example, are problematic, given WP:BLP.  They really seem to amount to a kind of name-calling and are not backed up by the kind of development needed in a published book review in a peer-reviewed journal. They are his personal views (POV).  Does his "notability" overcome the personal blog placement of the piece? --NYScholar 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Given the links to other blog posts in Peretz's commentary (it's not a book "review" at all), its inclusion appears to be a back-door way to including non-permissible blog posts in this article.  I think that perhaps it should be deleted entirely.  Quotations can appear in Wikiquote perhaps; but I really do not think it should be included in this article, given the policies in Wikipedia already linked re: reliable sources and BLP. --NYScholar 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peretz is notable and a reliable source for his own opinions. The fact that the editor-in-chief of The New Republic thinks PPNA is the work of a jackass is a fact that should not be suppressed. Andyvphil 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Anyone in favor of listing Academics first in the "Selected positive/negative reactions" section because
                          :1. Naturally its alphabetical 
                          :2. Academics employ great depth and a high standard 
                              of objectivity
                          :3. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes.
                          :4. Academics are far less prone to sensationalize.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.91.107 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with this suggestion.  The current organization moves from book reviews by journalists (which generally appear first chronologically), to organizational viewpoints (which tend to appear simultaneously or next), to academics' reviews/comments, which tend to appear later.  Academics are no "less prone to sensationalize" than anyone else; that is a myth and an overgeneralization.  Many academics are also journalists and vice versa.  Wikipedia's standard is not "objectivity"; it is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Moreover, academics are not more "objective" than other human beings.  All writers have biases.  Including Wikipedia editors, who must try to overcome them and to achieve "neutral point of view." --NYScholar 06:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to NY Scholar-I'm not sure you are correct about your view that academics are just as likely to sensationalize as journalists. But to go further into this would be trivial, a waste of my time and yours. However, I don't hear from too many PHDs in journalism,AND, Academics are trained to support their arguments with raw, undigested data- EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.  I cringe at the proported evidence used to support some of the "Journalist" mudslinging I see all throughout this piece.   Journalists on the otherhand, are not always required to produce facts and evidence. To do so could possible jeopardize their job security. Take the IRAQ war for instance. Did any "Journalist"  question  the validity of the evidence used to support the war? Academics certainly did from the onset.  Journalists spin, spin, spin, and modern history, very very very recent history has proved that Journalists are very much inclined to skew the truth. 
But back to this article: The current format is simply an invitation to pile on journalist after journalist and only god knows what their credentials are. Look at the news readers on television that masquerade as journalists. The only Journalist I have seen recently is Peter Jennings and he is dead and so is journalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.91.247 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing article w/ Academics first, then  Journalists, and finally  Representatives of Orgs 

message: The author's sentence "[S]ome people still need to be told that Arab "freedoms" don't compare to those of Israel...." sums up all of those rhetorical questions and "facts" that you refer to.  It is not necessary or permissible to quote them in a POV manner; the full context that I give in the re-written passage illustrates how misleading your presentation is/was. --NYScholar 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: # "Jimmy Carter and Apartheid" By Joseph Lelyveld, The New York Review of Books, March 29, 2007  Generally favorable to Carter POV, feels he missed opportunity to make proper case for "A". Andyvphil 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable commentary, as yet unincorporated 

message: [Revised heading back to original heading posted by original user creating it, which a later user changed to serve his own POV interest. Consensus on this order (first positive, then negative, then Carter's response to criticism) is to keep it. See discussion below and editing summary in editing history. --NYScholar 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the section head to a question. I don't know that there is a "standard procedure" -- can you point to a guideline? I don't see why one order is more or less POV than the other. If position is an advantage, maybe you need to timeshare. My thinking is that this is primarily a sub-article to Jimmy Carter and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, both of which primarily concern themselves with Carter's own view of his book. So: point(there)-counterpoint(here)-rebuttal(here) is the appropriate debate order. Andyvphil 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the original heading.  The user had no business changing it to suit his own POV.  If he wants to ask a question, he can start another section to do so.  It violates Wikipedia talkpage guidelines and policies to change other people's headings in talk pages or their comments.  I've revised my own comments accordingly. --NYScholar 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And revised back to the question form -- this is a debate, and the title of the section should reflect that. Andyvphil 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Restored original user's heading.  Andyvphil is violating talkpage guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette.  If he wants to create his own section with his own heading below this section fine; but he cannot change the original section heading to say the opposite of what it did.  He is engaging in outrageous behavior and probably is heading for being banned. --NYScholar 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Either the order advantages one POV or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it's no more "fair play" to put the positive before the negative than vice versa. If it does, then your preferred structure has a NPOV problem. Anyway, I gave an entirely different argument than "fairness" for putting the negative response first. And my challenge to Organ123 to produce a guideline for his preferred order was not a request to be instructed. Nothing in your typically gaseous response meets that challenge. Andyvphil 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you delete the personal attack on another contributor ("typically gaseous"--disgusting comment); focus on content not on contributors. WP:NPA; Wikipedia:Etiquette: see the talkpage tag at top and other template tags.  Violation of talk page practice: do not change headings posted by original creator of a section; you are engaging in behavior that is coming close to Wikipedia:Vandalism of this article. The order of first a positive section and then a negative one and then Carter's response to criticism follows the order of the summary section; your changes are disrupting the coherence of the article and are clearly serving only your own POV interests. --NYScholar 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PPNA is a sub-article to JC. C on PPNA is a sectioning of PPNA for reasons of length and attention span, as mentioned in the relevant guidelines, e.g:. You two (I don't understand NYS' allegation that I've misunderstood Organ) do not constituta a consensus. Andyvphil 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not and never was a so-called "sub-article" to Jimmy Carter.  It is a separate article.  It is simply referred to in the other article; I should know, because I added the cross-references to both Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in the highly-contentious disputed neutrality article that this user is misleading people about.  The user has no consensus in the current or the past talk pages relating to this article (before and/or after splitting) and should not be making these changes.  The clearcut history of this article is that it is cross-linked with Palestine Peace Not Apartheid based on Wikipedia administration action following consensus that the larger article on the book be split with clearcut cross-references.  No one ever discussed the relationship to the article on Jimmy Carter in creating these two articles on the book.  The current organization has consensus as well.  The one user trying to destroy the organization of the content of this article is not a consensus and has no business making substantive changes that are contrary to the entire history of this article.  There are archives of talk pages relating to the discussion.  The summary was originally developed by another editor, and the rest of the article follows the development of the summary, as do the transitions and all the citations. --NYScholar 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive reactions should be listed first

message: :PPNA is inherently a sub-article to JC. C on PPNA is a sectioning of PPNA for reasons of length and attention span, as mentioned in the relevant guidelines, e.g:. PPNA consists almost exclusively of JC's own takes on his book, which should have been follwed by the critical reaction and rebuttal, preferably on a thematic basis. That order should have been unaffected by splitting into first and second pages. Some of the defects introduced by the weaknesses of the wiki process, and bad design choices early on (particularly the idiotic organization by by critic "type") are difficult to fix. The preferred functional order thesis(PPNA)-criticism(CPPNA)-rebuttal(CPPNA) can be achieved without much difficulty, and I intend to start the process. Andyvphil 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative reactions should be listed first

message: No neutral Wikipedia user/editor who has commented in this talk page or in Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid agrees with Andyvphil's POV-pushing claim that "Negative reactions should be listed first" in either Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid or Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.  No one agrees with his obviously-non-neutral POV expressed in his summaries in the editing history and on this talk page of this article, or in the talk page of Jimmy Carter (where he clearly has a vested POV), which is also a separate article from this one (see talk pages and archives of all three articles).
Wikipedia does not exist in a literary-critical vacuum.  (Book reviews and other commentaries on books are acts of literary criticism. Both fiction and non-fiction are kinds (genres) of literature; both genres are reviewed in publications like The New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The London Review of Books.)  Wikipedia does not invent conventions of how one comments on books and or invent conventions of how one writes book reviews; they preexist Wikipedia; Wikipedia guidelines and policies about comments on books written by living persons--see WP:BLP--and Wikipedia:Citations--draw upon already-established book review protocols and conventions.  It is customary (conventional) for secondary summaries of "criticism" (literary criticism) of books (including summary accounts of book reviews and other "commentaries" on books) to comment on the positive reactions to a book and then to comment on more "critical" or "negative" comments on a book.  Like the "presumption of innocence" in the American justice system, that is how neutral treatment of a book conventionally works.  The obvious POV evaluations (as with "idiotic" above) are clearly not within Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; for actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, see the tagged notices and the material linked there at the top of this page.  Andyvphil is clearly pushing his own negative POV on this subject (the commentary on a book), in relation to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; see also Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and its archived talk pages for concerns about achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the editing of these two related and cross-linked articles.  The tag re: "neutrality" on this article was removed weeks ago, after the POV kinds of editing that Andyvphil continually engages in about the commentary on this book were corrected.  He obviously intends to add his own POV to this article and is not intending to improve the article, and his statement of his intention clearly violates  Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (which begins: "Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view."); Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citations, all of which the current version of this article follows (prior and after his Wikipedia:Disruption of it). --NYScholar 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My above comment also serves as a basis for semi-protecting this article due to previous user's statement of "intention": see current tag on the article page.--NYScholar 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've requested full protection of this article. --NYScholar 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The request was declined because only one user involved.  Instead, administrator recommended that the disruptive user be warned about violations of Wikipedia:3RR and engaging in "edit warring."  Forewarned.  --NYScholar 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For more information about the clear-cut POV edits of the user causing these problems, see Talk:Jimmy Carter, where he is engaged in protracted editing conflicts about the section of that article pertaining to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and the linked archive talk pages relating to all three articles.  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to above user's statement of "intention" (which has no consensus)

message: For the full editing history of this article, one has to go to the current and archived talk pages in Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (see espec. the administrator's permanent saved discussion of the reasons for splitting the too-long article on the book into an article on the book and an article on the commentary on the book: Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid#Requested move. --NYScholar 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record: I have not been tacking on additional negative comments in that section.  All along, I have been trying to follow both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in this and other Wikipedia articles.  The archived talk pages and the editing history make my intentions clear.  Occasionally, when alerted to problems with this article, I try to correct them (typographical errors in sources, lack of sources, etc.)  (Otherwise, I have not been editing it recently.  I was out of the country in part of April and not using a computer then at all.)  To some others involved in editing this article: please try to recognize that your own personal biases may be interfering with adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and try to overcome them.  Thank you. --NYScholar 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Why is there so much? (5959 words actually)When I cut and pasted the negative commentary section into microsoft works, it took up nine pages.  The positive section amounts to 2656 words if i remember, ( 5 pages), and this is way too much. Each section should be about 2 pages or less. Lets be practical people. Common seriously, this is ludicrous.  Reading this article is seriously WORSE than reading the cardholders credit card agreement fine print booklet you receive when you get your statement. If you don't believe me try it. Read your credit card fine print agreement, and then read this article. Which is preferable? I think the credit card fine print is much more interesting. Anonymous69.108.67.7 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6000 words of negative commentary 

message: Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:
Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi on Palestine (from Gandhi wiki article) 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.examiner.com/a-444976~Carter_defends_his_book_s_criticism_of_Israeli_policy.html
*:Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
*http://www.examiner.com/a-459065~Carter_explains__apartheid__reference_in_letter_to_U_S__Jews.html
*:Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509190232/http://calitreview.com:80/Reviews/palestine_107.htm to http://www.calitreview.com/Reviews/palestine_107.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115040408/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/world/fisk/article2097774.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2097774.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427131107/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/20070301fabook86254/jimmy-carter/palestine-peace-not-apartheid.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301fabook86254/jimmy-carter/palestine-peace-not-apartheid.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112005348/http://www.tompaine.com:80/articles/2006/12/06/thank_you_jimmy_carter.php to http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/06/thank_you_jimmy_carter.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083127/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11729 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11729
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308101958/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/aloni01082007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227104210/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com:80/content.php?pg=9 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503030342/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=YmMxZDkyMjYxNjI2OTU2NWQzMzliMWJiZmZhYzg0NTI= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxZDkyMjYxNjI2OTU2NWQzMzliMWJiZmZhYzg0NTI=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430224416/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=ZjY4MTllMjY4OTA4OWViYTE5NGM3MGI3Nzg4ZGFkNmQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY4MTllMjY4OTA4OWViYTE5NGM3MGI3Nzg4ZGFkNmQ=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330114448/http://nrd.nationalreview.com:80/article/?q=YTkyYjg3NGFhMTYxMWIzNDEyOWUyMWJhZWZlNWM2NTA= to http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YTkyYjg3NGFhMTYxMWIzNDEyOWUyMWJhZWZlNWM2NTA=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127222947/http://www.forward.com:80/blogs/campaign-confidential/dean-and-pelosi-carters-wrong-on-israel/ to http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/dean-and-pelosi-carters-wrong-on-israel/
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881816806&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153824/http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100812.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100812.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202429/http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=85859 to http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=85859
*Added  tag to http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/6211.stm
*Added  tag to http://www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2006/12/12/News/Professor.Describes.Carter.inaccuracies-2532452.shtml?norewrite200701122132&sourcedomain=www.emorywheel.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113050556/http://imeu.net:80/news/article003566.shtml to http://imeu.net/news/article003566.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115060004/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/front/story/488087p-410903c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/488087p-410903c.html
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359797134&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://imeu.net/news/article003566.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.opinionsource.com/article.jsp?articleidentifier=16093&password=1167114105453
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11729
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112184427/http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12282006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein12282006.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxZDkyMjYxNjI2OTU2NWQzMzliMWJiZmZhYzg0NTI%3D
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjY4MTllMjY4OTA4OWViYTE5NGM3MGI3Nzg4ZGFkNmQ%3D
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YTkyYjg3NGFhMTYxMWIzNDEyOWUyMWJhZWZlNWM2NTA%3D
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/488087p-410903c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007055745/http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=6941 to http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=6941
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68d6QGNsl?url=http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/footer/osama-siblani.html to http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/footer/osama-siblani.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified