Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Update re: Stein

Please see the passage that someone originally added about a "lecture" that Stein was scheduled to give on Jan. 11, 2007, stating erroneous assumptions about the content. In the article, I've corrected that, adding sources to document the changes: See my editorial comments embedded in that section of the article (negative reactions from academics). Here is the passage on which I am basing some of those changes; other sources are cited in the Notes as well. There is an embedded note in this passage that needs to show up. I'll post a "Notes" heading for the section so that it will show up; feel free, however, to add comments afterward with the + feature etc.; if you do add something with Notes, you may want to post your own "Notes" section so that it can appear and so that people can read and verify your sources cited. Other than to suppress actual publication citations in the form of only ext. links in talk pages, there is no other way to post note information keyed to note numbers embedded in moved portions of text from the article:

Stein is adamant in his statement [to the newspaper cited] that neither the publication of the book nor his own actions with respect to the Carter Center have any bearing on his participation in the AIPAC event or on the content of the address he will give. Regarding the possibility that his resignation has become iconic of the current storm of Carter denunciation, Stein told the Advocate such an assessment is “up to other people to decide.”

Stein explained that the often-missed context is that he and Carter worked very closely together for 10 years and co-wrote “The Blood of Abraham.” Upon publication of “Peace Not Apartheid [sic],” Stein learned that many people were incorrectly assuming his involvement with the book.
“It reached a point where one close family friend said ‘Ken, you’re being tarnished by a book you didn’t write,’” Stein said. Therefore, his resignation was primarily personal, he said, with the objective of disassociating himself from the work.
“I did something because I thought the book was intellectually dishonest,” he said. “I thought there were falsehoods. I thought there were inventions, glaring omissions and materials that were taken from someone else without citation. That’s not good scholarship or the kind of writing you would expect from any smart person, let alone a former president of the United States of America.”

Stein said that he has given at least 30 talks to Jewish community organizations each year since 1983, to AIPAC as well as the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah chapters, men’s clubs and congregations, among other groups. “Likewise, I’ve done the same thing for civic [non-Jewish] organizations,” he said. “I’ve never given a different talk. I don’t trot out different speeches for different audiences. That would be intellectually dishonest.” Rachel L. Axelbank, "Stein to Speak at Local Shul: Professor Critical of Carter Book," The Jewish Advocate January 9, 2006, accessed January 12, 2007.

I added the update to Kenneth Stein. I am an audio/visual specialist and I happened to have been at the lecture operating the projector for the Powerpoint presentation he had created specifically for the event with specific outlined bulletpoints complete with comparisons between primary sources and Carter's claims in his book. Of course, there is no way to prove that I was there short of showing the invoice for the service I provided, but it is a 100% true undeniable fact that on 1/11/07, Kenneth Stein gave a lecture that criticized specific passages in Carter's book. The problem is not one of WP:NOR; it is WP:Verifiability. --GHcool 08:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this reply. I wondered if the person who had posted the Stein lecture info (re: the lecture that by then had already taken place on the 11th of Jan. 2007) was possibly in the audience. There should be some news account by now defining the contents of that lecture. Of course, from the vantage point of a reader, there was no evidence earlier given to support the statement that the lecture "provided a full outline of" the errors that Stein perceives in the book. See my editorial interpolation embedded in the article (or in the history version); I ask for updating of this information once a reliable verifiable source is located. Since you were there, perhaps you can find such a source in a local news account (LA). At this point there is both a NOR and a missing reliable verifiable source for any information provided about the contents of that lecture. But that is perhaps eventually easily resolved once an adequate source is cited and provided in a note citation.--NYScholar 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source that is citable to support the passage, though "full outline" etc. seems an overstatement still, based on this source: Rebecca Trounson, "Former Aide Criticizes Carter Over Mideast Book: In L.A., Kenneth Stein Says 'falsehoods' in Book on Mideast Prompted His Resignation," Los Angeles Times January 13, 2007, accessed January 13, 2007. Actually, we've already cited the gist of the subtitle in presentation of Stein (see quotation above in talk here from previous article cited); some details of the "lecture" are in this source just linked. --NYScholar 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Silent change (see editing history)

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

Cut way down

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

Table of Contents

[do not delete; prior discussion consensus was to leave it in and construct it in columns with Wikified links] <<

The table of contents of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

[List of Maps
Historical Chronology]

Chapters

1. Prospects for Peace
2. My First Visit to Israel, 1973
3. My Presidency, 1977-81
4. The Key Players
5. Other Neighbors
6. The Reagan Years, 1981-89
7. My Visits with Palestinians
8. The George H. W. Bush Years
9. The Oslo Agreement
10. The Palestinian Election, 1996
11. Bill Clinton's Peace Efforts
12. The George W. Bush Years
13. The Geneva Initiative
14. The Palestinian Election, 2005
15. The Palestinian and Israeli Elections, 2006
16. The Wall as a Prison
17. Summary

Appendices

linked to corresponding Wikipedia articles

1. U.N. Resolution 242, 1967
2. U.N. Resolution 338, 1973
3. Camp David Accords, 1978
4. Framework for Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, 1978
5. U.N. Resolution 465, 1980
6. Arab Peace Proposal, 2002
7. Israel's Response to the Roadmap, May 25, 2003

Further information: § Book excerpts

>> Do not delete material gratuitously from this article. That amounts to apparent vandalism as it is not apparently being done in good faith because it is apparently being done w/o any consideration whatsoever for 4 archives of prior discussion by Johnny-Come-Latelys. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette. Also see Wikipedia:NPA re: previous controversies. --NYScholar 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting the TOC amounts to original research or a copyright violation. Stick to sourced material, not materical synehtesized for this article. Tbeatty 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research to quote a passage from a sourced book. The book is sourced. Anyone can verify the information in the book. The source is the book. It is not copyright violation to quote a passage from a book for educational or scholarly purposes: That is within fair use; the passage quoted is altered as well by the addition of the links. If this is incorrect, provide documentation from Wikipedia to support your claims. I don't see this as any kind of "copyright violation"; discussion of a book and quotation of a passage (table of contents) from the book for the purposes of discussion is within the fair use doctrine of copyright law. The source (the book) is clearly credited for the quotation of its table of contents, and it is thus attributed to the source, as per any kind of normal scholarship. For the record: another editor provided that information from the book, not I.--NYScholar 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the book. Quoting the book in this context and creating links is original research. At best it's a primary source and frowned upon. Copying an entire page is a copyright violation and is also unencyclopedic. The article is too long as it is. --Tbeatty 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Who has written about the TOC to make it noteworthy to include here? --Tbeatty 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty: Abraham Foxman, in his commentary on the book (see his title: "Judging a Book by Its Cover and Its Contents") has indeed made an issue of its contents (thus making its "Table of Contents"/"Contents") pertinent to this article on the book, as his article is cited and quoted in the section on organizations: ADL.--NYScholar 09:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This "Table of Contents" is now provided by the Simon & Schuster website entry re: the book: it is a [reliable secondary] source, notable, and citable; here is the link to the "Table of Contents" featured on the publisher's own website: "Contents" for Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, by Jimmy Carter. When I have time (perhaps a bit later if not now), I will add the link to References and/or External links already in the article, for the benefit of other readers of this article. This is probably where the earlier editor who supplied this information got it in the first place; he or she or someone else Wikified most of the appendices; I Wikified the last one listed, as that one had not been linked by the earlier editor(s). --NYScholar 05:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, please be aware of existing precedents for describing the contents of the book accurately:

• How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
• Night_(book) -- look at how many citations are directly from pages in the book the article is about, feature article btw.
• Freakonomics

Hope that helps clear up what is acceptable. I do recommend that we shorten the article, clean up the book description as it is cumbersome and sort of preachy, and move towards a topical structure, but it is fair game to describe the contents of the article as clearly established by the feature article Night (book). --70.48.240.99 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Night is one of the most important works of literature in the last century. This book won't be remembered in 5 years. Posting a table of contents in a Wikipedia article is totally unacceptable. We are not book publishers here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a feature-length magazine article. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"This book won't be remembered in 5 years." Says who? I, for one, am convinced of the opposite. Lixy 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of relevant material from the article

[someone altered my original heading, which was actually about "alleged vandalism". It is my topic, it was my own heading, and no one has authority to change it to "accusations" and/or to put "Morton" in the heading; see guidelines for talk page headings: People should not post headings focusing on users; the headings are supposed to focus on editing issues and how to improve the articles. --NYScholar 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)] This article on a book is clearly being decimated by the above user, Morton_devonshire. He is not editing in "good faith": Here is the material that he has deleted without any discussion of doing so first on this talk page. All this material had been left in the article by previous consensus among several editors who worked very hard to produce it (see the 4 archived pages of talk).

The article is supposed to be about the book by Jimmy Carter, not solely about criticism of the book. There are no guidelines in Wikipedia that the following content violates; it is all sourced from reliable sources and the material is verified as being in those sources; it is the material that preceded the sections that now begin the article (absurdly); the user (Morton_devonshire) has re-focused the article from its subject (the book and reactions to the book) to an exclusive focus on criticism of the book. That is intellectually dishonest and even unethical.

Once again, he [M_d] has reverted my change; this time he posts (dishonestly) in the editing history: "there is no consensus for this material to be included." I doubt if he has read all four of the archived talk pages dealing with some of this material. To vary his emphasis: there is no consensus for his deleting it. His deletions leave no focus on the contents of the book in the discursive section of the article. The article is now a horrendous violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, given that the introductory section is not followed by development on the content of the book.--NYScholar 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

<< . . . . >> [Someone removed entirely the material deleted by user M_d from body of article and which I had originally restored in the talk page for purposes of discussion; I later added a link to the publisher's webpage giving the table of contents for the book in References sec. That is a permissible link in Wikipedia articles about books. --NYScholar 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

It's important that you allow others to edit articles. Domination of an article by an editor is prohibited under WP:OWN. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important that you not engage in apparent vandalism to articles and in ignoring the previous discussions of their content.--NYScholar 08:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please allow others to edit this article. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have let many other well-intended people who are editing in good faith to edit this article (see the history); you, however, are not doing that. See the other editors' editing summaries as well. --NYScholar 08:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you don't tolerate GabrielF's edits. Also, you don't get to "let" anyone edit here. Everyone gets to edit this article should they desire. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You both want to improve Wikipedia and this article. So why not list your reasoning for your edits and let everyone reach a decision together? --YoYoDa1 08:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The word "let" was a synonym for M_d's own devious word "allow": see his comment. He is continually turning this article into a free for all for veiled and not-so-veiled personal attacks. That is intolerable. As far as GabrielF's attempted edits go, they were not supported by other editors as well. Read the archive page 4. It's all there. I have not restored the material; another editor did. I have no communication outside of the talk page of this article and the talk pages of other articles with Wikipedians. I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia, nor do I engage in using so-called "sock puppets," as apparently M_d and some other users editing this article may do. What you see is what you get. No deception. No unfairness. Just up-front editing. Try honesty and openness. They work better than strategies of deception. If you don't like the book [and if you can't tolerate any focus on its content from Carter's point of view (which is the subject of the article)], work on some other article. [You are beating a dead horse. The book is what it is.]--NYScholar 08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [updated.]--08:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would cease with the baseless accusations. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 08:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. The policy applies to Wikipedia users and to the subjects of articles in WP:BLP. Avoiding slanderous and libelous remarks against the subjects of articles who are living persons is strict Wikipedia policy; Wikipedia:Etiquette governs behavior toward other users. Some who post in Wikipedia talk pages appear to need a refresher course in such etiquette and netiquette. --NYScholar 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a sockpuppet is not exactly civil. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not "call" you a "sockpuppet"; someone on your talk page alleges that you have (or use) a "sockpuppet" [I re-read the comment, and it appears that M_d contests that other user's allegation; I misread it earlier.] If you hadn't been "allowing" so much commentary about other users like me to appear on your own talk page, I would not have noticed that, but being directed to your talk page led me to read that there. [As per CSTAR, I have removed yet another reference to my name in your own most recent comment on your talk page; I think you just don't get the concept of Wikipedia:NPA somehow.] Anyone else can read your talk page for evidence of what you are not admitting here. It is not a question of civility or incivility to point out that some people (including apparently you [?]) use so-called "sockpuppets"; I do not. You tend to sign your posts on this page with various versions of a signature, making it appear that you are more than one user, when you are the same user. It is confusing. I refer to you as "Morton_devonshire" (or "M_d") because that is what I see first in the signature in editing mode (now); but that name does not show up in saved mode; "The Illuminated...." does. I never saw your signatures until Jan. 11 (2 days ago now); so I was not familiar with your name(s). I had to go to your talk page to figure out the relationships among the various names (and there are more than one provided there too). That is where I saw another user posting about "sockpuppets", which made me realize that it is possible that people are posting and editing this talk page and this article using more than one identity (anon. IP adds., various names, etc., when they may be one user). --NYScholar 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [updated and edited prior to seeing comment below this one. --NYScholar 05:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

Again, you accuse me of being a sockpuppet of someone else. I most assuredly am not. Please stop making these baseless accusations. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 17:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Why won't this Morton user discuss his edits to work towards concensus? If he doesn't, he is violating WP:OWN. Why won't he talk? F.F.McGurk 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You just said in your edit summary that you agree with the reduction in the summary. There's your consensus. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I said. I edited back in NYScholars. Thanks! I support his version at this time. F.F.McGurk 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

<<

Purpose, main argument, and major points

"The ultimate purpose"

“

The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort. (Italics added.)

”

Thesis: How to achieve "permanent peace in the Middle East"

Carter identifies "two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East":

[1] Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

[2] Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories."

To bring an end to what he calls "this continuing tragedy," in Chapter 17 ("Summary"), Carter calls for a revitalization of the peace process following these two "key requirements":

a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.

b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary. The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing [sic] from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories. This obligation was reconfirmed by Israel's leaders in agreements negotiated in 1978 at Camp David and in 1993 at Oslo, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize, and both of these commitments were officially ratified by the Israeli government. Also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. Palestinian leaders unequivocally accepted this proposal, but Israel has officially rejected its key provisions with unacceptable caveats and prerequisites.

"Some major points"

In his recent op-ed entitled "Reiterating the Keys to Peace," published in the Boston Globe on December 20, 2006, Jimmy Carter summarizes "[s]ome major points in the book":

• Multiple deaths of innocent civilians have occurred on both sides, and this violence and all terrorism must cease.
• For 39 years, Israel has occupied Palestinian land, and has confiscated and colonized hundreds of choice sites.
• Often excluded from their former homes, land, and places of worship, protesting Palestinians have been severely dominated and oppressed. There is forced segregation between Israeli settlers and Palestine's citizens, with a complex pass system required for Arabs to traverse Israel's multiple checkpoints.
• An enormous wall snakes through populated areas of what is left of the West Bank, constructed on wide swaths of bulldozed trees and property of Arab families, obviously designed to acquire more territory and to protect the Israeli colonies already built. (Hamas declared a unilateral cease-fire in August 2004 as its candidates sought local and then national offices, which they claim is the reason for reductions in casualties to Israeli citizens.)
• Combined with this wall, Israeli control of the Jordan River Valley will completely enclose Palestinians in their shrunken and divided territory. Gaza is surrounded by a similar barrier with only two openings, still controlled by Israel. The crowded citizens have no free access to the outside world by air, sea, or land.
• The Palestinian people are now being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed on them by Israel and the United States because 42 percent voted for Hamas candidates in this year's election. Teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen, and other employees cannot be paid, and the UN has reported food supplies in Gaza equivalent to those among the poorest families in sub-Sahara Africa, with half the families surviving on one meal a day.
• Mahmoud Abbas, first as prime minister and now as president of the Palestinian National Authority and leader of the PLO, has sought to negotiate with Israel for almost six years, without success. Hamas leaders support such negotiations, promising to accept the results if approved by a Palestinian referendum.
• UN Resolutions, the Camp David Accords of 1978, the Oslo Agreement of 1993, official US Policy, and the International Roadmap for Peace are all based on the premise that Israel withdraw from occupied territories. Also, Palestinians must accept the same commitment made by the 23 Arab nations in 2002: to recognize Israel's right to live in peace within its legal borders. These are the two keys to peace. (Bullets added.)

>>

A Geopolitical Atlas of Palestine question

I wanted to post in the talk page for comments before making any edits directly. The section under Carter's response to criticism of the book, starting with "We tried to contact ..." till the end of the paragraph does not appear to add anything factual to this issue. The claim by Dennis Ross about the maps is countered by the preceding statement. The "Geopolitical Atlas of Palestine" can be referenced directly after it to the reference [50]. --Jszzts 08:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose seems to be: It appears to be there to put a name to the 'public atlas' which Carter refers to. It also is signifying that his publisher is not accepting the charge of plagiarism.

I'm not really sure what you were suggesting to do to it, but that's what the point of the information there seems to be to me. --75.46.76.178 08:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sources linked in the citations in the context of what Ross is quoted as saying. Please read his full remarks (which are verbal, not written, interview remarks and in which he interrupts himself at one point). He also switches from alleging false or lack of attribution to then saying that maybe Carter's source (The Atlas that Carter names in the clip--read the transcript again--published in Jerusalem, whose web description is linked in the citation) got the maps from his (Ross's) book. Right now, the factual status of that claim is highly ambiguous and only an allegation. Even if Carter's primary source (the Atlas cited) did get its maps from Ross, whether or not it attributed the maps to Ross is also relevant. Carter did not do the research for this book himself; he relied on others, whom he says he checked and another or others checked. Whether or not he or they even noticed to what source the maps may have been attributed (or not attributed) in his/their source (the Atlas) is very hard to document and/or "prove". Even if there were some form of plagiarism (insufficient attribution to Ross et al.) of this kind, such mistakes or oversights (if that is what they were) are very difficult to establish with certainty. Ross seems quite far out on a limb [correction from "limp"!] (as his self-interruption and switching stance in the verbal interview transcript suggests--to me). --NYScholar 09:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Ross claims stays, Carters response with a link to the Atlas should stay. However the two sentences after about Brian Todd trying to call the Map company & Simon & Schauster standing by the book are not necessary, and in fact the first sentence casts a bias without adding anything factual. --Jszzts 09:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would find it reasonable to remove the whole paragraph. It's really not adding much at all to the book review - implication of Plagarism on maps & Carters response. --Jszzts 09:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The material that you are suggesting removing is actually the source of the information about the title of the Atlas and the name of the publisher in Jerusalem; it is Brian Todd who reveals that that is the title and how he learns it is pertinent; he learned it from Carter, and he tried to follow up by attempting to contact the company which publishes it and whose identity he apparently learned either from Carter or from subsequent research (facts) stimulated by Carter's giving him the title; those sentences contributed in the video by Brian Todd provide the only source of the information; and it is, he says, information that is not yet fully confirmed (that too is a fact: the fact that it is still not fully confirmed whether or not that company may have used Ross's maps as Ross alleges); so therefore I retained a link to the webpage of the Atlas publisher that some other editor originally contributed (more generally); I added the exact page describing the Atlas. Please read the relevant passages in the sourced transcript in context, so that you can perceive what I am referring to. Thank you. --NYScholar 09:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [further clarified --NYScholar 10:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)]

Critics' allegations (plural) of "anti-Semitism"

Someone recently deleted a quotation of the word, saying that only one person (Foxman) had applied it to Carter. That is incorrect; Foxman is being presented only as "representative" of many commentators who have applied it to him; Carter himself, as quoted in the article, says: "Instead, there has been a pattern of ad hominem statements, alleging that I am a liar, plagiarist, anti-Semite, racist, bigot, ignorant, etc." There is really no justification for removing the reference in a part of a sentence that says that "some" of his critics allege that he is "anti-Semitic": the observation of that allegation is factual; the allegation may not be true, but it is still an allegation that has been made by more than "one" person, as Carter himself acknowledges and defends himself against. One really has to be careful to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies and guidelines (and also WP:BLP). Distinctions between what is factually accurate and what is true are defined in such W pages. Wikipedia articles strive to present correct facts (verifiable statements about reality) not truths (matters of interpretation). --NYScholar 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added further source citations as documentation of the multiple people who have made this allegation (of "anti-Semitism") against Carter ; again, in citing them, not claiming truth of the allegations but rather establishing the fact that the allegation has been made by more than one ("some") notable representatives of major organizations reported by reliable sources which have been verified. --NYScholar 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative manner of reducing size of this article

[tag re: split added] Proposal: See Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. See embedded editorial interpolations re: purpose of creating that article and caution about work that will need to be done to coordinate new citations structure in that article with older version of it in this article. All of the notes show up all right in the split-off portion in the new article (Commentary . . .). Plus, there is more poss. of non-distracting sub-headings (which were put back in and then taken out of recent versions of this article due to concerns about avoiding appearance of POV).

Please see what you think about this alternative: the above and Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. I can't remember the template tag to put on this article indicating the consideration about breaking up, but it's on a lot of articles and either I or someone else can find it and tag this article w/ that template. [I've added the tag since posting this. (updated.)] This possibility has been discussed for a long time in archived talk pages 1-4; I suggest this alternative for a way of moving forward. People who have more interest in the commentaries than in the book may feel more comfortable working on that article ("Commentary . . ."), whereas people who are more interested in the book may feel more comfortable working on this article (without that portion in it). Right now, I haven't deleted (moved) the portion out of this article; I have only copied and pasted it and made typographical adjustments, so that people can see the alternative clearly. Please comment. Thank you. --NYScholar 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can split the criticism off to Criticisms of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. F.F.McGurk 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "Criticisms" is negative POV; need more neutral language; that is why I chose the word "Commentary"; it is neutral. --NYScholar 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree let's not delete stuff just because of size worries, let's make a sub-page about the controvery. I tire of people shrinking useful info to met size suggestions (they're not even guidelines anymore). Certainly talk of the contents and reviews about the contents should be on this page and the controversy and group responses and such should go on a sub-page. Remember WP:NOT#PAPER that talks about even if there were 100 sub-pages on poker that would be fine, a couple sub-pages on an ex-President of the USA trumps a lot of sub-pages on poker in my book any day.--Wowaconia 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Possible usefulness of splitting the whole (sub) main article on "Commentary...." into at least 2 separate (sub-sub) main articles on "Positive reactions" and "Negative reactions"?

Even the size of "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is currently over 50 kilobytes, turning up a length warning; how about two about 30 kilobytes each on "positive" and "negative" with the two "book reviews" listed thus far in the main article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version?

Then people are better able to meet the challenges of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view while working on "positive" and "negative" reactions articles; working within those challenges, most will perhaps be able to reach consensus on how best to structure these sections (new arts.) in the near future. --NYScholar 00:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a much better approach. Although the commentary as it stands now is pretty long but it primarily consists of people accusing Carter of anti-semtisim or factual errors with no elabroation. I think if we split it into separate articles and address both the support & criticism in detail point-by-point, it would be more helpful to the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.35.84 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I support this approach. F.F.McGurk 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, multiple articles is usually a bad idea. It may have temporary support but in the end, one article containing topically organized summarizes is probably the way to go. You can spend you time going in other ways, but ultimately it may end up being a waste of time. HTH. --70.48.240.99 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article goes beyond excess length, the real problem is that there is no text, just a series of badly-organized quotes, some of which are non-notable and many of which are redundant. I would rather we focus on ONE article, and rewrite it rather than simply pushing the quotes around. GabrielF 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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. We could still reorganise and prune the information as GabrielF wants. However, I have a concern with the proposed version because it leaves a much longer response from Carter than description of criticism, which doesn't seem like a very logical layout to me. The proposed commentary lacks Carter's response, which is pretty relevant to this information. Maybe we could also move Carter's response in to the proposed commentary and summarise it in the proposed draft? Just my two cents. --YoYoDa1 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we put people's full comments on the book into their own articles and only include more brief summaries in this article. In a way, this splits the content of the main article into many different articles -- just that most of the articles are into which we split the content are the articles of the commentators themselves. --70.48.240.99 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't support doing that. The comments belong appropriately in either this article as is or in Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid not in separate articles about the people making the comments. (There are exceptions, where extended controversies and arguments about the book and between commentators and the book's author President Carter are sections of articles on people like Alan Dershowitz; but he has had a long-standing controversial relationship with Carter.) (See also Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, which have had long-standing complaints about Carter's views about Israel and Jews that pre-date the publication of this book; Google Carter and Anti-Defamation League and one will find similar complaints dating back to 2003 and earlier; what is produced in this article do not duplicate that history, which can be presented in articles on them.)

Most of the other book reviewers and commentators on the book cited in this article have not had such an ongoing battle with Carter. Most of the comments quoted and/or summarized and cited in this article are relatively brief. If longer, as in the case of Stein, the passages are highly pertinent to this subject and belong in this article. It is appropriate to quote comments from published sources on an article about the "commentary on" the book. That is standard procedure for an article on a book. One cites book reviews and other published commentaries. Earlier editors added "criticisms" and "reactions" expanding the notion of book commentary/book reviews; "Commentary on" is a neutral catchall term to cover all such criticisms, commentaries, reactions. These "representative" "reactions to and commentaries on" the book belong in this article as long as they are presented in a manner that adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and as long as they adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and are properly cited WP:Cite. Reminder: WP:BLP --NYScholar 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NYT Magazine article on Abraham Foxman entitled "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?"

[Edited heading due to WP:BLP--NYScholar 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)]

Could be integrated into the article as it covers the subject at hand:

• Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?, New York Times, January 14 2006 [2007].

Also talks about Tony Judt and Israel lobby in the United States. Jimmy Carter (in the context of this book and Abe Foxman's accusations) is covered on the last two pages of this article.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:70.48.240.99 (talk • contribs) 70.48.240.99 18:09, 14 January 200[7] (UTC) [I corrected the date from "2006" to "2007" in the anon IP user's citation of the source; added the "unsigned" tag so the signature would show up right. --NYScholar 07:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]

Thanks for info. (Haven't yet gotten my Sunday NYT due to bad weather! Reading website version.) See additions incorporated in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. --NYScholar 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Traub's article contains the following passage, in which Foxman denies having called Jimmy Carter an "anti-Semite," even though he is quoted as having applied the word "anti-Semitism" to Carter in interview cited in this Wikipedia article. There are contradictions between what he Traub reports that he says in their interview and the newspaper interview cited in this Wikipedia article" by James D. Besser.

Here is the passage by Besser as cited in the Wikipedia article:

“I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “For a man of his stature and supposed savvy to hold forth that the issues of Israel and the Middle East have not been discussed and debated because Jews and Zionists have closed off means of discussion is just anti-Semitism.”

Foxman particularly objected to Carter’s claim in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that while issues of peace are hotly and freely debated in Israel, “for the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee [sic] and the absence of any significant contrary voices.”

That, Foxman argued, is anti-Semitism because it reinforces the anti-Semitic canard that “our power is so great that you can’t even talk about these issues.”

Here is the related passage by James Traub:

I [James Traub] asked, isn’t slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism at people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Judt and Mearsheimer and Walt really a way of choking off debate? No, it isn’t, Foxman said. This was at our lunch; Foxman got so exercised that he began to choke on his gratin. I asked if it was really right to call Carter, the president who negotiated the Camp David accords, an anti-Semite.

“I didn’t call him an anti-Semite.”

[Foxman is apparently referring only to the conversation which he is currently having with Traub in their interview for the NYT Mag. art.?--NYScholar 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)]

“But you said he was bigoted. Isn’t that the same thing?”

“No. ‘Bigoted’ is you have preconceived notions about things.”

The argument that the Israel lobby constricted debate was itself bigoted, he said.

“But several Jewish officials I’ve talked to say just that.”

“They’re wrong.”

“Are they bigoted?”

Foxman didn’t want to go there. He said that he had never heard any serious person make that claim.

Perhaps the question comes down to this: Are we courting more danger by suppressing speech or by speech itself?

Main article: Antisemitism around the world

--NYScholar 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Besser, Traub is apparently quoting some of Foxman's earlier comments in this NYT Mag. article [on page 32, col. 1]:

But what really makes Abe Foxman shray (cry) gevalt is the claim that an “Israel lobby” or a “Jewish lobby” — Aipac and the A.D.L. and a few others — has effectively gained control over U.S. policy toward the Middle East and suppressed voices calling for alternative policies. Foxman himself became entangled in this debate in October, when he was accused of intimidating the Polish consul general in New York into canceling a talk to be given by Tony Judt, a highly regarded professor of European history at New York University and a supporter of the “Israel lobby” view — which seemed to confirm Judt’s thesis.

Foxman says he is innocent of the charge, and his sense of outraged virtue makes him all the more incandescent. Abe Foxman isn’t doing the stifling — he’s the one being muzzled with the charge of stifling. But the stifling won’t work: Foxman says he will not be intimidated; people all across the Islamic world already believe every kind of pernicious fantasy about the Jews and about Israel. And now here come credentialed American — even Jewish! — scholars saying, as he put it, “The Jews control the media, control the government, control Congress.” The Jewish people, Foxman said gravely, “have paid a very, very significant price for that canard.” And yes, he’s willing to shray gevalt until he’s blue in the face.

So what’s the problem, the thing Abe Foxman is fighting or Foxman himself?

[The same quotation within the quotation appears in Besser's article which pre-dates Traub's article; although, as presented by Besser, at first it may have appeared that those comments came from an interview of Foxman by Besser, given how Traub also quotes and adapts them in his own NYT Mag. text, they could be from a third (published) source. [E.g., both of them could be quoting and adapting Foxman's own statements published in his book Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (2003); Traub's title echoes (plays upon) Foxman's in the phrase "Anti-Anti-Semite" paralleling "New Anti-Semitism?"]

Traub's article appears on pages 30-35 in print; I've added the relevant page and col. nos.; it is also accessible online (free for at least 7 days from Sunday Jan. 14, 2007, publication date); I've updated Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version with the page numbers too. This longer version of the article does not currently cite the page numbers. I have examined and verified this source both online and in print. [updated: since first writing this, I've added the page references to the article.] --NYScholar 10:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

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

Consensus reached?

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

Has consensus been reached on splitting this long (about [96] kilobytes) version of this article into two related parts: (1) Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and (2) Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?

If consensus has been reached, I will go ahead with moving/renaming "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version" to "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

At this point, reading the above replies to the proposal (and those in the related talk pages), it appears to me that consensus to make this change has been reached. If there is strong disagreement, please let me know.

Please see previous comments on the related talk pages. Reminder: It is, of course, still going to be possible to continue to try to make improvements to both articles ("Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" [as renamed from "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version"] and "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I hope that everyone understands that. --NYScholar 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [Updated the kilobtyes info. --NYScholar 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

Support

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

[2] I second. This is concensus. F.F.McGurk 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[3] You have a third.Jasper23 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[4] [See also Talk:Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (User:YoYaDa1) --NYScholar 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)]

Do not support

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

[2] I've been out of town for a few days so I apologize if my contribution to this discussion has dropped off. I agree with the ipuser that we should ideally aim for one really solid article rather than just punting the tricky parts to another page. GabrielF 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses

I don't see how having an "extra article for commentary is really artibrary and subjective" (User:70...). The reason for the splitting is consensus that the current article of over [96] kilobytes is too long and unwieldy. There is nothing "subjective" about having a separate article linked to the corresponding section of this currently long article as an attempt to shorten it. (It is a common Wikipedia alternative to long articles; it is often recommended to split sections of a long article into separate articles that can be cross-linked to it. There are such cross-links and cross-references throughout each related article.) [Updated.] --NYScholar 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Taken together, the content is basically the same as that of the "Commentary" article and this article; the form is different in that (due to its shorter length), there are additional subheadings for the paragraphs on the commentaries and there is more room in the "draft version" of this book article to list Carter's "Some major points". Those are the only differences really. [I myself was opposed to having subheadings in the current long article on the criticisms and commentaries (see earlier talk discussions). I developed the headings in Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid so that people working on these parts of the subject (the book itself and the "Commentary on...." it) can see what the two interlinked articles would look like when there are such sub-headings. Editors (perhaps like User: 70.... [who also posts here as User:64.... and possibly a user name [?]) can try to make the topical and structural improvements that they wish to work on making to the draft version and to the "Commentary...." I haven't seen such improvement work from these (one to three?) users yet. Newcomers and earlier users/editors: Please see archived talk pages (1-4) for proposed changes to the structure of the article and subtopics that pertain. From my reading of the archived pages and this talk page, it appears to me that no one has yet contributed any such improvements via topical re-organization that have been acceptable to the consensus of editors working on this article. My proposal is in this talk page and the talk pages of the two related articles. (See above.) If you are going to comment on your support or lack of support, please do so using only a single user identity/anon IP address. "One man/woman; one vote" so to speak. (I don't know if this constitutes a "vote"; it is an attempt to have people who are interested in and/or who have worked on this article to state his or her support or lack of support for this particular proposal. See "merge" and "split" tags on related articles and their talk pages for more information.) --NYScholar 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[Note: I removed the subheadings on Jan. 20, 2007. Updated--NYScholar 15:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

Re: "We should be summarizing the debates, with links to the full texts of peoples opinions. We should name all the notable people who commented, but the extra article for commentary is really arbitrary and subjective -- why are those particular snippets worthy of its own article. I strongly favor a single article with a topical organization that tries to summarize and combine the opinions expressed." (User:70...): Why don't you write such another "draft version" and post it for all of us to see? In archived talk pages 1-4, you and some others have proposed doing this, but none of you has actually done that work. Let's see the draft that results from your views of what "we should be" doing to "improve" this article/these articles. --NYScholar 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I strongly favor a single article with a topical organization that tries to summarize and combine the opinions expressed. To do otherwise will likely be a waste of time and effort." (User:70...): Why don't you create such an article by providing another "Commentary" on the book draft version so that we can all see how that alternative might read? If you want to improve upon "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," propose a complete draft version as an alternative (i.e., do the work), and we'll see whether or not most people think it improves the current version(s). If the consensus is that it is an improvement, and if people want it merged with the article that deals with the book ("Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version), then the two articles (hypothetically entitlted "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version[2]" and "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version") can be merged back into one article called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". (That is why there are both split and merge tags currently on the "Commentary" article). Let's see what you can produce. --NYScholar 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "why are those particular snippets worthy of its own article[?]": Every so-called "particular snippet" is already in this long article in one long section and its subsections. Each of those so-called "particular snippets" does not have "its own article": they are from a longer section of this article which has simply been split off to save space (no other reason other than to improve readability); there is no value judgment made ("worthy of"); splitting off is in keeping with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. It is simply a way of making the article less unwieldy than it currently is. Taken together, of course "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is "worthy" of "its own article": there is so much "notable" material in it that it has made this current very long article ("Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid") too long according to general consensus (including your [70... and 64...] own comments [archived talk pages 1-4]. --NYScholar 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I've observed a lot of articles in my time. Let's see how long it lasts, you have done a service to those wanting to follow every detail, but I question the value of such a detailed documentation of responses from the perspective of 2 years out. (Imagine someone in February 2009 reading this article, what aspects will they care most about?) It saddens me that I will not have sufficient time for editing until February at the earliest. If it is destined to be a single article, I will aid you and the other contributors then. Another development is this online petition but I haven't seen it reported as yet in a reliable source. --64.230.124.215 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"User:64.230.124.215": could you please clarify whether or not you are the same user as the user who posts as "User:70.51.232.12"? In reading your posts, I and other users need to know whether you are one user or two users and whether or not you are also posting your position on how to edit this article under other user names as well. Since we are trying to establish a sense of consensus on proposals relating to this article, we need to know whether your opinion is that of one person or more than one person. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have no formal account name and I've only expressed my opinion once in each of your straw polls. But one should note you have scared off other editors who disagrees with you for the time being such as User:GabrielF who also pushed in the same direction as myself. If you are looking for truly impartial editorial input, it may be best to request a formal peer review of the article --- many existing contributors are have likely been attracted to this article for partisan reasons which colors their suggestions. --64.230.121.117 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not "scared off" anyone. Everyone is free to express his or her opinion about the proposed split. I am not looking for "truly impartial editorial input" at this stage; I am checking on the consensus of those who have been working on this article (for whatever their reasons are). It is presumptuous of any one of us to assume any "partisan reasons . . . color . . . their suggestions" of any others of us. I myself have no "partisan reasons" for working on this article. Originally, I saw the POV and violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tag when I saw this article first, read the article, realized that it had vast problems of unreliability and lack of proper citations, and I started to try to improve it by attempting to fix those problems. Your assumption about GabrielF is disputed by his saying that he was out of town for a few days. There is nothing that has been done to this article that is not currently within consensus. It does not appear to me that he is an editor who is generally "scared off"; he just was not around to respond. One of the reasons that I am taking several days to find out what the consensus is with this article is because I am aware that people are not here every day. I am attempting to find consensus among the editors of this article. There will be plenty of time later for seeking other "editorial input," but I will remind you and everyone else that there is not such thing as editorial input in Wikipedia that is "truly impartial"; it appears to me that everyone who edits articles in Wikipedia has his or her own "partial" point of view. A key need is for people who edit to put aside their own partiality to one point of view or another and to present the points of view that are factually related to a subject in a neutral way following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is not particularly difficult to do if one tries to do that. I suggest that all editors attempt to meet this goal. This is an attempt to reach consensus, which currently runs in support of the proposed split, though we will allow this process of reaching consensus to continue for at least several more days (I think that is fair). --NYScholar 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not scared me off, but I completely agree with Morton's assertion that you are improperly taking ownership of this article. A number of your actions (accusing others of vandalism, threatening other users if they do not abide by your non-standard methods of formatting talk pages, telling others that they are not familiar enough with the material to comment) feel uncivil and unproductive to me and it certainly makes me feel like trying to improve this article is not worth the stress. I have been involved with a number of lengthy arguments on wikipedia (for example over various notability guidelines such as WP:BK) and I've found that there is no reason arguments cannot be civil and respectful. Here, however, I feel that the tone is entirely too hostile and completely antithetical to productive editing. I will take some responsibility for this, I think I came on too strong initially and I lost my temper and I apologize, but reading your responses to other editors I don't think there would have been any difference if I had been perfectly diplomatic. I think you would be well-advised to take a less confrontational tone. If other editors feel that it is impossible for them to contribute to this article, as the ip user is suggesting, they may very well initiate a request for comment or a request for arbitration against you. GabrielF 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --NYScholar 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that many others who read the entire archive of talk pages of this article and the editing history will see that I have gone far far out of my way to accommodate the comments that you and others have made by proposing and working on creating some viable alternatives (including Wikiquote draft, which you are of course free to work on improving) to enable constructive improvements (not deletions of pertinent information from) to this article. It is easy to complain continually, but I would suggest (as I have been doing continually in an entirely civil manner) that the consensus has not supported GabrielF's deletions. I have not "taken ownership" of this article. It is Morton_d and/or GabrielF who another editor referred to WP:OWN earlier. Scroll up. I have not accused him or GabrielF of "taking ownership" of this article, another editor did that. They accuse me of "taking ownership" of this article. That is not true. I have worked very hard to improve it, including the provision of citations throughout it. He doesn't agree with my attempted improvements. So let him contribute work to creating an alternative draft version then for others to consider and to come to some consensus on (that is, on constructive rather than destructive input). So far the consensus is not with GabrielF--or Morton_d (who said he had taken this article off his watchlist)--who is among those complaining that this article is too long, but who has introduced POV and violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in his repeated wholesale deletions of pertinent material from it. I have been as "diplomatic" and as non-"confrontational" as one can be (although I have strenuously objected to other people's engaging in violating Wikipedia:NPA, which, once again, GabrielF is doing by focusing on the contributor instead of on the content. See Wikipedia:NPA. Please get back to the comments on the form and content of the article and not on contributors. Thank you. See the links to guidelines for talk pages at top of page. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has accused me of taking ownership of this article. The quote you are referring to is: "Why won't this Morton user discuss his edits to work towards concensus? If he doesn't, he is violating WP:OWN. Why won't he talk? F.F.McGurk 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)". GabrielF 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole exchange (scroll up) [sorry: our edits seem to have crossed; I had added "Morton_d and/or GabrielF" above; please avoid such personal attacks; please "focus on the content not on the contributor":

<<

Why won't this Morton user discuss his edits to work towards concensus? If he doesn't, he is violating WP:OWN. Why won't he talk? F.F.McGurk 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You just said in your edit summary that you agree with the reduction in the summary. There's your consensus. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I said. I edited back in NYScholars. Thanks! I support his version at this time. F.F.McGurk 19:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

>> --NYScholar 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:the petition that you [64.230.124.215] cite: A major publisher has informed me that it cannot even succeed in removing unfair and dishonest reviews from Amazon.com listings of books that it publishes when Amazon.com must get permission from the copyright owner (in that case the publisher) to post excerpts from their books (such as tables of contents and sample pages, indices). Amazon.com frequently cross-links to "citations" (mentions, allusions, reviews) relating to books that are of dubious reliability and notability. Some of those links may be generated automatically by its web programmers. I can see the same sorts of complaints legitimately directed at many, many articles accessible on Wikipedia. There is no professional-quality peer-review system, which is the frequent complaint of academic scholars in fields of subjects covered by Wikipedia. See recent extensive article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I'll link it when I have time. One reason that I have spent so much time in the past several months attempting to verify and edit responsibly on selected subjects is because of this general problem in Wikipedia, particularly in non-science subjects (Arts and Humanities; Political Science; other Social Sciences, e.g.). --NYScholar 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link: "Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Now a Critic, Starts Spinoff With Academic Editors," by Brock Read; subscription-based log in and password required; go to chronicle.com and search "Wikipedia" to turn up the various related articles published there. The one that I linked is one that I recall reading recently in my print copy of the CHE and one that I just accessed via my online subscription. --NYScholar 09:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Citizendium project website (as cited in the CHR article just linked): Citizendium at which one can follow the links to related editing principles and so on for further information. Reading those principles may help people who are having trouble understanding how Wikipedia:Neutral point of view differs from so-called "objectivity". --NYScholar 09:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on how to make this long article "one solid article" (GabrielF) other than the way it already is. I and most others (see talk above) think that it already is "one solid article" but that it is too long a "solid article." I still suggest working on two separate articles and making a "solid article" of each of them, so that the weaknesses and strengths of each one can be seen clearly by those working on either the sectioned-off article about the book or the sectioned-off article about the "Commentary" on the book, before possibly re-combining (merging) them into "one solid article." The "split" of this unwieldy article in two parts is to enable people who are able and interested enough to do so to provide actual improvements to the article. So far the editors who are opposed to this split have not made improvements that are within the consensus of rest of those weighing in on this. So far the split has more support It is about four [counting me] to two. But I am awaiting further responses since that is not much of a consensus. Let's give this discussion at least several more days. In the meantime, those who are planning to work on "one solid article" can propose another "draft version" of it (draft version 2). As their changes to this article have been generally not accepted, they should work on their draft as a proposed draft, I think, as I have done. Of course, there is no established "rule" saying that they must do that, but it would be a courtesy to others who have stated opposition to the kinds of deletions in which they have been engaged on this and related talk pages (see archived talk pages). So far there has been no topical revision composed. No one knows what it would say. I have my doubts about whether it would work. I supplied the sentences in the introductory section on "Critical reactions and commentaries on the book" summarizing topics in response to one of GabrielF's requests. Topics are already thus in that section. If one wants to develop the article via topics, try elaborating on the parts of those sentences. But please do so in a separate draft version and leave this long article's structure as is (for the meantime). Thanks. --NYScholar 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article is not going to be split into two parts, then I am satisfied with the structure (form) and the content of this article as it currently is. My supplying an alternative is for those complaining of the length. --NYScholar 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, once again, is the current structure (table of contents), which seems to me entirely reasonable: <<
Contents
1 Purpose, main argument, and major points
1.1 "The ultimate purpose"
1.2 Thesis: How to achieve "permanent peace in the Middle East"
1.3 "Some major points"
2 Critical reaction and commentary
2.1 Book reviews by journalists
2.2 Selected positive reactions to the book
2.2.1 Journalists and other representative media commentators
2.2.2 Academics
2.3 Selected negative reactions to the book
2.3.1 Representatives of organizations
2.3.2 Academics
3 Carter's response to criticism of the book
3.1 "A Letter to Jewish Citizens of America"....
3.2 "Reiterating the Keys to Peace" in the Middle East
4 Public and other programs pertaining to the book
5 Notes
6 References
6.1 Book excerpts
6.2 Book summary
6.3 Book reviews
6.4 Related opinion-editorials and interviews by Jimmy Carter
6.5 News accounts by others
6.6 Further reading
7 See also
>>
What changes in this current article structure (which seems "solid" to me) do the opponents to the split propose that haven't already been discussed in these talk pages (see archived talk pages and the article's editing history) and ultimately rejected? --NYScholar 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The current long article (with the mostly the same content as Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version (42 kilobytes) and Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) (57 kilobytes) is 90 kilobytes. The other two shorter articles are split-off versions of this one, cross-linked to each other so that the content can be read by all users. The form is only slightly different in that there are subheadings and cross-references in the split-off articles so that they can interrelate. If the subheadings were not in "Commentary," the article would be the same as the section on "Critical reaction and commentaries on the book" in this long article. I am opposed to having such subheadings in this long article because it makes the "Contents" far too long and unwieldy and because such subheadings are not parallel to other sections of this article and interject (the appearance of) POV. In the split-off "Commentary...." the addition of subheadings do not create any appearance of POV (in my view).

Previously, I suggested a "Wikiquote" page for quotations, if that would resolve the problem for those who do not like having quotations. But the complainers about this article being a so-called "quotefarm" did not construct such an alternative. (See talk archive 4). It would not be difficult to construct a "Wikiquote" page for quotations from the material already structured in subsections of "Commentary" and to paste a "Wikiquote" tag in an appropriate place in this article or in the "Commentary" article for reference to such quotations, with the summary material remaining. But someone else will have to do that work. I have already contributed a great deal of time and energy, and it's time for other people to step up to the challenge of making this article "one solid article" or two related "solid articles" if the consensus is that they are not already such "solid articles." I believe that both this article and those two articles are already "solid articles." --NYScholar 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I constructed a sample page for purposes of illustration and editing. Go to the main page of Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to access it. I'm putting the template tag to "Wikiquote" there (by way of illustration).

--NYScholar 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that people having problems with there being (in their view, not mine) too many quotations in this article should be able to contribute some hard work to developing a compromise that incorporates Wikiquote in the place of a so-called "quotefarm" (in their view); let's see what they can come up with that does not suppress the notable "commentary" that has already been legitimately provided in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I have now added the Wikiquote template tag to the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. I think that this version (by itself with the Wikiquote added now) resolves the complaints of those against this article's being a so-called "quotefarm" and its being too long. The draft version is shorter, yet its Wikiquote provides access to the quotations. If this version is considered "a solid article" by consensus, then I think it suffices.

In my view, if the current version of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid were to stay basically the same as it is now and one did not need the "draft version" proposed as an alternative to link to "Commentary....", then one would not need the article Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, unless one wishes to retain all those additional subheadings in it (in its current version). As I've said before, I do not agree with having such subheadings in the "Critical reactions and commentaries..." section of this long (over 90 kilobytes) article, as they appear to me to veer too much toward POV and away from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and as they would show up in the "Contents." The Wikiquote (which does need reformatting, however; see its talk page) does not seem to have that problem, as it also refers and links to Wikipedia articles on and relating to the book (currently). --NYScholar 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just learned that this Wikiquote is now a "candidate for deletion"; please check the page and add comments in you have any. In response to complaints about the passages on the reactions and commentaries re: the book being a so-called "quotefarm," I constructed a Wikiquote as an illustration for a possible alternative way of collecting quotations about the book. It appears that those who support deleting it would like Wikiquote relating to this book to be quotations from the book not just quotations about the book. If anyone is interested in constructing a Wikiquote devoted to quotations from the book, you need to do so as soon as possible so that this "Commentary" Wikiquote might have a Wikiquote link to that and then be more useful for Wikipedia and Wikiquote readers/users. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wikiquote

--NYScholar 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been updating the Wikiquote for this book periodically. --NYScholar 08:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

title in bold

In some instances this article places the book title in boldface. The title of a book should always be italicized, but I've never seen an article where the title is bolded after the first occurrence. I would suggest that we place the title in italics but not boldface after the first use for the sake of consistency. GabrielF 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is to bold the subjects of an article in the text of the article; the title of the book is the subject of the article; thus, it is both italicized and in bold print. If the subject of this article were the name of a person, e.g., it would also be in boldface. --NYScholar 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See paragraph one of this article (and all other Wikipedia articles) and throughout this article and other Wikipedia articles (e.g. on BLP). It is customary for readers to be able to find the subject throughout the article more easily due to the bold print. It is a Wikipedia style format, not a bibliographical style format. --NYScholar 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: "Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the article title and any synonyms of the article title (including acronyms)." GabrielF 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So change them, then. Have fun. --NYScholar 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Already done. GabrielF 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--NYScholar 06:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sources and sourced comments without first consulting talk page discussions of the material and seeing why the material is here

Re: GabrielF's continuing practice of doing this: engaging in controversial edits w/o discussing them or consulting previous discussions of and/or pertaining to them: See #NYT Magazine article on Abraham Foxman entitled "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?". Pertinent material restored on basis of its being a source supporting the sentence[s] as written. Also restored to References section of "Further reading"--which it is. It is a notable article about the controversy discussed pertaining to this subject. A title of an article is not grounds for determining the content of an article. [One has actually to read the full contents of such an article!] Moreover, as pointed out in the above sec. of this talk page, Foxman contradicts himself anyway; this article cites his earlier remarks. See the passages. This article deals with the book and (in this long form) critical reactions and commentaries about the book past and present (and future). --NYScholar 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the print copy of the NYT Mag. article and the internet site copy. It is a pertinent, notable article and is properly cited as such, with links for verification. GabrielF's editing history explanation does not take into account that the article does support the sentence to which it is linked and that it also deserves inclusion in "Further reading" as well. Again, he engages in POV editing by removing it. To delete the information is, in effect, to censor it and, hence, to stifle discussion and debate that appears in verifiable reliable sources like the New York Times Magazine, which is very much a point made by Traub in that article and, thus, highly pertinent to the subject of this article, the book, which makes that point as well. That very point is a theme of Traub's article. Citing the article supports the sentence[s] to which it is attached. [updated] --NYScholar 07:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar - once again you are acting uncivilly. Your suggestion that I have not read the article is completely false. I have now read it three times, once when it was originally published, and twice when editing wikipedia. The sentence the article is supposed to support is:

First of all, I am not "acting uncivilly": I have no idea where you get that impression from. I speak only about the material in the article.

Secondly, I have not made a "suggestion that [you] have not read the article"; I have simply stated that I have read it (more than once now) and that I still see no rationale for its removal as source citations where I originally placed it. I referred you to a discussion about this source before you dropped back into this article (posted apparently while you were away and which, apparently, you had not consulted or responded to in any way in the talk page.--NYScholar 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

“ Some of Carter's opponents have perceived his work as "anti-Semitism". ”

You, or someone else, not I put in "Carter's opponents" in revising a paragraph that I had originally composed. You rewrote that passage to focus on "opponents". That is not my preference. I would eliminate that word entirely: "Some have perceived" is less POV. Your construction "opponents" is already veering toward POV. Not everyone who comments on the book in a negative manner is an "opponent" of Carter's.--NYScholar 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Carter is mentioned twice in the five page article. First, the book is briefly mentioned on page one, along with a number of other examples. This mention does not speak directly to the book's anti-semitism. The second mention, on page five, is more extensive.

“ But, I asked, isn’t slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism at people like Jimmy Carter and Tony Judt and Mearsheimer and Walt really a way of choking off debate? No, it isn’t, Foxman said. This was at our lunch; Foxman got so exercised that he began to choke on his gratin. I asked if it was really right to call Carter, the president who negotiated the Camp David accords, an anti-Semite.

“I didn’t call him an anti-Semite.”

“But you said he was bigoted. Isn’t that the same thing?”

“No. ‘Bigoted’ is you have preconceived notions about things.”

The argument that the Israel lobby constricted debate was itself bigoted, he said.

“But several Jewish officials I’ve talked to say just that.”

“They’re wrong.”

“Are they bigoted?”

Foxman didn’t want to go there. He said that he had never heard any serious person make that claim.

”

Your assertion that this quote contradicts the other source cited is false. If you read the two sources carefully you will see that in the first, Foxman says that the ideas Carter expresses in his book are anti-semitic (exactly what the sentence in our article is asserting), but in the other he denies that Carter himself is "an anti-semite." The reason that I deleted the second source is because (1) it is only tangentially related to the book (2) it is unnecessary since we already cite an entire article on allegations that the book is anti-semitic and (3) it doesn't actually address the question of whether the book is anti-semitic, but rather briefly discusses accusations that Carter is "an anti-semite."

As you can see, my deletion of the source was not "POV" at all. Please don't throw around accusations about other editors in the future. GabrielF 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that the source supports is stating that some critics have accused the book (and Carter) of anti-Semitism. The first sentence that you deleted the source from does not mention Foxman; the point is a moot point. Clearly, Traub is discussing the entire issue of "some" accusing the book and Carter of anti-Semitism, which Carter himself refers to in his response to his critics (as cited).

Similarly, Carter refers to the Amazon.com reviews directly, and that is the rational for including them among the sources cited; he himself cites them to illustrate his point, and readers are being given a citation to them so that one can see what he is referring to.

You keep dragging my points about content and form down to personal levels. It is extremely annoying and time-wasting, from my perspective as an editor.

I have read the article by Traub; the entire passage that you quote (which I have already read several times) makes little sense to me; it sounds extremely self-contradictory, especially in the context of Foxman's prior use of the term anti-Semitism in his statements to Besser.

[In discussing this book (the subject of this Wikipedia article, as cited already in the text of this Wikipedia article, according to Besser, the following is what Foxman said (see date of article for time frame):

“

“I believe he [Carter] is engaging in anti-Semitism,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “For a man of his stature and supposed savvy to hold forth that the issues of Israel and the Middle East have not been discussed and debated because Jews and Zionists have closed off means of discussion is just anti-Semitism.”

--added the exact quotation again. (Besser) ”

--NYScholar 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]

Being an "anti-Semite" and engaging in "anti-Semitism" are the same thing; either Foxman or you are parsing the word and engaging further in a semantic quibble that makes no logical sense. I do not think there is any justification for removing Traub as a source from this article, from any of the sentences in which it has appeared. I do not even understand what you are trying to say. You make no more sense to me than Foxman does in that passage; generally, he defines "anti-Semitism" as a form of "bigotry."[added a paragraph space later.]

I am not making "accusations"; I am stating matters of fact. [Fact:] You are deleting pertinent information from the article with no justification for doing so and the result is to eliminate pertinent sources of pertinent information. To me that looks like POV editing. I can see no other reason for your removal of the material. --NYScholar 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase in the last paragraph is "makes little sense to me". If two people can look at a source and disagree about whether it actually supports what it is supposed to be supporting, than it is ambiguous and it should not be used, especially when better sources are readily available. The Traub article is only tangentially relevant to the book, and given the exceedingly large amount of quotes on this page already, there is no good reason to spend 1.5 kilobytes talking about it. Charges of "censorship" are absurd - it would be perfectly reasonable to discuss this article at length at Abraham Foxman or Anti-Defamation League where it is very relevant, but it is not useful here. GabrielF 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not pick out phrases from what I write out of context. You twist one's meaning when you do that, wrenching it to suit your own POV.

You are out-numbered in this view [of the source]. That is your view, not mine, and not that of anon. IP user 70.... who brought the source to this article. I agreed and still agree with that user that the source is wholly germane to this article. I have restored it. Please stop suppressing pertinent sources. I do not agree with you at all. Your opposition to citing a six-page (in print; five-page online) article which directly discusses this book with Foxman appears to be unreasonable to me; the source also quotes the same passage quoted by Besser and it is thus a second source for that quotation in that it also discusses larger contexts of it (the source citation is doubly relevant, therefore). I still do not understand your opposition to citing the source. It is relevant to this article, and it does not need to be only mentioned in an article about Foxman. I did not add the ADL information to this article originally; (an)other editor(s) did. I simply integrated the source suggested by User 70.... after he/she brought it to this talk page. What I did is entirely reasonable and it is opposed by no one but you. ---NYScholar 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotation of Foxman that I have added (again) above is not "ambiguous", as GF claims. It is clear in its meaning. The fact is that, in the later article as interviewed by Traub, Foxman denies that he said what he said earlier (as qtd. by Besser). He denies what is clearly a fact: that he said that Jimmy Carter is "engaging in anti-Semitism" in the book [the subject of this W. art.].* --NYScholar 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• [Added later:] I have since revised this portion of the article somewhat. To give Foxman the benefit of the doubt [perhaps he forgot what he said that is qtd. by Besser], I am stressing that "engaging in anti-Semitism" and being "an anti-Semite" may differ in Foxman's POV. So I have made that distinction clear (I hope). What Foxman is apparently saying (though it still seems illogical to me) is that saying that Carter is "engaging in anti-Semitism" differs from saying that the man is an "anti-Semite." The first would seem to be behavior (a form of/process of "bigotry") in which Carter "is engaging" in writing what he writes in the book (from Foxman's POV apparently, acc. to Besser's quotation of him); the second is to "call" Carter "an anti-Semite" (using that precise word), i.e., a "bigot" [which might suggest that independent of the content of the book and of the press interviews about the book, he is "an anti-Semite" (a state of being independent of the book). Somehow Foxman makes this distinction between "engaging in" "anti-Semitism" ("bigotry") and being an "anti-Semite (a "bigot" of that form). I think that his distinction breaks down when questioned further by Traub, as Traub reports it; Foxman breaks off discussion rather than to explain the so-called distinction further. I have done my best to present this material fairly in the article in my most-recent version of it. I hope that GF (or another) does not revert this hard-to-develop work. --NYScholar 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)] [corrected typo errors & updatead later --NYScholar 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]

I note that in Wikipedia both "anti-Semite" and "anti-Semitism" are (re-)directed to the page antisemitism. In Wikipedia there seems to be no distinction being made between these terms antisemite and antisemitism such as Foxman appears to be making in his interview reported by Traub as opposed to what he was quoted by Besser to have said; see the sec. on definitions: antisemitism#Definitions of the term.--NYScholar 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Traub's article is also important to cite because it reveals the fact of this later denial that he said what he said. The remarks by Foxman qtd. by Traub do not, thus, square with the remarks qtd. by Besser. That is why I find them illogical and that they do not make logical sense. In his comments to Traub, Foxman contradicts his earlier remarks, leading to this logical inconsistency. It appears to me that, in talking with Traub (as qtd, by Traub) he is, in effect, attempting to weasel out of or water down what he previously stated so emphatically about what Carter is doing in the book. But the fact remains that he said what he said (as qtd. in Besser). He may have regretted what he said later, or in effect tried to "take it back," but that does not erase the fact that he said those words earlier. As this Wikipedia and the other draft version and Commentary article make clear, presenting the earlier statements chronologically, he said that in this book Carter "is engaging in anti-Semitism"; he is not name-calling (e.g., he is not saying that "Carter is an 'anti-Semite'"; but he is saying that his behavior [writing the book such as it is (in Foxman's POV)] is "anti-Semitism"). The current Wikipedia article does not state anywhere that Foxman "called" Carter an "anti-Semite." It says that Foxman said that in his book Carter "is engaging in anti-Semitism"; that is a fact, and it is a fact that the source Besser supports. (Foxman is thus one example of "some" who charge the book with "anti-Semitism" or being "anti-Semitic" (that is, the book, not the person of the author of the book). It appears to me that Traub presents Foxman's later statements to him about Jimmy Carter in relation to his writing of this book with some degree of skepticism (all the way through the end of the article). If one wants to read more about Foxman's own later qualifications (the most neutral word that I can think of) of his earlier remarks about Carter and his book, and about its larger contexts, one can read the article by Traub in full, which is a source linked in this Wikipedia article so that one can verify its relevance, pertinence, and notability and the way that it is used as a source in this Wikipedia article (and the related ones). --NYScholar 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikiquote [updated]. --NYScholar 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If one wants to do independent original research (independent of editing this article in Wikipedia), one can (on one's own) search previous comments that Foxman has made about Carter and his work(s) relating to Foxman's perspective on the subject of this article, the book. Such comments date back to about 2003 in terms of the issue of "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitism". Foxman's book on the subject of new anti-Semitism was published also in 2003. It is listed in the section "References" (see also "Further reading"). (Note: There is a prohibition against original research WP:NOR in Wikipedia articles. All statements must be sourced and cited to be within this policy: see WP:Cite.) --NYScholar 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) --[added sec. title "References"; corrected.] --NYScholar 11:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New Developments (Update)

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

Further updated today as well. --NYScholar 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuing concerns about length of this article (as related to the rename and move proposal)

To people still concerned about the length of this article: Please examine the proposal to split it into two articles (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, along now with the "Wikiquote") [move/rename proposal], which already has achieved some consensus. --NYScholar 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [updated] --NYScholar 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Query

Why did you remove the name and credentials of Yossi Beilin, while leaving the reference to his article? He is a well known person. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yossi Beilin is a good guy. Also James Zogby has a post on the issue here [1]. --70.51.231.96 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I restore his name, and the fact that he is a member of the Knesset and former cabinet official? --HonourableSchoolboy 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Speaking for myself, I do mind. His name is in the appropriate section of the article. The paragraph that you initially added it to is a summary. The article citation supports the generalization. Names have been removed in the general summary. See the section on "positive reactions"; that's where the specific information is placed. Please follow the prevailing format. Moreover, the view that "he is a good guy" (70....) is POV and trying to insert material in the article due to promote a POV violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Wikipedia editing policy). [One can, however, click on the Wikipedia internal link in the citation to find out more about the source, in this case Beilin, to learn more about who he is and his "credentials".]---NYScholar 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah-- I didn't notice that you had moved it. It's fine where it is. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I do note, however, that, much earlier, editors posted links to the HuffPo blog posts written by Alan Dershowitz. But they are not here now; they are in the article on Dershowitz himself (subject), which is cross-linked in this article. But Dershowitz himself is a name raised directly by President Carter, the author of the book and subject of this article, and so Dershowitz's blog articles (posts) pertaining to this book may seem more (indirectly) notable. W policy re: this matter may need further discussion. [It's a "slippery slope"....] See also WP:NOR. --NYScholar 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [Updated.] --NYScholar 23:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If one (e.g., 70....) is thinking of inserting Zogby's HuffPo blog post as a source in this article, one needs to discuss the matter of doing so in more detail on this talk page? --NYScholar 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the official website of the organization that James Zogby heads, and it is not currently posting (publishing) a position on Carter's book on its site. Zogby's POV on the book is posted in his personal blog and not yet in another kind of published source that Wikipedia defines as allowable (though see "exceptions"): Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources and WP:Cite. See those W links for more guidance. --NYScholar 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Note: It may be that, in the near future, the organization website may add that blog post, because the previous post is featured there currently. --NYScholar 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

it is now on the AAI USA site here. --70.48.241.47 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Further archiving?

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

Revised material

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