Jump to content

Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Consensus on splitting the article

Discussion is archived (see archive 5); currently accessible on current talk page of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. --NYScholar 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Ken Stein has published his promised rebuttal at http://www.meforum.org/article/1633. Just thought it should be linked in the article. (I'm not big on wiki editing myself.) 199.244.214.30 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is already cited in the article. I added it at 15:31 today. --NYScholar 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this article from the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_williams/2007/01/on_carter.html --64.230.127.254 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of the book has no colon

There is a significant factual error repeated throughout the Wikipedia article, even integrated into the main link for the article. The title of the book should have no colon, or punctuation of any kind, as can be verified by looking at the book cover or by opening its first few pages. This is a mistake perpetrated throughout the media and reviews, and Carter has pointed out this error (see his talk at Brandeis). He says he intended the title to convey "Palestine peace, not apartheid". The punctuational nuance is important, as it bears on the issue of the controversial use of the word 'apartheid'. I suggest this be corrected throughout the article, ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.134.9 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you find cite a reliable source as to this widespread mistake/error? --64.230.127.254 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Carter points this out in his Brandeis talk (in response to student Question 2, http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=7816). It is also easily verified by simply looking at the book, or by going to the publishers site (Simon and Schuster, http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=522298). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.134.9 (talk • contribs)

The material cited by the anon IP user 128.... is a transcript of Carter's verbal remarks, and it does contain typographical errors of transcription. For example, in the sentence in question:

<<

We intended it to be Palestinian Peace not Apartheid, but erroneously people have put a colon there....

>> the word Palestine is rendered as Palestinian and there is no capitalization of the word not, which would be standard capitalization of a title.

People are not necessarily, as Carter says, "erroneously" putting a colon in the title. Carter is not apparently aware of scholarly convention. The title is "Palestine" and the subtitle is Peace Not Apartheid; all the colon does in the typography of a book review or an article or commentary or a bookseller's advertisement is to indicate that. In publishers' sites and advertisements, the title (full title) is often presented differently than it is in scholarship about it. A title is rendered on a title page (for many books) without a colon, and in writing about it, one conventionally uses a colon before a subtitle. But the title page still would show, say:

"PALESTINE PEACE NOT APARTHEID"

or

"Palestine

Peace Not Apartheid"

whereas booksellers, like Amazon.com and other book sellers, online and in advertisements, and journals in book reviews would render the title/subtitle or title as "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

Reading it as one line:

Palestine Peace not Apartheid

or

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

really doesn't make sense (in terms of the English language), despite what Carter says in that sentence that I quoted above.

If, as he also says, the book is about "Palestine" and not, say, about "Israel," then the title is "Palestine" and the rest of the title or subtitle is "Peace Not Apartheid," which, conventionally, is rendered "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

I don't think that "factually" one can say with certainty that the use of colon is actually an "error." Carter assumes that people in the media and academia are rendering the title "erroneously." But, they are simply rendering the title (with subtitle or rest of title) conventionally; they are assuming from the typography of the title page that there is a break (perhaps a line) between the word "Palestine" and the words "Peace Not Apartheid."

Many books (including one of my own) have a title and a subtitle on the book cover and such a title page that renders both without the use of a colon. The colon is just used in referring to a whole title (title and subtitle) in articles and other books about it. The size of the print and typography on the book cover and on the title page indicate the relationship between words and phrases. If the print is all the same size for the full title on the book cover and the title page, then the phrase is all one phrase and there is no subtitle per se. That is, it would all run together: e.g.,

PALESTINE PEACE NOT APARTHEID

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Moreover, in scholarship, one does not use a book's cover as the indication of the book's title and subtitle (if there is one). One uses the title page for evidence of the exact title as published, and one looks on the other side of the title page for the precise information about publication (place of publication: publisher, date of publication).

If, on the title page, there is separation of some kind (a line break, different size type; graphical separation) for the parts of the whole title, then there is a title and a subtitle, which, conventionally, are indicated by a colon separating them.

Author's intention and publication actuality are two different things. Carter and his publishers may have intended the title to be rendered whole ("Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" or "Palestine Peace not [sic] Apartheid"), but the cover (and title page) do not follow that, since they separate the words: see the graphical separation: Simon and Schuster cover

The publishers thus cannot control the way scholarly convention presents the title in rendering it in books and articles and reviews about it; people are supposed to consult the title page if they are reviewing the book. People will consult the publisher's webpage/advertisements as well. Simon and Schuster presents it both ways in material on the website, as it quotes from commentaries about the book using the colon without "correcting" those commentaries or placing "[sic]" in the quotations. The use of "[sic]" after a colon would indicate that this typography appears "as is" in the source (the commentary). The lack of a colon in rendering the title Palestine [sic] Peace Not Apartheid indicates that that is the way it is on the title page (if no subtitle).

Given that most commentaries on the book already do use the colon (just to show that the book has a title that has two separate parts (title and subtitle or apositive), I think that it is premature to change all the references to this book in Wikipedia to a title without the colon.

I will look into this further, but I need to remind other users of the policy of WP:NOR. Carter's own statement in an answer to a question from that transcript (which has typographical errors) is not enough to establish that the use of a colon is an error in presentation of the title of the book.

I don't think that Carter himself realizes that the use of the colon in commentaries and reviews in the media and academia is simply a convention of typography and that the use of the colon per se conveys no significance. Basically, a colon operates as an equal sign in sentences and titles; that is, the title "Palestine" = ([is to signify (in the future)) "Peace Not Apartheid"; such a title is to suggest that the author of the book is arguing that Palestine must be [in the future] (equal to, the same as, have) "Peace" and "Not Apartheid", as, the author, Carter, is arguing that it seems to have now. There is interpretation in Carter's remarks; they are made from his own POV, and it is very difficult to use them as grounds for changing the way the title is rendered in book reviews and other discussions in the media and academia. Wikipedia would go with common usage, not Carter's one statement, I would think. --NYScholar 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times Best Sellers List links to the title directly: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." It is now number 6 on that list if one clicks on the link to the rest of the list after the first 5 books listed in Hardcover: Non-Fiction. I don't have a problem with changing the title of this article to take out the colon, but I do understand why it is conventional to insert it (given the way the book cover and title page of the book are set up graphically). I think it is easy to change the header paragraph to be "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." --NYScholar 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to hear the talk instead of reading the transcript, you can (as I have) at http://www.brandeis.edu/offices/communications/events/200701carter.html, which is linked at the top of the page I linked to earlier. Q&A starts about 1/4 of the way in. --128.138.134.9
I think the best solution is the simple title "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" as it is on the publishers website. The title of the book with the different colors does suggest a subtitle of "Peace not Apartheid", but I guess it was bad design on the part the book cover designer. Also, I have a copy of the book here and it is rendered "Palestine peace not apartheid" on the information page of the book. Thus no punctuation at all in the title is the more accurate solution. --64.230.127.254 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes; but one cannot alter the actual titles of articles, book reviews, and other commentaries about the book if those titles use a colon; one has to render those titles accurately and precisely as they are. Most of them use the colon (reading the title as a one word title with a three word subtitle, which is understandable, given its presentation); most people do not read the "information page" cited above. They look at the presentation of the title on the title page. I agree that that information would be the "most correct" rendering of the title (but one still has to add appropriate capitalization following documentation format used--e.g., MLA Style capitalizes "Palestine" "Peace" "Not" and "Apartheid" in a title.

There was an editing conflict, so I lost what I replied; part of it was thanking the person providing the Brandeis U sources, which I added to the article. I still have the video link to add, but someone may do it before I have a chance to get back to the article from talk. --NYScholar 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Someone with an account should move the article to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid at some point, since that is its true name. --64.230.127.254 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the redirect at Palestine Peace Not Apartheid should be deleted first via the use of {{db-empty}} tag and then this page should be moved. Copy-and-paste moved are not recommended and should be undone when encountered. --64.230.127.254 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
did what you suggest. Let's wait and see what happens after that page is deleted. After that, perhaps it will be possible to rename this page "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" without the colon.--NYScholar 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think, however, that Carter does not understand how the colon is used in publishing, in critical discussions of a title presented the way his is presented on its book cover and title page. There is no substantive value to the colon, and the title of the book signifies the same thing whether it is rendered "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" or "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." The Brandeis transcript says "Palestinian Peace Not Apartheid." I haven't been able to get the Brandeis streaming video to play correctly--must be too much traffic to the site, or perhaps the Quicktime streaming video has glitches in it (I'm using a superfast cable connection) in the most up-to-date version of Quicktime (7.1.2). The video stops and starts and doesn't play straight throughout without breaks. I don't know if Carter said "Palestinian" or "Palestine" in that answer (would have to hear what he said clearly to know). (Is watching the video, listening to the audio "original research"? any transcript that one would prepare from it to correct the typographical errors in the Brandeis transcript would be original research?)

At any rate, "Palestinian Peace not Apartheid" (as rendered in the transcript of his answer to question 2) is not the title of the book. Maybe he should have called it that and doing so could have avoided some of the ensuing controversy. Maybe. In his other interviews and remarks (incl. at Brandeis), he has clearly said that he intends the book to be about "Palestine" and not about "Israel".

In published commentaries and reviews of the book, the title is being presented as either "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" or "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." In terms of signification, since the word "Palestine" is a noun, and since it cannot, therefore, qualify the word "Peace" (as the adjective "Palestinian" [or "Israeli"] can do), the word and the phrase are separate and, I would suggest (as I think Carter does, w/ or without a colon) equal in weight: (1) Palestine; and (2) "Peace Not Apartheid." The use of a colon or the lack of a colon is merely a stylistic format used by editors and publishers in the rendering of a title in work about it. Perhaps one should ask the book's designer and editor why they decided to present the title as they did on the cover and title page (splitting it up with line break and color changes) and ask Carter why that typographical and graphical presentation of his title was acceptable to him. It makes no difference in terms of the substance of the book's title whether one places a colon in it or not. It is either a title with a subtitle or a title with no subtitle; it is still hard to tell which.

In terms of significance, if the title were part of a sentence, Carter would seem to mean: e.g. "[My subject is] Palestine [which should be a place where there is] peace not apartheid"; there is no way that it would be punctuated with no punctuation in a sentence correctly: e.g., "[My subject is] Palestine peace not apartheid." Both "Palestine, peace not apartheid" and "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" suggest that there is something omitted; an ellipsis (such as "my subject is . . . Palestine . . . with regard to having peace in the region and not apartheid." Without any punctuation (run together) it seems ungrammatical; one would be using the noun as if it were an adjective, which it is not. The more one thinks about these various versions of the title, the more odd the actual title (if one title with no subtitle) seems to be. And it also seems odd that Carter is making such a point about the presence or lack of a colon. I wonder what he thinks one's adding the colon is doing?! It's almost as if he thinks that the use of the colon makes the meaning of the word "apartheid" different. I don't think it does. I do know of other authors' titles which did not intend to have subtitles and got discussed as if they did, but the titles made sense grammatically without the addition of a colon or a comma: e.g., "Brown The Soldier"; "Brown: The Soldier." (The titles would be broken up on the cover/title page in the same manner as Carter's; one word (title); two words (subtitle, or not). "The Soldier" is an apositive either way. That's how I read "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" and "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Peace Not Apartheid" is an apositive in relation to (in aposition to) the word "Palestine." An apositive defines or redefines a word or term (grammar). That's all the colon indicates too. The title's sense is the same either way, with or without colon. So I'm not sure what point Carter was making in talking about how people were referring to the book's title "erroneously." The "error" has no significance or consequence in the discussion of the book or the controversy about the book, as far as I can tell.

I don't think that Wikipedia would be incorrect to render the title either way, but, if given a choice, I would prefer to follow the punctuation of the title that the publisher and the author intend (given his [erroneously transcribed?] answer to question 2), which appears to be no colon. --NYScholar 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bases" is the plural of "basis"

An anon IP user changed what was a correct spelling to an incorrect word. The word intended is "bases," the plural form of the word "basis." See Basis definition. "Bases" is not a typographical error; it is the word that I intend to use in that sentence (Dugard in "Academics"). --NYScholar 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, Bases may be the plural of basis. But I don't believe the word belongs in that sentence. Please review the last sentence of definition 4 below. It says "He was chosen on the basis of his college grades." It does not say "grade" which is singular, but rather "grades", which is plural. However, to insert "bases" does not do the english language justice. Language is not a science. It is more of a living thing, always changing, flexible. Therefore, it may be prudent to present the material without deviating from common english. To substitute bases for basis would sound like this: "He was chosen on the bases of his college grades." This is misleading. It suggests to the reader that the subject of the sentence was playing baseball or on a military base. Please refer to www.dictionary.com. Below is simply a pasted definition of the word for you. I hope you'll agree. Thank you. Anonymous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.90.92 (talk • contribs) 21:58, February 15, 2007 (UTC)
ba·sis /ˈbeɪsɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bey-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ses /-siz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.
4. a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like: The nurse is paid on an hourly basis. He was chosen on the basis of his college grades.
5. Mathematics. a set of linearly independent elements of a given vector space having the property that every element of the space can be written as a linear combination of the elements of the set.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.90.92 (talk • contribs) 21:45, February 15, 2007(UTC)
The plural form of the word "basis" is clearly "bases." (See "-ses": that's the plural form.) If one is talking about more than one "basis," e.g., two or more "bases" (as I was in that sentence), one uses the plural form. Your example is not related to the sentence in which "bases" appears. It could be re-written to use an entirely different word or construction for the sentence perhaps. But I can't take the time to do that now. --NYScholar 03:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [added threading to the comments.--NYScholar 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)]
I removed the word entirely, since the singular form does not convey my intended meaning. The second source cited makes Dugard's support for the bases of the analogy clear; the first source is no longer accessible to non-subscribers of the newspaper. (This subject relates now only to the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, not to this article, since the splitting of this article in a longer version has been approved by an administrator and occurred (see below). --NYScholar 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting proposal still under consideration

<<This page is [over 110] kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.>> See archived talk page(s) and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and related talk pages at Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid for explanations of split tag. Do not remove tags that are still pertinent. The book is still a "current event"; it is still being discussed in news reports in The New York Times and elsewhere. --NYScholar 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [updated] --NYScholar 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sources from personal blog sites

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:BLP as tagged at top of talk page. Please stop inserting such items; they are not permissible sources in this article or most articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 00:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar deleted Lipstadt's blog but it WAS the source of the questions asked of Carter and shouldn't be deleted just because it is a blog. It is not the source of information for the article. It is the source of information that the student's used VERBATIM for their questions. Please don't delete.

Carter Accuses Jewish Group of ‘Slander’ After Questioning Controversial Book

Carter Accuses Jewish Group of ‘Slander’ After Questioning Controversial Book, Fox News. --70.48.71.149 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached?

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

Purpose of this article

See Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid for explanation of what this "draft version" is trying to do: to provide a break-off from that general consensus-decided too-long main article. This is just a draft version for discussion and possible alternative creation in place of the current main article. The cross-refs. will be changed to match if this is renamed or replaces the other article. Just a trial run. --NYScholar 12:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This "draft version" is currently 46 kilobytes (as opposed to 95 kilobytes of the original longer version on the book); Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is now about 57 kilobytes. These two articles are approx. half each of the original long article. My proposal is to split the long article up into these two articles which are cross-linked, so that they can connect to each other via the cross-reference links. "Commentary...." is the "main" article for the section called "Critical reactions and commentaries" in the long article; a link to it appears at the beginning of that sec. in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. In the archived talk pages of the long (current) article on the book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, some people have been proposing this kind of breaking up of the article. Any re-structuring or revising of topic construction/structure can be done with the "Commmentary...." article, which is the portion that most users/editors have had concerns about reconceiving. Or, people may want to re-structure and/or revise the topic construction/structure of the main article on the book itself as well, of course: either Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid or Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. It may not be necessary to do that kind of work now; that is up to others to help decide. So please comment on the various talk pages. I hope that this helps the discussion and resolves some of the more-contentious issues about the article on the book. --NYScholar 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [updated] --NYScholar 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Further updated kilobytes info. --NYScholar 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also created an updated Wikiquote.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

--NYScholar 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant content for this article

I generally support the idea of moving some of the content out from the parent article in to one or more articles for readability purposes. I have a concern with this version because it leaves a much longer response from Carter than description of criticism, which doesn't seem like a very logical layout to me. The commentary lacks Carter's response, which is pretty relevant to this information. Maybe we could also move Carter's response out and also summarise it here? Just my two cents. --YoYoDa1 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Commentary article does now extend the article (without extending length) by adding the link to Carter's response. No one will miss the opportunity to read about his response. See Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:43, 14 January 2007

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 this version. The material added relates directly to the book review by Goldberg that is cited in this article (long version and this one) and to the Amazon.com listing for the book. I've also restored the deleted material in the book reviews section (see editing history). The length of this version is now 46 kilobytes. (I'm including rest of the long quotation from the article (updated on Jan. 19, 2007) below in talk so that people can read it and decide how best to incorporate this information later.) Thanks. --NYScholar 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

The passage from the Jerusalem Post report

<<

.

In an e-mail, ICAHD said it was "deeply disturbed" by the treatment of Carter's "important new book" and had issued an ultimatum demanding Amazon move the negative review and "restore a semblance of balance" by giving "comparable space and prominence to a more positive evaluation" of the book.

The group is asking people to write to Jeff Bezos, Amazon's CEO, and to boycott the company. The e-mail says: "You insist on running the complete, 20-paragraph, 1,636-word text of a review unabashedly hostile to Carter's viewpoint.

"You have refused to add information shoppers should have in evaluating this review: the fact that the reviewer, Jeffrey Goldberg, is a citizen of Israel as well as the US, and that he volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, for which he worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian detainees.

"And you have refused to balance his negative review by giving comparable space to a favorable assessment of the book, even though positive reviews by qualified experts have appeared in many reputable publications."

The ICAHD said it was "not interested in supporting a corporation that uses its power in the marketplace in such a biased and unconstructive way on such an important issue."

An ultimatum is then delivered: "If you do not, by January 22, remove the Goldberg review, move it to the more appropriate 'See all Editorial Reviews' page, or restore a semblance of balance by giving comparable space and prominence to a more positive evaluation of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, we... pledge to stop shopping at Amazon... and encourage our friends, family and associates to do likewise."

>>

According to that report's citation of the e-mail complaint, the ICAHD objects to the review as "biased," saying that "the reviewer, Jeffrey Goldberg, is a citizen of Israel as well as the US, and that he volunteered to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, for which he worked as a guard at a prison for Palestinian detainees." [That information already appears in the Wikipedia article about him (as linked).] --NYScholar 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 08:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

Requested move [initial section]

Note: Not posted on the requests for renaming and moving articles page because consensus is still being sought on this matter: See: "In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." --NYScholar 07:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated heading. Please see Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Consensus_reached?. --NYScholar 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move as a technical measure before things get out of control. See #Closing comments below. Duja► 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version → Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid — current article is too long and needs splitting; cross-linkage already incorporated NYScholar 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[No. 2 on moved from other talk page]

  1. I support the move because the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is too long and many people have noted that. I have proposed this alternative with cross-links and Wikiquote. Please see the talk page(s) for comments re: consensus as linked above and here Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Consensus_reached?. --NYScholar 10:53, 20 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)]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[Nos. 1 and 2 moved from other talk page]

  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)
  3. Strongly oppose; the draft is overwhelmingly negative. Septentrionalis [aka] PMAnderson 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please note that in providing the Wikiquote, I provide another possible alternative for shortening this article (this draft version and also the article Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid). Now that there is a Wikiquote linked in these articles, there is a possible way to reduce the length of this article even further (if desired by consensus). There may also be ways for others to re-organize and re-structure the article more topically, as some have expressed a desire and a future plan to do. I leave that work to the others. I will check back to see what they produce. Please note the "controversial" tag above, and consider the guidelines that it provides, as well as the guidelines provided in links to the other Wikipedia policies as tagged above. Thank you. --NYScholar 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some related discussion following the moved numbered comments is at Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Responses. --NYScholar 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The third comment in "oppose" apparently is posted by a reader who does not realize that this draft version (50 kilobytes) and the article on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (102 kilobytes) have virtually the same content, except that "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (58 kilobytes) is split off to make a main article. I do not take that user comment as an informed one. I suggest that that user read Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Taken with the interlinked article Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (58 kilobytes), which also includes the link to Wikiquote, all three articles present the same content. The splitting proposal is just a means of shortening the very long version (now 102 kilobytes); the only real difference is one of form (not substance): there are a few subheadings in the shorter "draft version" that would be not parallel to have in the longer version, given its table of contents. After updating one of those subsections today, I have removed the subheading as it does not appear needed right now. One needs to read that section more carefully perhaps; the campaign and proposed boycott were against Amazon.com for the way it was featuring a negative review of the book and it is actually about comments that are more pro-Carter and the book than it might otherwise appear if one doesn't actually read the material there. The campaign and proposed boycott was in support of Carter's book, not against it. --NYScholar 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read all three; and incivility is unlikely to persuade me. Moving much of the favorable reaction to Carter's book to a subarticle is not desirable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There was no "incivility" in my reply; it was factual. As the one who composed this draft version, I can tell you that the intention is hardly to be "moving much of the favorable reaction to Carter's book to a subarticle"; all the published reactions in the press (both positive and negative) are compiled in the main article (not a "subarticle") called "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". It is simply that piece ("Critical reactions and commentary on the book") of the longer main article. --NYScholar 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added "aka" in brackets to a survey signature above. Please note that the unsigned user above is actually one user who uses a signature and a user name which are different from each other, a practice which has raised questions on his/her talk page: see User Talk:Pmanderson. Please sign the survey using only one and the same signature as this is a requested survey of user consensus here. Please do not post your position as more than one signature/user name and/or anon IP address; that gets very confusing. Post in the survey only clearly once. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, the only reason why I would recommend this alternative is to make the longer article [now 107 kilobytes] shorter. Otherwise, it matters not a whit to me whether there is a long article (as it is) or two shorter interconnected main articles. A reader has the opportunity to read the same content if he or she clicks on the link to the "Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" article. In terms of which is more "positive" or more "negative", that apparently depends solely upon the POV of the reader, since readers on both sides of the controversy seem to desire the proposed alternative. It is simply a matter of the unwieldy length of the article on the book as it currently is. There is no attempt to interject POV at all into it. In fact, the intention is to maintain neutrality on the subject (Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). One cannot make an argument favoring or disfavoring positive or negative presentation of the book. One can make only arguments favoring neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, given its policy in editing articles, especially keeping in mind WP:BLP. (Please sign comments. Thank you.) --NYScholar 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [updated info about size today. --NYScholar 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)]

I just want to thank all those users (no matter their position) who have taken the time to reply in the above survey and in this "Discussion" section, and I want to encourage others to continue to do so. That way we will get a better sense of "consensus" re: this proposal. Thank you! --NYScholar 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing comments

People, I'm an admin who came from WP:RM and I had to sort out this mess one way or another. We have a content fork (this draft version) in a wrong namespace (drafts should go to Talk: namespace, and the main talk page used to discuss it), with its own talk page, with double redirects of talk pages all over the place. I want to perform the split correctly, merge edit histories and join the talk pages (so that the "long and NPOV" version is revertable-to), and let you sort out POV issues afterwards. The alternative is to delete the draft, but that includes a lot of loss of data. Thus, the move is not endorsement of one version or another, just the application of technical measure of splitting the overlong article. Duja► 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The last unsplit version is, I sincerely believe, this one. Duja► 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts and work on this. --NYScholar 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Findley's Op-Ed on Carter book

Paul Findley, [1] --64.230.121.192 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added this source in bibliographical format to the main article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I had already moved the anon IP user's comment to the talk page of the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (where a copy of one of its earlier versions remains), but realized later that the user probably intended people to consider adding the source to the appropriate sec. of the references list, which I did. (I moved the linked name to just before the link and added brackets so that it posts as a number link in talk here; if one wants to see the actual URL, one can just go to editing mode.) Hope that's okay. For full citation, see the references list sec. on editorials etc. --NYScholar 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The URL is also featured at the top of the text of the article, so just click on the link if you want the URL, or right-click (and/or choose "properties") and it will show up. --NYScholar 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lipstadt calls Carter a soft-core denier

Im not entirely sure what the phrase Lipstadt originated means but I just tagged it on to the end of the criticism section- wasnt sure where else to put it as the section isnt organised by critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSemtex (talk • contribs) 15:49, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

"When a former president of the United States writes a book [Palestine, Peace not Apartheid] on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial."Jerusalem Post Holocaust scholar warns of new 'soft-core' denial Feb. 6, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSemtex (talk • contribs) 15:49, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I saw the main article and added it in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSemtex (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This item was added by the unsigned user DJSemtex inappropriately. The section that it relates to is not in this article but in the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; but it is not useful there either, because the quotation is already present in the linked Wikiquote and it is also sourced properly there. It is not necessary to repeat it either here or in the Commentary article, and certainly not here in what is supposed to be a summary paragraph. One needs to consult the archived talk pages about these matters. Consensus of those editing this article is to avoid making this article a "quotefarm" and to avoid merely accruing quotations in it. I created a Wikiquote page some time ago now so that brief quotations could be entered and sourced there and easily accessible. If people want to read more of a critic's pov, they can read the full source; in this article's references section, there already is a substantial article by Lipstadt that presents her pov. This article (via the cross-link to "Commentary on....") presents a "selection" of representative critical commentary. Lipstadt's pov is already represented. This is not an article about Lipstadt or her pov on Carter's book; it is an article on the book that presents a selection of reactions to and commentary on it through the cross-link(s). Before making any kind of substantive change to this article (addition, deletion, re-wording), please consult the extensive talk page and archived talk pages of both articles. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article much more manageable without the clutter

I havent read this in a couple of weeks but it is like night and day. Kudos to those that restructured this labyrinth. I agree with Carter in that much of the comments on his book do not address issues but rather offer only ad hominem jibberish. In this article's current format, the responses to carters book can rightfully be "punted" and weighed on their own merits without inciting editing wars and the likes. Excellent work. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.108.94.10 (talk • contribs) 19:28, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -NYScholar 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please sign comments using four tildes. See talkpage header for guidance.

Thanks. --NYScholar 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability and reliability of source?

Added by another user: Moved here (after some re-formatting for bibliographical format) for further consideration with respect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:BLP. Generally, student publications posted on personal blogs and such similar sites are not considered as reliable and notable as articles published in professional peer-reviewed publications. This is not a book review on the order of such book reviews published in professional peer-reviewed publiations. Precedent: some other links to student publications are routinely removed from this and other Wikipedia articles due to the "Reliable sources" guidelines.

Note: These are not professional peer-reviewed publications.

Note that the external links for Current Magazine (a redirected Wikipedia article) do not go to any current online site (the first one goes to a parked page on a commercial server; the second appears to be a broken or outdated or malfunctioning link). More information is thus not accessible from those links for further verification of the notability and/or reliability of the original source of this re-posted article, which, after some subsequent searching, I finally found here: Electric Current, which appears to be an online entertainment magazine for a county in which Ann Arbor, Michigan is located and is subtitled : "Washtenaw County's Entertainment Monthly," possibly with student contributors from the University of Michigan. Such writers are not experts on the subject of this book or professional book reviewers or professional-credentialed journalists. They are, it appears, student or amateur journalists. The notability of the writer, Henry Edward Hardy (who appears to be a student or an amateur journalist) is thus dubious (in terms of Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion). (He is not, for example, notable enough to be included as a Wikipedia subject himself. It also appears that he is the creator or the host of the website cited: "HH" is "Henry Hardy"; so the site appears to be his own personal blog site and, thus, not a "reliable source" in the sense that it is a blog hosted by WordPress, a personal blog hosting service, which, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not a reliable source for such an article as this one.) See Wikipedia:Notability.) Similarly, a book review of this book by this writer is also likely not notable. It is possible that the writer himself has added this article to the "Book reviews" section of this Wikipedia article. I question its inclusion as a source in this Wikipedia article. (Anyone can Google or use other search engines to find blog posts and various other "book reviews" in assorted places on the internet; not all of them are going to be notable and reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines for an encyclopedia article relating to a book written by a living person.) See the tag for WP:BLP above and see Wikipedia:NOR. --NYScholar 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple problems here with what NYScholar did. First what s/he has above isn't actually the code s/he removed, here it is:
I am not surprised that links to "Current Project for Student Journalism" go nowhere; as I have never heard of it and that wasn't in the link which NYScholar deleted until s/he put it there, *then* immediately deleted it. [history shows this]
The original published article is from Current Magazine, Feb, 2007, p. 13. This is a print (dead tree) publication published monthly in Ann Arbor, Michigan by SGI Publications. I am the author and copyright holder (Henry Edward Hardy). Here is the masthead text:
"Published and © 2006 by SGI Publications 212 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48104 voice (734) 668-4044 fax 668-0555. All rights reserved.
"First class subscriptions $28 per year. 25,000 copies distributed throughout Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and neighboring towns.
"For information regarding this publication, ad rates, or to comment, write, call or email to above. Please submit calendar information by the third day of the month prior to the event."
I don't know where NYScholar comes up with the idea that I am a "student" who originally published this article "on a few blogs"? I am 48 years old, have a dual-degree BS and a Master's in Communications and have been writing professionally (ie getting paid for it) for about 28 years. I regularly write book reviews for Current in the Current Reads column as well as doing features and reviews of other media.
If the article isn't up to the standards of wikipedia in the eyes of the community that's fine I don't think it is interesting to get into a revert war about it. However I hope I have answered the concerns above in that; I am not a student and have not been for quite some time (LOL); I do write professionally and regularly write reviews for which I am paid; the suggestion that the publication doesn't exist or can't be verified is refuted. I authored (and was paid for) an 8,000 word article for the "Encyclopaedia of International Media and Communications" published by Academic Press on "Internet, History and Development".
I was paid for writing the review, it was edited by John Woods formerly of the Ann Arbor News and went through the usual editing, layout and design process for a professional publication. I can send a pdf of the original cover art, masthead and the Current Reads column if it is necessary to establish that this was a piece of professional journalism (albeit in a small local publication) not something a student wrote up and posted on some few anonymous blogs.
If I may suggest why I think this review should be included; its one of the few generally positive reviews of this book included here--the current biblio is weighted very heavily anti-Carter; its a critical review that points out many flaws, not a one-sided polemic or an ad hominem attack; it comes from a reputable source which should answer the objections raised re: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:BLP.
I'd also suggest folks read the review and use some objective standards to determine if its well-written, pertinent, accurate, insightful and appropriate rather than pre-emptively deleting based on the apparent ad hominem personal attack, inaccurate assumptions and statements listed above.
There probably should be a brief article for this particular "Current Magazine" so it doesn't seem like a "phantom source" when cited; I can provide info if someone wants to do it. --Scanlyze 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the re-formatting that I did originally of the item that you included was to be consistent with the bibliographical citation format of this article. The link that you provided and still provide to "Current" as Current goes to a Wikipedia disambiguation page, and not to a Wikipedia article. It is not Wikipedia format to provide external links to publication sites in notes; one uses the link to the URL of the article itself (for verification purposes) and then in listing the publication, one uses an internal link (Wikified link) to a Wikipedia article on the publication. In this case, the link that you are providing goes to many items with the word "Current" in them; the only one that seemed at all possibly relevant was the student magazine, which led me to question the notability of the writer. One's age etc. is not the issue re: notability. It is helpful to have your clarifications about who you are, but the information about the writer needs to be verifiable (not just provided by the writer himself). In this case, we really do need appropriate links to reliable original source publications, not to blogs or self-published sites. Self-published sites are not considered "reliable" in Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Many people who are adults and no longer students are commenting on Carter's book all over the blogosphere. What we are citing in this article are book reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and magazines and newspapers--not blogs or other self-published sites-- and articles and book reviews written by experts on the subject of the Middle East and the various subjects of the book. (Self-published sites and blogs are not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.) Also there is Wikipedia policy against adding material to Wikipedia as advertisements for oneself (or one's self-published blog or self-published website.)
I need to reexamine the source, but, at this time, it nevertheless clear that Wikipedia editors must cite (include) only articles in publications within Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise "all hell breaks loose." Blogs are citable in articles on a particular subject (e.g., a notable person) when they are written by that notable subject of a Wikipedia article himself or herself. (E.g., articles about living persons who have their own blogs and who are notable subjects in Wikipedia.) In this case, since this article is about a book, e.g., a blog written by Carter (or the Brandeis U one that he is contributing to--Q&A about the book.
After you or someone else provides verifiable information about the particular "Current Magazine" in which your article is published, I'll see what I can do re: this citation. The "copyright" info. that you included originally (and again) is not a part of a note citation of published articles; it is not necessary in a bibliographical citation (all the citations included in this article are bibliographical citations). Such copyright notices are on the sites where the articles are located (if online) or in print if published in print sources. See the format of the other citations listed as bibliographical entries and in notes. None of them includes such information because it is not necessary to do so. Everyone who writes an article or a point of view or an editorial or an opinion about this subject (the book) is not necessarily citable in this article according to Wikipedia guidelines. There is no guideline that says that if there are x number of negative reviews of a subject, then there must be x number of positive reviews of it. This article as it currently stands presents representative positive and negative reviews of the book. There is really no attempt to provide only one or only the other. There is an attempt to provide what Wikipedia calls "neutral point of view" on the subject. See the links already provided (many times over): e.g., Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: that governs contributions to Wikipedia. Please see other Wikipedia guidelines already cited as well. Thank you.
Re: "I'd also suggest folks read the review and use some objective standards to determine if its well-written, pertinent, accurate, insightful and appropriate rather than pre-emptively deleting based on the apparent ad hominem personal attack, inaccurate assumptions and statements listed above....There probably should be a brief article for this particular "Current Magazine" so it doesn't seem like a "phantom source" when cited; I can provide info if someone wants to do it."
You are still citing yourself, i.e., User:Scanlyze: Scanlyze is a self-published blog. In your original citation, it was (and still is not) not clear what "this particular 'Current Magazine'" refers to. I thought it is what I found to be called Electric Current. I gave the subtitle of that "monthly entertainment magazine" above.
You had already put in a Wikified link that went to the disambiguation page for "Current" magazine, which led me to the other Current Magazine that is a Wikipedia article--which provides a photo of a cover of Current (magazine), making it appear to me that you had written the article in a student publication. (See that link and the photo there.) [corrected this later to make it clearer].
The issue of "some objective standards" etc. already exist: the standards are the citability of the publication cited. One does not "determine if its [sic] well-written, pertinent, accurate, insightful and appropriate", etc.--Those involve exerting judgments of pov; not neutrality; they are subjective, not objective standards. Each exerter of the "judgment" is making his or her own determination based on subjective, not objective standards. Standards in Wikipedia are not "objectivity" but rather "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"; and the guidelines for selection of sources are all cross-linked there; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is Wikipedia's "standards" of inclusion.
I and other Wikipedia readers need information about the publication where the item originally appeared before you posted it on your self-published blog: "Current Magazine": if it is not the one linked in the Wikipedia disambiguation page, what is it: provide a home page for the journal/magazine (if it differs from Electric Current (which I have already provided). Thanks. (In this article, we cannot cite your self-published blog. We need to cite the correct Current magazine. (Not a disambiguation page.)
By the way, I personally do not object to the content of your review which you say you got paid to write. I need to know more about the publication in which it appears first. Information about the actual original place of publication needs to be independent of you and verifiable by all Wikipedia readers. We cannot depend on what you write about yourself in this talk page for a source. The source needs to be something that we can verify independently of what you say about it here in this talk page. Give us a verifiable citation to a reliable source. Thank you. (Also: my editing changes were corrections of my various typographical errors (e.g., to W links); you are making false assumptions by suggesting otherwise.) --NYScholar 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps our edits crossed: For "Current" (the original venue of publication) I have already provided in my comment above the date of publication, page number on which the bylined article appeared, publisher, street address, subscription information, phone number and fax of the publication-- do you need something else?
It might be of interest that I authored (and was paid for) an 8,000 word encyclopaedia article on "Internet, History and Development" for the "Encyclopaedia of International Media and Communications" published by Academic Press in (I believe) 2004. --Scanlyze 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Our comments (and my typographical correcting) are cross-posting, Scanlyze. I checked the Electric Current site again, and I really do think that the original link (which I have already cited) is the better one (avoiding citing a self-published blog). (Please don't add unrelated comments about your other publications; this is a talk page for improving this article. The other information [given twice now] is really not pertinent to this subject. Avoid self-advertisements in Wikipedia.) I'll try to compose a bibliographical entry in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines:

Here's the source: book review: it needs formatting only with appropriate information for a bibliographical entry: author (last name, first name, middle name); title of article (preceded by the link), title of publication (no link in Wikipedia, yet), date of publication, date accessed. That's it. No link to your personal self-published blog is permissible. [I added W threading for these comments.] --NYScholar 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the entry that I've compiled for the source:

as added to the article. --NYScholar 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For those seeking more information about the source (Electric Current and Current [in print]), that information is accessible from the Electric Current site Contact webpage. --NYScholar 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The title of this section was "notability and reliability of source". You stated above that: "Such writers are not experts on the subject of this book or professional book reviewers or professional-credentialed journalists. They are, it appears, student or amateur journalists. The notability of the writer, Henry Edward Hardy (who appears to be a student or an amateur journalist) is thus dubious (in terms of Wikipedia's own guidelines for inclusion)."
You said further, "We cannot depend on what you write about yourself in this talk page for a source. The source needs to be something that we can verify independently of what you say about it here in this talk page. Give us a verifiable citation to a reliable source. Thank you."
So I was challenged to provide independently verifiable information indicating that I was "notable" and "reliable". But then when I post at your suggestion in reply to your unfortunate and factually inaccurate characterization of me as a "student" or "amateur", a single reference to a peer-reviewed academic publication in a well-respected encyclopaedia from a prestigious academic publisher you dismiss it as "self-advertisements". That seems a bit harsh and self-inconsistent, don't you think? Scanlyze 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not think that. For the consistency of the editing work that I have been doing on this article, see the talk pages and the archives of the talk pages for Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and this article. Your putting in a link to a disambiguation page for Current led to a Wikipedia article about another Current magazine written by students. If you had cited your article properly in the first place and not cited your self-published blog as a source, we would not have had these problems. Such blogs are not citable in this article. I am a professional scholar and editor with advanced editing experience; my interest is solely in editing this article according to Wikipedia guidelines. (For evidence of that, see the archived talk pages.) The talk page guidelines are linked at the top of this page. They are what I am following. --NYScholar 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I would like to add some comments about how you chose to address me and characterize me in dealing with this issue to your user page. However it doesn't seem to have been created. Would you please do so now? thanks. Or if it does exist, what is the URI? Also are you signing your edits to the talk pages with 4 tildes? See above. Scanlyze 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing this matter with you any further, Scanlyze. User pages are not talk pages. I always use 4 tildes. My preferences govern how my signature appears. I do not use the active link. Please avoid personal discussion on talk pages. I have no interest in that. See guidelines for talk pages. I have not got time to deal with your personal concerns and issues. This is not a discussion forum and neither is my talk page. --NYScholar 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help (not meant to be sarcastic--sincerely). I will keep your points in mind as I am not very experienced here as yet. Please do, though keep in mind
   * Be polite
   * Assume good faith
   * No personal attacks
   * Be welcoming
cheers! -Scanlyze 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
(Please use colons to provide threading of comment. I've been adding them, as needed.) I just want to point out that, although I have added the source to the Book reviews section, it is up to other users and editors to consider its notability. The other book reviews are published in The Washington Post, The New York Times Book Review, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Middle East Quarterly. Whereas the source of publication listed in:
is a more-local Michigan county "entertainment monthly" magazine--as opposed to a national newspaper or an association journal like Booklist (American Library Association) or a specialized publication of a non-profit organization with a political agenda (e.g., Middle East Quarterly).
In adding the source written by Hardy (Scanlyze) in the above format, I deleted the faulty link that he initially had provided to the disambiguation page for Current. This source may not seem to some Wikipedia users and editors to be on a par with the other book reviews in notability. I provided the entry; I leave it to others to consider the editing issue re: notability.
I do point out the irony that the more expert the writer on this subject, the more likely it seems to be that he or she will have a well-defined point of view (and/or bias). The work of a Wikipedia editor is to provide "neutral point of view." When dealing with extremely-controversial subjects like this book (the subject of this article), a Wikipedia editor is trying to maintain neutrality in defining the controversy involving those many, often-conflicting points of view (and/or biases). Our job as editors is to stay above the fray. The source in question by Henry Edward Hardy is not the product of an expert in the Middle East; it is more like the reviews presented in Booklist and Publishers Weekly, which are also directed to an audience of more "general readers" in general interest publications. So its inclusion might provide some balance toward greater "neutrality" in that sense. I think that it may be okay to leave it in. But I do present it in this context for the benefit of other readers and editors of these articles on the book so that they can think about its inclusion here. --NYScholar 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(General note to new Wikipedia users: One uses colons to create threading. One colon is one indentation; two are two indentations, and so on. --NYScholar 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Criticism vs. Carter's response

Whoever set up this page so that Carter's response to criticsm gets about 4 or 5 times more space than the criticsm itself purposely or inadvertantly created a biased entry. Even in the criticism section, the criticism is downplayed. These sections should be changed. I will begin doing so. Please raise objections under this this discussion heading to any changes made. Gni 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion should be done here prior to such a major revision. You are making changes ignoring prior talk page discussion on the pages of this article and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. ["This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles."] [updated with quotation from tagged heading "Controversial" (bold and italics added). --NYScholar 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]

Your changes go against previous consensus discussion on talk pages relating to this book. There is a cross-link to the article on "Commentary" which fully covers the critical reactions to this book. Your changes introduce POV throughout what was originally a NPOV summary. It is not acceptable. See "References" which include all kinds of critical citations. This was supposed to be a short summary paragraph, with a cross-link to Commentary article. I will be restoring the NPOV. Do not make such changes prior to discussion on a talk page of an article. This has been a very contentious article and is marked "controversial" for those reasons. Read all the archived talk pages as well as the current talk page for perspective. The consensus was to split this once-very long article into two main articles. Your changes are unacceptable and contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You should not have made them. Objections must be allowed time to register prior to such a substantive and contrary-to-prior-consensus revision. See WP:AGF. --NYScholar 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that I introduced POV into the article. A section ostensibly on "Critical reaction and commentary" is inherently going to describe points of view about the book. My additions described such critical points of view with more precision.
More importantly, please explain why the criticism of what you admit is a controversial book is minimized in the main article, while at the same time this same article devotes numerous paragraphs to Carter's response to this criticism. To do so is not only illogical, but certainly is neither fair nor neutral. Gni 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, when responding would you please also point me to where there was concensus about removing almost all of the criticism while leaving in paragraphs of Carter's response to criticsm. And again, please explain how this is possibly a fair or neutral solution. Thanks. Gni 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I do not have the time to answer all these questions. They are already answered in the earlier talk pages of this article and the article "Commentary on Peace Not Apartheid." It is not true that the "criticism" etc. is in a minor article. These are two "main" articles that are cross-linked. An administrator finalized the splitting of one way-too-long article into two shorter articles simply for purposes of space. Read the entire record (archived) in the talk pages, including the most recent one. You obviously have not done that. I can't do that for you. The answers are clear and they are there. You are totally misinterpreting the relationship between these two main articles; "Commentary...." is simply one piece and "Palestine...." is simply the other. Read "Commentary...." as an extension of the criticism section; at the end of it, there is a cross-ref. to "References," which are all in the main article. Notes are in both articles. Until you started changing it, this article presented a NPOV on the subject of the book via the two main articles. The administrator decided to make the split after a survey of consensus on one of the talk pages of both articles. The split is done for concerns of space. Read the whole article by reading both main parts of it. --NYScholar 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you haven't even scrolled up this page to the green box of material made permanent in this talk page by an administrator (it says "do not remove"). Then, if you still don't understand, after reading both main articles and what the administrator says, you will have to consult the previous parts of this talk page and the other archived talk pages and the talk page of "Commentary...." It takes little time to complain; it takes more time to do the background reading that will enable you to see how this article works, including reading the whole main articles by following the crucial cross-links (and reading the 2 cross-linked Wikiquote pages). --NYScholar 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore your condescending tone. I will say, though, that if a page isn't balanced, it isn't balanced--regardless of whatever discussion did or didn't take place on these background pages. Visitors to Wikipedia deserve balanced articles, and certainly shouldn't be required to read pages of minutia in order to understand why some editors justify an unbalanced piece as balanced. In other words, the main article must speak for itself. The piece as it stands is not neutral, it is skewed in favor of Carter. If anything, Carter's response to criticism should go on the "commentary" page and not on the main page.
Note I have no problem with the consensus that the long piece should have been split. But the way it was split is unfair, and I certainly have the right to try to make the results of the split as neutral as possible. Gni 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read this full article. The article is not "unbalanced." The "Commentary" article includes both positive and negative reactions to and comments on the book. The talk pages of both articles (on the book and the commentary, which is a cross-linked extension of the book article) are clearly marked "controversial": the Wikiquotes pages for each main article contain both pro and con comments on the book. All are sourced, as are the main articles. I have seen both pro-book and con-book Wikipedia users say that these articles are either too "pro" the book or too "con" the book. The POV of the user seems to be skewed, not the articles. The articles report on the facts about the controversy. Whether or not they are too "pro" or too "con" appears to be a factor of the reader's own POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not an editorial page in a newspaper or a collection of argumentative essays. Its articles are supposed to follow both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV, along with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked within them. Gni's comments strike me as POV and not neutral. He/she may have "the right" to make the comments, but he/she has not got "the right" to change the articles in Wikipedia to reflect his own POV on their subjects. That would violate Wikipedia's own standards and guidelines. --NYScholar 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar seems to think he is the one neutral abiter in all of wikipedia, and that only other people are influenced by point of view. That, of course, is nonsense. Secondly, he doesn't explain how my additions to the article -- the ones he decided he didn't want to see posted -- were not NPOV. That's because they very much were NPOV. The section I was adding to is called "Critical reaction and commentary." I was describing, with citation, some of the critical reaction that has been published. Every wikipedia article on every controversial book and subject does just that. The article as it was was heavily skewed toward Carter's response to criticism while all but ignoring the criticism itself. The imbalance can be rectified either by moving the Carter response section to the other article, or by adding a bit more criticism to this article. Stubbornly maintaining the status quo by reverting any changes NYScholar don't like isn't going to help, and it isn't what Wikipedia is all about. Gni 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You made POV changes to what is supposed to be a brief summary; if you read the whole article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and the whole talk page (incl. archived talk page discussions), you would know what other editors (not just I) have been trying to provide in that one short summary; it cross-links to a much longer discussion of both positive and negative reactions to and comments on the book. The specific POVs that you were trying to put back into that summary had already been placed in the appropriate subsections of the Commentary article, where they belong. These articles (this one and the other) were part of a much longer article that went through weeks of contentious editing. The summary was not mine originally; someone else wrote it, and I worked on trying to make it representative of the body of comments on the book (which it is); plus there is the Wikiquote page listed with many, many quotations, because people editing this article came to a consensus that they did not want this to be a so-called "quotefarm"; your edits were contrary to this consensus, which is established in the record of these talk pages. The fact that you will not read the record is not helping. And you don't seem to be engaging in the spirit of already-achieved consensus re: how to present this material. What you apparently want to do is highlight the negative criticism of the book in the summary by citing CAMERA's presentation, which is already in the references, the body of the article "Commentary", citations, and so on. That is POV not NPOV editing, and many people prior to me have complained about that kind of presentation in that summary--on both sides (negative and positive). I have neither a positive nor a negative POV on this book. I am simply trying to present the controversy about it in a neutral manner. My lack of involvement in one side or the other is why I can see that your edits were POV and not NPOV, despite your claims to the contrary. They skewed the commentary by highlighting specifics that are already discussed in the article and they don't belong in a summary. Many people before you came along in this article's talk page and in the talk page of the article on CAMERA have pointed out that CAMERA is not a non-partisan organization, despite its assertions that it is. It is a pro-Israel organization. Your suggestion or claim that it is non-partisan is also not NPOV. (The "round up" that CAMERA presents is of negative criticism of the book, and it is thus listed and developed in that subsection of Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, where it is discussed, cited, and its "round up" of negative cirticism of the book linked to, and listed in "References" section (in this article, cross-linked in "Commentary" article).
See the talk page of CAMERA for its editing controversies. (The last time I worked on trying to maintain NPOV in it was Oct. 29, 2006; I haven't been to see what's happened to its editing history since, though I see now that you have been engaged in changing it recently.) Other editors of this article on the book have protested presentation of the POV of CAMERA on this book over an extended period of time; I worked hard to create a structure (organizations sections for both positive and negative comments) which would enable one to include the POV of CAMERA in a neutral manner. See both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.
If you have a bias about this book, you need to own up to it and recognize that bias and work against its governing what you are trying to present in this article. I don't see you doing that. It seems that you still may not grasp that Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is the extension of this short summary section--this main article with the book title is on the book mostly; not on reactions to and comments about it; those appear in the cross-linked article. (The two articles are two parts of a whole.) The same "brief summary" of commentary is in both articles simply for consistency. To read the whole article on commentary, you must click on the link to it. (Whatever changes that I and others have been making to this summary section have to appear exactly the same in both parts of the whole article--the two main articles. That's how it's been ever since someone began the summary.) --NYScholar 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of answering the central point I am raising, you resort to ad hominem accusations and self-aggrandizement (you argue that I'm supposedly not as neutral as you are, and that you know what I'm "apparently trying to do") and strawmen (the point I'm making has nothing to do with whether or not you wrote the section, and it has nothing to do with whether CAMERA is partisan or non-partisan).

I'll repeat, then, my main point: There is no reason Carter's response to criticism should be addressed at length and in detail in this section if the criticism itself is glossed over in this section. As I've already repeatedly said, either the criticism summary should be fleshed out, or Carter's response should also appear as a summary here, with the bulk of his response being moved to the other Commentary section.

If you want to believe that you have the skill of being able to tell who is neutral and who isn't, great. To me it is clear you are wrong, but hey, think what you want. But your belief on that matter does not and should not dictate the validity of the points I'm raising. You also seem to forget that Wikipedia articles are not and should not be "locked" once a small group of people reach a concensus on general points. Newcomers to an article have the right to weigh in, and moreover just because the small group of people reached a general consensus, it doesn't mean that in practice the detail of the changes made conform to that consensus.

If you or nobody else will comment on the actual point I am making -- and neither attacks on my neutrality nor straw man arguments count -- then I will move the detail of the Carter response section to the commentary article and leave on this page a short summary of Carter's response, so as to make this page consistent. Gni 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section in question is currently a little long, but I have no problems with the content. Maybe if we cut a paragraph or two it would be more acceptable to everyone. ... ? --GHcool 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply, I went ahead and shortened this section to become a summary. I've kept the entire section intact, and moved it to the "Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" section. Gni 18:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy doing other things; I just noticed these comments between March 5 and 19; I've restored the quotation from Carter, which is appropriately placed after the sizable summary of the critical commmentary (with its cross link to a full article about the commentary). It is misleading not to have Carter's quotation in his own words. The presentation of it did not make the points that he makes. One can also read the full Commentary article for further details of what he is reponding to; the cross-links are clearly prominent. (Moving material creates problems with the way citation notes post; some have abbreviations (ref name =...) and subsequent notes do not post correctly when the original citation is removed from a section. --NYScholar 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Carter's Numerous errors and lies...

[....]There are many ... errors here: CAMERA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

That source is already listed in the bibliography of this article; the material that the anon IP add. just placed in this talk page was previously deleted from a much-earlier version of this article for reasons pertaining to its being POV editing; see WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Talk pages are not places for pushing POV. They are for discussing improvements to the article. See the talkpage header. --NYScholar 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See archived talk page: Lack of Neutrality issues. --NYScholar 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the POV of CAMERA is already discussed in the cross-linked article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. See the section on it with its links to its webpage w/ all the material that has been deleted from this talk page; it's all accessible at the link. Please do not add such material from POV sources in this talk page. This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article on the subject (the book); the commentary about the book has its own cross-linked article now. Please follow the links. (At top of article and throughout.) --NYScholar 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of blog from article

This is moved from editorial comments that I placed because someone is adding to them; discussion of this kind needs to be in the talk page: see the talk page headers at top and the guidelines and policies linked in them. Personal blogs are not permissible sources.--NYScholar 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC) From the editorial interpolated comments: please sign comments on talk page.--NYScholar 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Deleted earlier ed's reference to Lipstadt's personal blog and the ed's observations based on original research; a personal blog is a dubious source; see Wikipedia:Attribution (previously Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The reference to this particular POV blog is not in keeping with those guidelines or with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:Cite. Focus on facts presented in noteworthy reliable citable published news sources. See WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; and WP:BLP.--NYScholar 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to contact the editor (as he's not enabled email but please don't delete Lipstadt's blog as it's THE smoking gun that shows where these questions came from as the students read them word-for-word in the video from GW.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The phrase "the smoking gun" (Please don't use capital letters for emphasis--it's shouting--use italics) is what Wikipedia terms "POV," it appears to me. One is not supposed to push a POV or to do original research in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and WP:NOR. --NYScholar 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lipstadt's blog shows where the students got the question. There's not a pov issue. It needs to be cited so readers can see that Libstadt wrote these questions. there's no other way to prove this. they can watch the video and read those questions (that are on her blog) and see they're they same. How else can this be proven?

I understand that you can't use a blog to reference third party information. But the blog in this case is the source of the questions. There is no other source than Lipstadt's blog. Please reconsider and allow readers to see that the blog was the source of the student's questions.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The blog is not permitted in this article. It is highly POV and contrary to Wikipedia editing policy to cite it as it is not a "reliable source" in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:BLP, e.g.). The blog is filled with references to other POV sources, which makes it even less worthy of citing here. The published article from the Forward already establishes as fact that the questions come from Lipstadt and other faculty and students at Emory. There is no need to cite the blog to make that point. Readers can do original research on their own, but Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NOR in articles and strict policies regarding uses of sources and citations. You need to review them and to edit articles in keeping with these guidelines and policies. There is no need to "prove" what is already stated as a fact in the published article cited. [It is not a Wikipedia editor's job to "prove" theories; editors are supposed to cite Wikipedia-approved kinds of sources to establish facts.] --NYScholar 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]

By the way: I just want to observe that Deborah Lipstadt's name is already linked in the quotation from the Forward in this article, which establishes her as a source of the distributed handout of questions that the students were reading from (there is no need to "prove" the assertion; it is already asserted). Her blog is already listed in the external links in the Wikipedia biography on her (where her blog is a permitted source link; personal blogs of living persons are citable in their own biographies in Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the previous version of what is now called Wikipedia:Attribution.) One can access her blog via the article on her and do one's own research if one wishes. Or, if one wants to do one's own further original research, one can search the subject of the GWU visit, and the blog turns up. But it is not possible to list it (the result of "original research") in this article as a source if it is not the kind of source that Wikipedia guidelines approve for controversial articles pertaining to living persons; for WP:BLP; see talkheader at top of this page for related links and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles for further guidance. --NYScholar 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

George Washington University Visit

The forward article should not be cited. It does not meet wikipedia requirements for attribution as outlined in [Wikipedia:Attribution]. Information is derogatory and poorly sourced. Recomend that article is deleted as per NPOV policy.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).[1]

161.253.41.42 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The issue of who controlled the questions that were asked is irrelevant to Carter and his book. The attention should be on the questions themselves and on Carter's responses. Please delete the article. 75.84.114.219 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that 161.253.41.42 has been exposed as Fishman (the subject of the GWU section). He was caught attempting to self-edit his biography there and the story of what he did here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Fishman#Self-editing.

There is no merit for this self-serving request that this article be removed. It's from a famous, trusted and reputable newspaper. The most respected Jewish publication in the US.

Moreover there is no dispute about what occured. Fishman and the others admit what they did in the article in their interviews, apparently by phone as Fishman tells us in his bio TALK page. So, this is an undisputed and acurate press report. 4.249.39.86 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not questioning the accuracy of what occurred, I am questioning its relevance. Why is it relevant to Carter and his book? It might be appropriate on Fishman page, but what is it doing here? 75.84.97.215 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Condemnation by Bill Clinton

I've just checked all the sources listed in the article for Clinton's alleged condemnation of Carter's book. It could be my mistake as I scanned through fairly quickly and apologies if I am mistaken, but there does not appear to be any mention of Clinton at all in three of the four sources. One of them, a short newspaper article, definately does not refer to him. The only source which does mention him is the AJC site, and it's not a public statement but a letter Clinton sent to the AJC which they have chosen to put up on their website. He does not appear to condemn Carter's book as such, he simply thanks the organisation for checking out "inaccuracies" and dubious "conclusions" in the book. While this demonstrates that Clinton takes issue with what he regards as inaccuracies in the book, it does not constitute a "condemnation" of the whole work nor is it any kind of public statement from Clinton. Further, it's unclear as to whether Clinton is suggesting that he believes there to be errors throughout the book or just in the sections dealing with his own peace efforts in 2000. Given that Clinton is thanking the organisation for fact-checking, the latter seems reasonably likely. I tried making a quick search for any relevant material but couldn't find any mention anywhere of Clinton commenting on the book. Now it might well be the case that Clinton has publicly condemned Carter's book, but if it is true then this needs to be very carefully sourced. Someone with some time on their hands should go over the sources carefully, as I say one of them definetely makes no mention of Bill Clinton whatsoever, and if their is no evidence from these sources then others should be found. Otherwise, the statement should be deleted from the article, as there is no evidence to back it up. As I say, apologies if I am mistaken and there is actually some mention of Clinton buried somewhere in the other two sources. 217.38.66.40 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I've just managed to find a source here: [2]. It includes quotes from Clinton criticising the book, although the article does suggest it may be specifically the passages on his own peace efforts that has angered him. I suggest this should be added as a source, and if the other sources do not in fact refer to Clinton, then they should be deleted. 217.38.66.40 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[Pursuant to WP:BLP: Deleted irrelevant comment posted by an anon. IP user not related to improving the article; see reminder below. --NYScholar 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]

Recent updates

Added title and publication information (full citation) for a link someone added to this article; also updated some sources and corrected erroneous information inserted by others. --NYScholar 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated a source today. --NYScholar 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I have not had or taken as much time to spend in Wikipedia as much as I used to, due to non-Wikipedia related work obligations and impending deadlines, I did take some time from my work to make some corrections to further erroneous information added to this article, to move a citation to a more appropriate section (adding the updated material to that section), and to update some other parts of the article, as well as to correct misinformation in an earlier section. I have to go back offline, but I just wanted to refer to the updates here; the editing history summaries that I have already provided explain the changes in detail. Please do not post comments about this article on my talk page, as I will not be checking it for such comments; please place comments about making improvements to this article and the related one on "commentary" on their talk pages. Thank you again. --NYScholar 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox positioning?

As far as I know, I did not do anything to the part of this article or the commentary article relating to the infoboxes for the book, but, for some reason, the infoboxes in these interlinked articles no longer seem to be posting the way they did before. Perhaps someone can assist with fixing this possible problem. It may be a Wiki glitch. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [I don't know what the header about the infobox means placed at top of this page by someone else. Deleted it because it seems obsolete. --NYScholar 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)]

I fixed the problem of the posting of the infoboxes in both cross-linked articles a bit earlier (5/7/2007). --NYScholar 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: See Talk page header

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestine Peace Not Apartheid article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --NYScholar 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

beilin is...

per this edit conflict - [3].

beilin is a notable left leaning israeli politician, what is the justification of censoring the fact that he is affiliated with a certain perspective on the conflict? JaakobouChalk Talk 02:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, (i) "left-wing" has somewhat different connotations than "left-leaning" (and I'd agree that Beilin is "left-leaning"), and (ii) Beilin isn't the only figure to have agreed with Carter in any event. CJCurrie (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. no one who knows anything about israeli politics claims beilin is "left leaning" - you have a source for this? because i can bring up many that call him left-wing (and worse).
  2. i'd be happy if you add citations by 'others' but i really don't see how this relates to the dispute - add these citations and then we'll discuss their political affiliation.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)



RE: Carter and Apartheid - The article should mention that he was not plowing new ground. More than one Jewish - Israeli "historian" - real historians, really - preceded him in the discovery that Israel acts just like South Africa did. I was surprised to see the indignation expressed when Carter's book was first released. I thought then, and still do, that it was feigned indignation for press consumption only. Without knowing who expressed their hurt feelings - I bet I can guess as to who at least a half dozen of the usual suspects are, sight unseen. I repeat, and the article should at least mention once, that equating - noticing - that Israel and its former staunch ally south Africa was not totally new with Carter, heck we ( my friends,family and I ) made the obvious observation years before the historians - decades before Carter ( at least publically) 159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi on Palestine (from Gandhi wiki article)

Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden's recommendation

Shouldn't that also be included in the article? I think so. Winstonwolf33 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Winstonwolf33

Here is a cite: ELISABETH BUMILLER; CARLOTTA GALL; SALMAN MASOOD (May 7, 2011). "Bin Laden's Secret Life in a Diminished, Dark World". New York Times. [Bin Laden] praised former President Jimmy Carter's book supporting Palestinian rights.. One would have to emphasize that Carter despises Bin Laden and to make sure it is clear that it is not "guilt by association" since Carter does not get to choose who likes his book.
{{cite news| newspaper=New York Times |date=May 7, 2011 |title=Bin Laden’s Secret Life in a Diminished, Dark World |quote= [Bin Laden] praised former President Jimmy Carter’s book supporting Palestinian rights.|author1=ELISABETH BUMILLER | author2=CARLOTTA GALL|author3=SALMAN MASOOD}}
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#STYLE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid/Archive_6&oldid=1040288044"