Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 2

message: Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.--G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in Progress... 

message: Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.
Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning [Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."
From Newsweek interview . 
Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) .
--70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter's response to map allegations + Finkelstein comment 

message: From :
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
--70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7talk 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The piece cited above is pretty tame. Check out this one: . Or this  response to a positive review of the book published in the AJC. --70.51.230.196 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why ADL's statement should be excluded. Actually, the term "slander" is far more appropriate for the title of the book in question (speaking of clichés). BTW, Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus sapiens - all criticism from notable sources should go in, just like all praise from notable sources should go in. We shouldn't pick and choose based on which pieces we feel are legitimate and which are smears. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On a lighter note  -- Kendrick7talk 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From my position, the more outrageous over-the-top criticism the better since it makes Carter's book more prominent and the resulting movie more engaging and demonstrative of how screwed-up debate is in this area. --70.48.70.188 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham H. Foxman / Anti-Defamation League criticism 

message: Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany." 
Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: . --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More pointed criticism

message: Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now. I'm sure whatever it says wikipedia can survive the next 24 hours with it. -- Kendrick7talk 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's already been removed. CJCurrie 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And now it's back again. I reiterate my request. CJCurrie 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know a lot about 3RR, but I don't think I can touch it now either. --YoYoDa1 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He's talking about all the labels that keep getting thrown in to the article, ie Jewish-American, left-wing activist, etc. Right now the only one in there is left-wing activist. --75.51.230.180 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what he's talking about, then he's right the labels are poisioning the well and inapproriate. But why not let him speak for himself. I'm familiar with him from other articles I've often seem him insert those kind of labels himself (I think his intention is to be helpful to the reader), so I'm not sure he woudl be so upset about that. Elizmr 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine. If you read the edits on the page history though, specifically around that time, then you will see what I am talking about. --75.51.230.180 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington Institute is mentioned as being pro-Israel in both the Israel lobby in the United States and the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy articles. Thus it isn't a stretch to label it as such, although such a label should include a proper citation I would think. --70.51.230.6 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is probably a much better way to say what he is trying to get across. --75.51.230.180 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Jewish" is being used too broadly in an attempt to implicitly discredit some critics. There are more appropriate, and less prejudicial, ways to describe the established views of some of these critics, such as Alan Dershowitz is "pro-Israel" having written a number of books defending Israel such as "The Case for Israel" and Dershowitz has also been criticized in the New York Review of Books for launching "unjustified" attacks on Human Rights Watch because they issued a report critical of Israel's actions. The NYRB article critical of Dershowitz, and in defense of current HRW head Kenneth Roth, who happens to be Jewish, was written by the founder of HRW, who also happens to be Jewish, thus further making clear using the identifier "Jewish" as a simplistic means to discredit critics is really not appropriate, and shows a lack of fidelity in one's thinking. --70.51.230.6 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you suggsting the alternate "pro-Israel" as a better way of Poisoning the well against Dershowitz? Elizmr 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dershowitz is a difficult case in that his work in defending Israel (such as his more recent effort to bring the Iranian President to the ICJ for promoting genocide because of his recent comments) are more significant and relevant to his involving in this situation than anything else. Please note that Rabbi Michael Lerner is still being described in the current version of the article as being a "left-wing activist." --70.51.230.6 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for you opinion and please see WP:NPA. My remarks were DIRECTLY responding to Ken7's comment: I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sappo12 

message: * Time for Canadian Arabs and Jews to work together, Globe and Mail.
* You'll get an earful if you oppose Israel, Toronto Sun.
* Saint James of Plains, American politician-martyr, Middle East Online.
* Telling it like it is, Guardian.
BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. --70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More commentary on the book 

message: From a Google News search...
* Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis, Associated Press
** "Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid' because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested. 'I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,"'Carter told The Boston Globe. 'There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.' The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said."
* Carter: careful no more, Seattle Times
* Quakers back Carter book, Jewish Telegraph Agency
* Jimmy Carter: Human scum, WorldNetDaily
** "These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs (read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer."
* 'How Many Bubbles in a Bar of Soap?' Jimmy Carter Fails the Literacy Test, New York Observer
** "This was part of the Times' continuing series to give space to (Jewish) defenders of Israel to denounce Carter as misinformed and dotty because he dared to write a book likening the Israeli occupation to apartheid. Two days before, WINEP's David Makovsky told the Times the book is filled with errors, and he's 'saddened by it.' Back when Jimmy Carter was young, they used to have literacy tests to keep black people from voting. The black person would go to the polls and have to take a literacy test in order to vote. The pollworkers would ask the black person questions like, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" When the black person couldn't answer, they couldn't vote. The Times is enforcing the literacy test on Israel/Palestine. Jimmy Carter failed. He made too many mistakes so he can't offer his opinion. Only experts can vote, usually centrist-right Jews who have no interest in or idea what's going on in the Occupied Territories."
* Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar, David Horowitz 
--70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one I just saw on the Jersualem Post site: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881904465&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . Note just because an article exists, we don't have to use it. I'm sure there are lots of newspapers in Palestine/Middle East which could also be cited. Also, a very substantial numbers of academics that support the views (of Carter) could also be cited. Then there could be some think tanks. The idea is to document notable and reliable information, not already contained in the article, that an average reader of Wikipedia might have an interest in reading to become informed. Just saying. --75.51.230.180 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More coverage 

message: Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie. 
I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7. 
*The article had a section on "response to criticism" but when I read the article carefully, I noted that there was much response also interwoven into the rest of the text. I removed this all to the exisiting section. 
*The "controversies" section was really criticism and this ambuigity interfered with the flow of the article. I moved Stein and Ross's comments to the criticism section and elimitiaed "controversies". 
*I tried to improve the headings in the criticism section to remove well poisioning stuff. 
*There was a suggestion that the democrats criciszed the book only for political motivations, which I'd argue is WP:OR.  The release of the book was after the midterm elections (I believe) but there was lot of publicity beforehand (and it was already mentioned on Wikipedia pages beforehand). If democrats responsded with criticism then, their criticism is still valid. Elizmr 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken, please don't revert all my edits, OK? I worked hard on this. Elizmr 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey -- sorry -- you probably should have hollered at my talk page; I just saw this section. Oops. Anyway, I largely approve of this reworking and I think everything's coming along OK. -- Kendrick7talk 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have deleted the added material which I thought made this worth it's own section. -- Kendrick7talk 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind; I see it made it back. But I'm not too picky how this is organized, eitherway. -- Kendrick7talk 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the article was written before, there was response to criticism worked in all over the place and also a separate section. I'm just worried about the article being a messy collection of "he said she said" exchanges that will be difficult for the reader to follow. Elizmr 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carter seems to have repeatedly reserved his most public critism of his critics speficially for Dershowitz though. -- Kendrick7talk 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've resectionalized things. -- Kendrick7talk 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I feel the top few sentences are now getting lost. I'll put yet another subject heading there so this doesn't happen. Elizmr 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critism and countercriticism

message: There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7talk 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, wait -- it was a duplicate; should be all set now. -- Kendrick7talk 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the refs formats etc. Elizmr 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned WaPo ref 

message: Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:
* Production company: Participant Productions
* Executive producers: Jeff Skoll and Diane Weyermann
* Director: Jonathan Demme (with help from Neda Armian)
* Production start: November 11 2006 (at Carter's home)
Here are the main stories:
* Demme helms docu on Carter for Participant, Hollywood Reporter
** Demme is quoted: The president's book tour occurs at a crossroads where the world of religion intersects with global politics. This picture is just an extraordinary honor for me. I loved Carter when he was president, and I've loved him more and more since he left office. He makes me feel so proud to be an American.
** Weyermann is quoted: Jimmy Carter embodies a determined sense of justice and a devout faith, grounded in tolerance and driven by a fierce desire for world peace. Jonathan Demme is a filmmaker of immense vision who will be able to marry the intimate portraiture of 'Heart of Gold' to the political savvy of 'The Agronomist' and advance his series of 'portrait docs' with a subject so worthy of further examination.
* JIMMY CARTER ALOFT, New Yorker
** Carter, who is eighty-two, was coming off a full day of interviews in New York (Rose, King, Gross) and embarking on another (Russert, Blitzer, Lehrer), but his zest for trumpeting his ideas and accomplishments seemed undiminished. He wore a checked jacket, gray flannels, and brown Kiltie loafers. Jonathan Demme, meanwhile, was shooting a documentary about him, to be called “He Comes in Peace.” Demme and his crew sat across the aisle, cameras rolling. They had even filmed him swimming that morning, in the pool at the Peninsula hotel. (“I do a variety of strokes,” Carter said, and it was a pleasure to hear him—an Annapolis man—use the term “Australian crawl.”)
* Demme on Carter trail, Variety
** The former president is using the national tour to generate discussion and to hear from people with varying views on the polarizing topic -- all of which will be captured on camera. Demme said he is taking an experimental approach so as to avoid turning out a pic dominated by talking heads.
--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably should just be it's own article, with a see also from here. I don't know if an article about a film that is only in production would survive an AfD, but if you want to put the effort into creating this article any way, feel free: He Comes in Peace. -- Kendrick7talk 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add: "He Comes in Peace" film

message: The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.
Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:
* With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
* Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date.
* The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. ... “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
* Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors.
* Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”
--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've readded the basic context. We need to provide context so someone reading this 100 years from now is aware that there was an election about to occur and that these comments were made prior to the book's publication. Future generations, and our own, can draw whatever conclusions they want; somehow I personally doubt, FWIW, that these people had nothing better to do in October than track down an advanced copy and read it cover to cover. -- Kendrick7talk 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No prob -- that hadn't occured to me. -- Kendrick7talk 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess I hadn't spelled it out well. Good comprimise. Elizmr 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add: Election-context of Democratic party criticism

message: This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.
In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank.http://www.nysun.com/article/44869 Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role,http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/07/news/carter.php though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization. Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235422,00.html Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalemhttp://www.arij.org/ and that the maps are publicly available.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/08/sitroom.02.html In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels.http://www.slate.com/id/2155277 Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States."http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/carter_11-28.html But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936711/ Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,1775669,print.story Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace. David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history.". The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations.Dennis Ross.The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (2003), p. 765 Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  here is extra material 

message: I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article structure 

message: * A letter to Jewish citizens of America, Jimmy Carter (this really should be mentioned in the article, widely reproduced )
** ADL Responds to Jimmy Carter's Open Letter
* Brandeis University/Alan Dershowitz debate flare up
** Carter book won't stir Brandeis debate (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 15/2006.
** Why won't Carter debate his book? (op-ed), Alan Dershowitz, Boston Globe, Dec 21/2006.
** Brandeis group pursues Carter visit (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 22/2006.
* In defense of Jimmy Carter
** Get Carter, Chris Hedges, The Nation.
** Memoir of a great friend, Tom Segev, Haaretz
** The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein
** Bookman: Anti-Semitism label confines open debate, Jay Bookman. (Syndicated here, here, ...).
Gave some structure. --64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More coverage 

message: I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:
On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.
The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/
This the relevant section:
:[CARTER]: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—
:SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda? 
:CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
:SHUSTER: Yes.
:CARTER: Yes.
:SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war? 
:CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
:SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.
:CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.
:SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
:CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.
Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.
On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post: 
This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later: 
:What's the point of mentioning where it was reprinted? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we cite StandWithUs as our source. CJCurrie 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked the question. They are not the original source, so why mention them? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." [14][15] Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel. [13]
My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:
#It isn't clear that Carter did compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda, except insofar as he responded to a specific question from an interviewer. Our first sentence, as such, seems to misrepresent Carter's approach to the situation.
#:But he did respond, and he said yes. He could have said no, he did not think it was worse than Rwanda, then or now. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dershowitz's blog may be used under V and RS, because he's a well-known professional commentator on the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a smear. We reproduce the transcript. Readers can judge for themselves, which is what you don't want them to do, it appears. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I tried ... CJCurrie 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The present controversy 

message: It's very simple. Why not let readers and other editors judge for themselves whether we've portrayed it accurately. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carter's use of the words "ancient times" to describe Kenneth Stein's involvement with the Carter Centre (1993) provides a bit of context to his use of "ancient history" regarding the Rwandan Genocide (1994). That said, I think that the section actually seems relatively balanced at the moment. Mostlyharmless 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is what they said, and what we say

message: Readers may note that the excerpt I've provided above is more complete. CJCurrie 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and cluttered with your own opinions, which is why I'd like to keep it simple — what we say, what Dershowitz said, and what Carter said. And then let people judge whether it's accurately portrayed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, readers should take up this challenge. I suspect I know what fair-minded readers will think of Dershowitz's piece, and our summarization of the same. CJCurrie 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers should note that I did not add the "Opinions" header to this section. SlimVirgin did, in order to keep her preferred section "clean". Given that she cut up my summary (despite two requests that she not do so), I can't help but consider this a bit ironic. CJCurrie 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you ask me not to? I saw no requests. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and here. Both of these sections were removed by your subsequent edit. CJCurrie 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept getting an edit conflict, because you kept going back to edit, and I'd already written out the questions so I just posted it. If you want to ask me something, you have to do it clearly on talk before I edit, rather than adding what looks like an instruction after I've already responded. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received several edit conflicts in this discussion too, Slim. The difference is that I don't complain about them, and I take new comments into account. CJCurrie 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is it my double standard, CJ, and not yours? YOU think that Chesler's copy editing errors in one book must be alluded to because one source mentioned them. But at the same time you think a former president's comparison of the Palestinian situation to RWANDA (!) should not be mentioned, even though a source has criticized him for it. Were it not for WP:NPA, I'd be tempted to use the word "hypocrisy." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standard?

message: The criticism and responses have been written up separately. They really need to be together, in part because it's fairer, but also because it's more interesting to read. The current article is very list-like, with virtually no narrative. I would like to try to rewrite it, but there's so much reverting, I hesitate in case it's a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a point concerning the article as a whole, but your recent edits have only made a bad situation worse. CJCurrie 07:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/responses

message: MH, you shouldn't change what Carter said. He said "ancient history," and it's arguably important to keep that in, in part because we shouldn't guess what he meant, and in part because it's disrespectful and shows a certain mentality: that one million people being murdered in a few weeks in 1994 is "ancient history." Remember that we're not here to attack, but also not to defend. We should simply report what was said. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carter's "ancient history" remark may have been insensitive, but it's also irrelevant to the point of discussion. CJCurrie 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness sake. The question about Rwanda was brought up by the interviewer. Carter agreed, while asking "now?" The interviewer asked about Rwanda's history, and whether he thought that the situation in Palestine was worse than that historical situation. Carter tried to talk about the present day. The interviewer tried to talk about Rwanda's history. Carter tried to talk about Palestine... The interviewer pushed the analogy onto Carter, who then tried to distance himself from it. The use of "ancient history" was Carter trying to distance himself from analogies with the Rwandan Genocide. Unsuprisingly this has been twisted by Dershowitz to mean the complete opposite. I'm agreed that we should simply report, but do we need to report so many words of Dershowitz? SlimVirgin, I normally hold your editing in high regard, but I think that you're totally out on a limb here Mostlyharmless 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's directly relevant, because it's the only timeframe he gave. It must stand as he said it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it mustn't (or needn't). The interviewer asked Carter to indicate if he was referring to events from a few years ago. His response was "no". We don't need to reference an ambiguous phrase when his purpose was explicitly clear. CJCurrie 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortuantely, I think his purpose his explicitly clear to you and maybe not explicitly clear to others. We can't assume though. Perhaps it would be better to put Carter's words in context with past Carter quotes about Rwanda and work that Carter's organasation has done on Rwanda, if any. This will of course add even more to the section, which will place even more importance on determining what is really notable and needs to be mentioned. --76.214.110.18 15:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mostlyharmless

message: Since you seem not to have read my comments, I should reiterate that I self-reverted the 01:00 edit a few hours later. My understanding is that this edit would not count toward the 3RR, accordingly. I could add in passing that your own decision to revert my "Totally Disputed" template seems at least equally questionable.
Nothing about Lance? CJCurrie 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have reverted after you were called on it. I'd have to look. All I know is that you were gaming the system, making a series of edits, reverts, edits, reverts, reverts of reverts, more reverts, in order to confuse. And then you report someone else for 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported him after I asked you twice if you would do so, and you declined. Forgive me if I wonder about a double standard being applied. And no, I did not revert because I was "called on it". CJCurrie 05:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CJCurrie responds

message: Did some work on this article; more is needed (see history). --NYScholar 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this why you added the cleanup tag? Well could you expand on these problems so we know exactly which tags to use? Plagiarism? What citation problems? ==Taxico 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were and may still be problems of plagiarism, missing quotation marks, missing and unclear citations to sources, improper use of ellipsis (wrong to use brackets; quotation marks and/or block quotations are needed for quotations from sources; brackets are not conventional use with ellipses; one uses brackets with ellipses only when a source already uses its own ellipses and one needs to differentiate among the different users of ellipses); all kinds of other problems that I have been noting in the history as I make corrections. Read the history. I think the clean-up tag is needed; someone removed it. Do not remove such tags. They signal that people need to come to the talk page to see what the problems are. No "he" has "fixed some of the plagiarism," by the way. I ("NYScholar") have "fixed" some of the plagiarism; there may be other plagiarism and faulty "quotations" remaining. They need close and careful checking against the sources being given in the citations. Missing citations need supplying; verification is a must in Wikipedia: see WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources. This article is on a current event relating to a living person (President Carter); the subject requires following WP:BLP.--NYScholar 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the problems you list above can be found in pretty much every single Wikipedia article. But in any case I'm not going to remove the tag anymore; you've given enough of an explanation. ==Taxico 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I know one problem is that there are lots of statements missing citations. I think he already fixed some of the plagiarism. --YoYoDa1 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most statements seem to have citations. The ones that do are marked with . If this is the only reason for the cleanup tag, then the tag needs to be removed. Otherwise I need a reason for having that tag, so we can replace with a clearer one. ==Taxico 04:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself added the "" tags today; previously they weren't in the article. More citations needed. You can't just make statements without providing reliable sources for them. This is supposed to be a factual presentation of information about the book; not POV. See policies in Wikipedia against leaving off citations etc. See the history. I have no more time to respond to what is obviously already noted in the history and the changes. I spent time to convert problematic notes. The punctuation is still problematic; there should be commas after the normal order of authors' names in notes. They are not bibliographical references in an alphabetized list. There is no reason that the last name comes first in numbered notes.--NYScholar 05:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism and Citation problems

message: I was going to take it down as I'm not sure why it is up anymore. If anyone has a reason to leave it there though, let me know.--YoYoDa1 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might agree with that. I'm trying to get everyone to list their grievances together. Then we can have a list of things to work on, and hopefully we can eventually remove the tag. --YoYoDa1 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, YoYo. My grievance is twofold: first, I would like published criticism of Carter to be included, fully and without censorship, no matter whether other editors agree with it or like the source, so long as the source is compatible with WP:V. And secondly, the article is poorly written and basically just a list of names and what they said. This is what these articles always end up like at the hands of the same editors. I would like to see both issues dealt with, but my priority is the first one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For my part, I'd like to see published criticism dealt with in a fair manner, and for editors involved in contentious debates to avoid loaded terms like "censorship". CJCurrie 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is in a nutshell. I would like to publish what critics have said. CJCurrie wants to it to be "dealt with in a fair manner"; that is, he wants to change it, paraphrase it, soften it. It is not what we are here to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, Slim, how does it benefit this article to have a picture of Sheik Zayed in the Dershowitz section? Are you seriously arguing that this was objective? CJCurrie 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: In one move, SlimVirgin has removed the provisional consensus on the Alan Dershowitz section and restored text that many editors have criticized. ()  From what I can tell, she did not consult with any other editors before making this change.
Do others believe this edit was appropriate? CJCurrie 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't keep criticism out of the article. This is very serious criticism, made by a serious commentator. So long as we write it as it was said, and not contorted as you would prefer, we'll be fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to keep on debating this endlessly with you. It's a form of disruption to expect people to respond to your every post, especially when you're posting in multiple venues. This book and its author have been heavily criticized, and that must be reflected and will be reflected, but it will be done accurately. Also, I merged the two versions, adding some of the quotes you had added, but I restored the material you deleted. I did not delete anything, unlike you. I don't do that, as a rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The criticism is indeed serious. We should summarise the facts simply - the version you reverted to did nothing of the sort. Mostlyharmless 09:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm speechless 

message: First come the claims, next the praise and only at that point the Critism. Thuis is not what NPOV policy says.
Withh all respect to Carter - his view is a fringe minority view and should eb treated as such. NPOV means that the other view should have equal standing in each paragraph and in the lead. The organization of this article (as well as the allegations article) need to change. Zeq 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inevitable shouting down continues. Rather than create an article where actual criticisms of the book are printed, ad hominem attacks (such as the ridiculous pic there at the moment - seriously, wtf?) are inserted at liberty. Mostlyharmless 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed- What does this have to do anything about the book? A criticism like that should go in the Carter article- certainly not about the book. I really don't see how anyone can justify including a picture of Sheik Zayed in an article about Palestine: Peace not Apartheid... --khello 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar problem as in "allegations" artice 

message: With this diff , the stuff about Rwanda and UAE prizes has been added again. This has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, it would have more relevance in the Jimmy Carter article. Please justify the inclusion of this material. Catchpole 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is criticism of Carter's authorship of this book made by a serious commentator with direct reference to the book. It therefore satisfies V and NOR, and according to NPOV, all majority and significant-minority views about this book must be included within reason. The Rwanda reference is about Carter's being interviewed about the book and the arguably offensive comparison he made during that interview, which, as the critic says, highlights the degree to which he focuses on Israel to the exclusive of all else. The UAE prize is mentioned by a critic of the book because, the critic argues, the Sheikh money/award shows Carter is not a neutral figure when it comes to the Middle East or Jewish issues. There really is no excuse possible for keeping these issues out of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have criticism of Carter put it in the Jimmy Carter article not here. This article is about the book, not the author. The book is about Palestine and Israel so obviously it's going to be focussed on that. Rwanda isn't even mentioned in the book. The UAE issue is so tangential to be laughable. Catchpole 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you really dislike the image, please remove it. I added it only because it was the only relevant freely licensed image I could find. But the criticism itself; it seems relevant to me, and it was made in relation to the book by a reliable source. As for discussion, I'm happy to talk to people; I'm just talked out with regard to CJC (no offense, but I really am, sorry). But I'll discuss with others. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the inclusion because it makes the latter responses to criticisms more meaningful when they point out that many of the attacks have been ad homimen rather than dealing with the book's content. It proves the point. --64.230.125.2 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Jasper23 said the Rwanda comment "has got legs under it". But the Sheik issue is completely unrelated to this article; whether it's a reliable source or commentator is irrelevent, methinks. --khello 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new picture and am okay with the current version. Jasper23 19:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tackle the ball, not the man

message: There is way, way too much in the way of commentary from other people, particularly Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is not even an expert on the subject, has EIGHT paragraphs in this article, plus sections in his own article on his comments on both Carter and on the book. The main effect of all this is to make the article cumbersome and ultimately unuseful. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess.

message: Why don't the editors who like Carter's ideas concentrate on finding positive things to say about this book (within V and NOR), and leave the criticism completely alone for, say, seven days. In the meantime, editors less keen on him should concentrate on the criticism (within V and NOR), and leave any praise alone for the same period. Both "sides" should concentrate on finding good praise and criticism, writing it up well and accurately, and sourcing it well. Then at the end of seven days, we can see what we have in place, and if disputes remain, we can ask uninvolved editors to take a look. How does that sound as a way forward? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to be a matter of liking Carter's ideas or being "less keen on him?" The main problem with this article is that it is far more about reaction to the book than about the book itself. I think it would be sufficient to say that many Democratic politicians distanced themselves from Carter's views as expressed in the book, and that several commentators have praised the book for bringing serious consideration to aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that many Americans are not well-informed of, while others have criticized the books for factual errors and for being inflammatory and overly hostile to Israel, and then maybe a comment on Dennis Ross' particular complaint. And then any details can go in footnotes. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very valid point- there are way too many quotes in this article. I reckon a good deal of summarizing would make it clearer and certainly more reader friendly. Certainly keep the criticism/praise/reply in there- I like the format- but definitaley with more concise sentences rather than long winded quotes --khello 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I made a few deletions. Let's see if they are put back. The article is more about the controversy that what the book is about. The controversy sectons should be reduced and not eveery quote under the sun be added. That is JUST WRONG.Luigibob 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, most books don't have a Wikipedia article about them at all. There is only an article if there is something notable about the book, and in this case, the main thing that is notable about it is the controversy it has created. There is nothing wrong with focusing on that in the article. 6SJ7 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sales are more important than the controversy, which is mainly the Jewish lobby, sorry Israel lobby in the United States, getting their knickers in a twist over any criticism of Israel. Catchpole 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be notable just for being a book by a former US President on a topic about which at one time he was a central player. Were it written by someone else, it probably would not ever have become controversial because no one would worry much about anyone paying it any mind. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Jimmy Carter picked a title that was purposely designed to put some people's knickers in a knot because it raised the profile of the book, its sales, and the visibility of his recommendations. --64.230.125.2 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To be fair, Jimmy Carter has explained (to Larry King on Larry King Live (which I watched, live) that he purposefully selected a "provocative" title because he wants to "provoke debate." That is the stated (and many times re-stated) primary purpose of his book. He seems to be consistent in saying that. One wants to sell one's books to as many people as possible to communicate one's pov on a subject (that is what authors do); it's not just to be visible for the sake of visibility (or sales, in terms of $); it's to get his point across to as many people as possible. Former presidents like Jimmy Carter (and Nobel Laureates) do not need to continue to write books unless they feel and believe very strongly in what they have to say. Carter is a statesman (statesperson), a non-official diplomat, a person of charity, a peace broker, an elections monitor, and an aging person who could easily rest rather than do all this work. He already has a secure reputation as a former president. It appears to me that people really do misunderstand that his purpose (whether or not one agrees with his analyses of the issues) is to secure a "permanent peace" in the Middle East. Given the contentiousness in just this article alone, one can see how difficult such a purpose is to attain; yet, that is what he is striving to do. One can debate the issues with him and criticize his points of view, but it seems very unfair to me to assume (as some might do) that he intends anything other than what he says that he intends to accomplish in the publication of this book and its ensuing publicity. He also has a certain dignity that he would be concerned about maintaining and, from his pov, it seems to me, engaging in debate with people who do not have an open mind about resolving the problems in the Middle East is something that he will eshew (with good reason and with sound judgment). He is not going to engage in a "free for all." People can debate the book among themselves; he never says that he is the one with whom people must debate the issues (as Dershowitz seems to be saying); he wants people around the world and particularly those involved directly in the peace process in the Middle East to debate these issues among themselves and with the citizens of the world (as we are, in many ways, all involved in the outcome of ongoing strife and conflict in the Middle East). Having spent Christmas Eve working on this article, I now sign off to have some peace in my own world. Have a nice Christmas and a happy New Year to all, and let us hope that soon peace (a "permanent peace") will prevail in the world. --NYScholar 04:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise and criticism: a suggestion

message: Everyone seems to be editing this particular section in the past couple of minutes! how about having the following:
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a New York Times Best Seller book written by Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, published by Simon and Schuster in 2006. While President, Carter initiated the talks between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin that led to a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In this book Carter argues 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
Since saying that it's a NYT best seller "since its publication" could be old news tomorrow, just simply saying that it is an NYT best seller should suffice methinks. what does everyone else think? --20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. --64.230.125.2 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved it up again. --YoYoDa1 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: now you beat me to it... :) --khello 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT best seller statement 

message: Whoever added that box into this article is "privileging" Dershowitz's criticism of the book. That is not following W:NPOV; it privileges one POV over others. It needs to be removed, in my view. The Rwanda ref. also, as someone says above, seems irrelevant to this article. --NYScholar 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest flaw with the quotation in the image caption is that it comes from a blog. Blogs are not valid sources. --64.230.125.2 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, that is not the "biggest flaw"; the biggest flaw (in my view) is to have it inserted at all. Blogs may be used as sources of the views of the writer of a blog when he or she is the subject and for other qualified uses; see the full discussion of blogs as sources in Wikipedia; it is revised from time to time.  See WP:Reliable sources and W:Verifiability and read the whole discussion re: blogs. Not all blogs are the same in reliability or lack of reliability. If one is citing someone's review or criticism of a book that is presented in his personal blog written in his/her actual name as author (as Dershowitz's sometimes are), it is a reliable source of his (e.g., Dershowitz's) or her views. But Dershowitz's views of Carter and his book are not the main subject of this article. They do not deserve privileging over anyone else's views of the book. He is simply one among many reviewers of and commentators on the book. His views do not deserve any more attention than anyone else's. To give them more attention is to "privilege" them (as I have already said more than once now).--NYScholar 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box with Dershowitz's picture, etc.

message: Right now, the article is disjointed. I think it needs to be structured in a way that a) outlines the main points of the book, and b) describes the controversy clearly, with references that exemplify the points of view of the controversy. --Leifern 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it already does (b) but that (a) needs dev. I developed that section earlier, but all the material of the "major points" of the book went "missing" somehow after someone changed "major" to "main" or some other way (I know not how); perhaps I forgot to save my edit; but what I had thought I had saved is gone. Someone else can restore the "major points" that Carter himself outlines; just the main points of chap. 17 cannot constitute a summary of the "major points" in the "contents" of the entire book. In working on this article over the past couple of days, it appears to me that contentious editors are involved in leaving much of the description of the book's "contents" out of this article for who knows what reasons. --NYScholar 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I restored the missing material and added the table of contents provided earlier in talk. That should take care of (a); (b) is clear to me. --NYScholar 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disorganized 

message: I leave it to others to Wikify links in the material added in the article recently, as doing that would be helpful to other readers. --NYScholar 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikifying links

message: The lead sentence of the Deshowitz section starts off with:
:"Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict — including The Case For Israel — points out that Carter's book has been condemned in reviews as "moronic" by Slate, "anti-historical" by The Washington Post, and "laughable" by the San Francisco Chronicle,"
It would be best for us to find the exact reviews of the book that he is referencing and include them rather than only resort to him quoting them possibly in a selective nature. --64.230.125.2 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding sources of Dershowitz references

message: I have concerns about this sentence as well:
Dershowitz writes that "[m]any of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by 'representatives of Jewish organizations' as Carter has claimed."
This is not a completely accurate reflection of Carter's original comments. Carter's actually wrote: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel".
Is it appropriate for us to reprint AD's selective half-quote, without having the full version nearby? CJCurrie 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a new organization for the article. I think that there should be one section for simple/straight forward reviews/responses, and another section for debates. This would go in the debate section where there is responses and back and forth. Let's do that. One debate can be about the title -- the word apartheid. The Stein allegations would be considered a debate since there is back and forth there. I would also consider the accusations of media bias by Carter and the counter accusations of anti-Semitism, and Carter's open letter response to be a second debate. This would make it easier to follow what is going on. --64.230.125.2 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another debate can be about the maps. Thus there would be 4 debates. --64.230.125.2 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Dershowitz problem