This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The title of the book, which contains the hot button term "apartheid" is part of the reason why it is such a topic of discussion or controversy. Jimmy Carter discussed his feelings towards provoking a controversy with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press two Sundays ago. Here is a snippet from the official " Meet the Press Transcript for December 3, 2006":
-- 70.51.230.254 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are we pasting in television transcripts to this page?-- G-Dett 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.-- G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only major formatting change left to make at this point is to move the "praise" and "criticism" sections up so that they precede the "controversy" section. At least for the present. Stein's major allegations remain unspecified and Ross's minor one unverified, and in the national media both critics are making rapid segues from complaints about scholarship to statements of ideological opposition. In other words at the present moment the "controversy" over scholarly practice gives every appearance of being an outgrowth of the controversy over the book's content, and so should naturally follow it. As the dispute over scholarship comes into focus, the order of primacy may well change.-- G-Dett 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.
Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning [Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."
From Newsweek interview [2].
Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) [3].
-- 70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
From [4]:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
-- 70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What if the cause were Muslim and CAIR was commenting? Would that be irrelevant? Elizmr 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany." [8]
Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: [9]. -- 70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a positive review from a mainstream Syrian newspaper: [10]. My hope is that we don't have a cultural bias where only commentary from US or British based media is considered valid. -- 70.48.70.188 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
CJ--could you be more specific about what you object to? Elizmr 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Hey anon, poisoning the well by any other name is still poisoning the well. Elizmr 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would respectfully argue that it is manifestly relevant if a critic or supporter of the Carter books is either Jewish or Palestinian. This is, afterall, a dispute between Jews and Palestinians. It is important to point out that most of the critics listed on this entry (Ross, Dershowitz, Goldberg, etc) are Jewish. It is relevant to cite pro-Israel books they've written or the fact that someone has served in the Israeli Army. Equally, it is important to cite the fact that someone may have been a member of Hamas or Fatah or the PLO. Or simply that that person is Palestinian or has written obviously pro-Palestinian books or articles.
Also, I refer you to a paragraph frome the undisputed entry on Alan Dershowitz:
"Dershowitz was born in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, and grew up in Borough Park.[1] His parents, Harry and Claire, were both devout Orthodox JewsItalic text. Harry Dershowitz (May 8, 1909–April 26, 1984)[2] was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company. Alan Dershowitz's brother Nathan, at the time of their father's death counsel for the American Jewish Congress, is a partner in the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson"
Why are these references to his Jewish heritage not offensive?
How does stating factually that someone is Palestinian or Jewish constitute an effort to discredit?
Also, this commentary below is way, way off the mark and totally imflammatory. The comparison is offensive and in no way relevant.
In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
note: above unsigned comment placed by Sappo [11]
BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. -- 70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
From a Google News search...
-- 70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie.
I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7.
I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is an argument for the article structure you are a proponent of. Elizmr 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7 talk 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:
Here are the main stories:
-- 70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC ( Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.
Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:
-- 70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is ok to state that elections were coming up, but saying that these folks were just "distancing themselves" discredits their remarks as politically motivated and devoid of content. It poisons the well. Could we compromise on this? Elizmr 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.
In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank. [1] Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role, [2] though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization. citation needed Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution. [3] Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem [4] and that the maps are publicly available. [5] In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels. [6] Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States." [7] But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive." [12] [8] Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993. [9] Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace. [13] David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history." [14]. The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations. [10] Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a super big fan of the new structure either, I was just going with it to be agreeable. -- YoYoDa1 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Gave some structure. -- 64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who has reviewed the interview transcript should realize that Carter was comparing conditions in Palestine *now* to conditions in Rwanda *now*. He specifically refused to be drawn into a debate on the Rwandan genocide, and did not compare the current situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide.
For us to assert "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda" is both improper and inaccurate, given that Carter did not actually do what Dershowitz is said to have accused him of doing.
We could perhaps write "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for allegedly having compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda", but then we'd have to include a follow-up sentence indicating that Carter didn't actually say this. I can't imagine Dershowitz coming off well in such a comparison and, frankly, I can't see Carter's original comments as being sufficiently important for inclusion.
CJCurrie 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.]
CJCurrie
03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Add: I don't appreciate SlimVirgin's decision to remove the dispute template while I was still making my comments on this forum: [16]. CJCurrie 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I took this out of the article because it isn't true.
Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. [11] Jasper23 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long. Moments after I removed the Disputed notice (since the disputed text was no longer in the article), SlimVirgin decided to restore the disputed text without also restoring the disputed notice. Quite charming, really.
To the point at issue: the current wording may be technically accurate, but it is also woefully misleading and inappropriate for the article. That SlimVirgin doesn't seem to recognize this is quite disconcerting, although not entirely surprising.
At the risk of repeating myself, please note that I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Carter said. He said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know," and was called on it.
But you still don't seem to understand the NOR policy. Even if the above were completely irrelevant, Dershowitz criticized Carter for it. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because we are simply reporting what D said, and it's clearly not a trivial matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if I accept your premise that Dershowitz's piece is an appropriate source for this article (which I do not), the current wording is still a grotesque distortion of both NPOV and BLP.
Incidentally, I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Slim has just adjusted the text. The current version is much better, although not quite perfect (the final section is still misleading, and requires either rewording or further clarification). CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that SlimVirgin has added further text. The current edit is not even close to being acceptable, and I plan to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity. (Carter did not "invoke" Rwanda, for a start ...) CJCurrie 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:
On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.
The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/
This the relevant section:
Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.
On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post: [19]
This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later: [20]
Our article currently summarizes this situation as follows:
My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:
I also have some concerns about the use of sources. The other Dershowitz criticisms in this article are taken from the New York Sun, a credible journal. StandWithUs and Dershowitz's blog are not reliable, peer-reviewed sources, and I doubt that any credible paper would have published a piece so misleading. We don't regularly cite pieces from FrontPage Magazine, so why should we cite this?
Addendum: Dershowitz recently published a highly truncated reference to this controversy in a piece for the Boston Globe. It might be possible for us to reference that work, although I'm not certain how one could do this without engaging in "quote-mining".
From what I can tell, no other credible journalistic source has referenced this controversy at. I'm concerned that referencing this matter on Wikipedia would simply make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE. CJCurrie 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CJC emailed me and asked me to look in and give my view on this.
It seems pretty clear from that transcript that:
I would also add to that: Dershowitz is not exactly known for fair treatment of critics of Israel. I would agree with CJCurrie's characterization of this as a smear.
I don't find anything in the exchange or in Dershowitz's remarks that at all obviously rises to the level of belonging in an encyclopedia: it reads to me mostly like Carter being tired and not choosing his words carefully. I think CJCurrie's remark "It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal" is absolutely on the mark. I'd be inclined to leave the whole thing out.
But if we are going to include it at all, I would be inclined to write something like:
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, interviewer David Shuster asked Carter a series of questions inviting comparison of the situation of the Palestinians with "a place like Rwanda". In the course of his answer, Carter "the Rwandan civil war" (Shuster's wording, presumably the 1994 Rwandan Genocide) as "ancient history", and asserted that the "persecution of the Palestinians is one of theworst examples of human rights abuse I know".
I'd put the full exchange reproduced above in a footnote. If we really want to, we can include Dershowitz's remarks, but only after such a neutral description of what Carter actually said. I, myself, would not be inclined to include Dershowitz's remarks. I think they are a smear, based on a presumption that his immediate reply to an unexpected question should be treated on the same level as his writings, and that his clarification was eitehr insincere or otherwise to be dismissed.
Alan Dershowitz criticized Carter's backing away from the Rwanda analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.
(Footnote Dershowitz as appropriate. And, yes, Dershowitz's blog is citable for what Dershowitz says.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
One gripe I think most would share: The Dershowitz section twice lists Carter's use of the term apartheid as a criticism. We should just mention it once to conserve space. -- YoYoDa1 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's very simple. Why not let readers and other editors judge for themselves whether we've portrayed it accurately. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia says:
Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.
Here is what Dershowitz wrote: [21]
Here is what Carter said:
Readers may note that the excerpt I've provided above is more complete. CJCurrie 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As the person who first found the StandWithUs article and the "Hardball" transcripts and added them to Wikipedia, I am honored that it has received such heated debate. I am even more honored that SlimVirgin has taken up the responsibility to preserve the integrity of myself, herself, Alan Dershowitz, Israel, and Wikipedia standards without fail. Let's analyze the statement line by line:
So we have established that as of this moment, every statement in the disputed section is true, therefore none of it should be removed for the sole reason that any one claim is false or misleading or is original research. How about the claim that Alan Dershowitz is an unreliable source? That would challenge statements 1 and 5, but not 2, 3, and 4. I offer this compromise to CJCurrie and other like-minded Wikipedians: if anyone can find a reliable source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not criticize "Carter for comments that he made in an interview with David Shuster on MSNBC" or a source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not accuse "Carter of trivializing the Rwandan genocide through his comments," I would accept the removal of Statements 1 and 5 from the article. Statements 2, 3, and 4 would stay, of course since the "Hardball" transcript is not a disputed source. ;) -- GHcool 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[28] CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I fail to see how a former president's decision to compare Palestine in 2006 with RWANDA (!) in 2006 should occasion anyone's concern, especially as he wasn't the one who raised the issue. Rwanda still bears the scars of the horrific upheavals from twelve years ago (to say nothing of its more recent conflicts with Uganda over Congolese territory), but there's nothing particularly insulting about comparing the two populations today. I can't help but wonder if certain writers are deliberately encouraging confusion between Rwanda 2006 and Rwanda 1994 in order to make Carter appear to have said something he did not. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.
As far as Chesler goes, how do you know that her mistakes are merely "copy editing errors"? I'd be hard-pressed to define the Aung San Suu Kyi error in those terms, personally. CJCurrie 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticism and responses have been written up separately. They really need to be together, in part because it's fairer, but also because it's more interesting to read. The current article is very list-like, with virtually no narrative. I would like to try to rewrite it, but there's so much reverting, I hesitate in case it's a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just saw the RFC and thought I'd poke my head in, hopefully not landing on a minefield. So, does Carter actually compare Palestine to Rwanda in "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"? Or is this something he said outside of the book but is relevant because it reflects Carter's views on the situation in general.
If he mentions it in the book, I don't see how you could possibly not mention it in this article-- I mean-- it's a very bold and obviously inflammatory statement to make in a book. If it was just something he said off the cuff in an interview, then the situation is grayer-- maybe it was a major point, or maybe he just misspoke. In that case, comes down to sheer notability: has the major media picked up on the Rwanda analogy issue, i.e. are there CNN/Nytimes/whatever stories which mention it? If so-- you gotta talk about such a controversial statement. On the other hand, if it's just something that hasn't gotten much media attention outside of the blogs, then perhaps don't mention it, lest we give it undue weight-- but being sure to re-evaluate that over time for if and when the major media picks up on it. -- Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents off the top of my head. -- Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
MH, you shouldn't change what Carter said. He said "ancient history," and it's arguably important to keep that in, in part because we shouldn't guess what he meant, and in part because it's disrespectful and shows a certain mentality: that one million people being murdered in a few weeks in 1994 is "ancient history." Remember that we're not here to attack, but also not to defend. We should simply report what was said. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that I don't believe the "Rwanda" nonsense belongs in the article at all, but I've chosen rewording over deletion for the time being. I await SlimVirgin's outraged response. CJCurrie 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is criticising the actions of the Israeli State anti-semitism? Apparently so. I wait for the POV scarebox to be reinstated... Mostlyharmless 09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The template is transparently POV, and should not be returned to this article under any circumstances. CJCurrie 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
(I've deleted the rest of the discussion, as several comments violated WP:BLP. Please use this page to discuss how the article can neutrally cover what reliable sources say.) Kla'quot 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Odd that Dershowitz didn't mention this ...
Still, philanthropy could be complicated. In 2004, he withdrew a $2.5 million gift to Harvard Divinity School after protests about his earlier support of an Abu Dhabi research center that had invited anti-Semitic speakers. Zayed had already closed the think tank, saying it "starkly contradicted the principles of interfaith tolerance."
(From Zayed's obit, printed in the New York Times, 4 November 2004, p. 2) CJCurrie 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CJC, you appear to have violated 3RR. I've left the diffs on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim: I have reason to believe that another contributor to this discussion is actually in violation of the 3RR right now. For reasons of consistency, will you tell this person to self-revert?
CJCurrie 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I misread one of his edits, never mind.
CJCurrie
10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The new book carter made does two things omit facts and say innacurate statements. As this article said, ross [who was at Camp David unlike that Cater that peanut head], even said that Carter's statement to israeli reaactions at camp david in 2000 are wrong. I know that article was saying the truth when it made that statement. I remember hearing an interview when carte rsaid that Hamas stopped doing terrorist attacks in 2004. Carter, wrong again. Every sensible person knows that Hamas did some terrorist attacks in 2005 and did some terrorist attacks in 2006. When I say tha tHama sdid sme terrorist attacks in those two years, I include the Qassem rocket attacks. The Qassem rocket attacks are terrorist attacks. Hamas intends to have the Qassem rockets kill innocent Israeli civilians. Everyone at Camp david [excluding the Palestinians] all agree that Israel offere da generous offer and arafat rejected it not even making a counterproposal but just leaving. This is an accurate article. Dendoi 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two things I'd like to point out:
You were clearly gaming and were 49 minutes outside the limit with complex, partial reverts. Diffs below. You do this often, so I'm not sure why you think this example in particular will be "used." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem not to have read my comments, I should reiterate that I self-reverted the 01:00 edit a few hours later. My understanding is that this edit would not count toward the 3RR, accordingly. I could add in passing that your own decision to revert my "Totally Disputed" template seems at least equally questionable.
Nothing about Lance? CJCurrie 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Did some work on this article; more is needed (see history). --NYScholar 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following added without a source; the editor who added it needs to find and to cite a reliable source before putting it in this article:
<< In a December 23, 2006 letter to The Boston Globe, Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey expressed that, while Carter "raises some legitimate concerns" about Israeli settlement policy, Markey notes that Israel has in the past attempted to work out peace deals and that Carter's terminology is unnecessarily inflammatory. citation needed >> --NYScholar 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to take it down as I'm not sure why it is up anymore. If anyone has a reason to leave it there though, let me know.-- YoYoDa1 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In one move, SlimVirgin has removed the provisional consensus on the Alan Dershowitz section and restored text that many editors have criticized. ( [29]) From what I can tell, she did not consult with any other editors before making this change.
Do others believe this edit was appropriate? CJCurrie 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And does anyone seriously believe that this is neutral? I don't believe that Slim is even pretending to edit this piece in an objective manner. CJCurrie 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
... unless it's Uri Davis or Tariq Ali, but I digress. I have no desire to keep on debating this endlessly with you either, but I'm really not impressed with your decision to ignore the complaints raised by several other contributors to this page, while offering preposterous justifications in the process. There a million other things I'd rather do as well, but I'm not going to let you turn this page into an extended smear. CJCurrie 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not pretend that you alone are somehow the model or the abitrer of objectivity, CJC. It's easy to criticize other people's bias, but apparently hard to acknowledge your own. No doubt everyone editing and commenting here has their own biases. The point is to work within the rules to overcome those sharp differences of opinion. Pretending that you are neutral and that everyone else is skewed doesn't help matters. Gni 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
First come the claims, next the praise and only at that point the Critism. Thuis is not what NPOV policy says.
Withh all respect to Carter - his view is a fringe minority view and should eb treated as such. NPOV means that the other view should have equal standing in each paragraph and in the lead. The organization of this article (as well as the allegations article) need to change. Zeq 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
List of problems throughout the article:
We also need to make sure that all the information appearing in this article has to do with the contents of this article. -- 76.214.110.18 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
With this diff [30], the stuff about Rwanda and UAE prizes has been added again. This has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, it would have more relevance in the Jimmy Carter article. Please justify the inclusion of this material. Catchpole 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey slim, my main concern is the lack of dialogue on changes being made throughout the article, but especially the Dershowitz section. While some of the above sections deserve a place in the article, some are less deserving than others. I agree that the Rwanda statement has got legs under it, but the Sheikh money is almost not related to the book at all. Valid and/or well-connected criticisms should be included but I don't think the sheik thing qualifies. Especially the picture. If possible, could we all decide on one version and then keep it the same and stop this annoying edit war? I think everyone working on this article can agree that the Dershowitz section needs work. Jasper23 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you post what you think is a final version on the talk page. I have seen past versions that I think are fully acceptable but then they were changed with no comment. I would be fine with this section without the sheik material and a few very minor grammar changes. Jasper23 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is way, way too much in the way of commentary from other people, particularly Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is not even an expert on the subject, has EIGHT paragraphs in this article, plus sections in his own article on his comments on both Carter and on the book. The main effect of all this is to make the article cumbersome and ultimately unuseful. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 ( talk) 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Why don't the editors who like Carter's ideas concentrate on finding positive things to say about this book (within V and NOR), and leave the criticism completely alone for, say, seven days. In the meantime, editors less keen on him should concentrate on the criticism (within V and NOR), and leave any praise alone for the same period. Both "sides" should concentrate on finding good praise and criticism, writing it up well and accurately, and sourcing it well. Then at the end of seven days, we can see what we have in place, and if disputes remain, we can ask uninvolved editors to take a look. How does that sound as a way forward? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, NYS! Blessed are the peacemakers, and far too few and far between! ;) -- DLH
Could everyone editing this article please note whether or not they have read the book? I myself have not, yet. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 ( talk) 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Well, its hard to just pick any particular quote to include in the article, but maybe one could include its table of contents:
The appendices are just the texts of the resolution or agreements, there is no commentary. We could directly link to the appropriate articles from those items in the ToC.
-- 64.230.125.2 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be editing this particular section in the past couple of minutes! how about having the following:
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a New York Times Best Seller [13] book written by Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, published by Simon and Schuster in 2006. While President, Carter initiated the talks between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin that led to a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In this book Carter argues that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." [14]
Since saying that it's a NYT best seller "since its publication" could be old news tomorrow, just simply saying that it is an NYT best seller should suffice methinks. what does everyone else think? --20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoever added that box into this article is "privileging" Dershowitz's criticism of the book. That is not following W:NPOV; it privileges one POV over others. It needs to be removed, in my view. The Rwanda ref. also, as someone says above, seems irrelevant to this article. --NYScholar 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the box material that I believe is inserting POV into this article: <<
>>
Quotations and dev. of Dershowitz's views are currently greater than those of any other critic; his criticisms of Carter's book are amply covered here, and there are already cross-references to the main article sections pertaining to his views of the book at start of this subsection for anyone who wants to read more about Dershowitz and his views in the sources already cited and linked. Any more coverage inserted in this article (like such a box) is POV. The main subject of this article is Carter's book, not Dershowitz and his extensive critique of it. The latter is already sufficiently developed and no box is needed or appropriate.--NYScholar 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the article is disjointed. I think it needs to be structured in a way that a) outlines the main points of the book, and b) describes the controversy clearly, with references that exemplify the points of view of the controversy. -- Leifern 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I leave it to others to Wikify links in the material added in the article recently, as doing that would be helpful to other readers. --NYScholar 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the Deshowitz section starts off with:
It would be best for us to find the exact reviews of the book that he is referencing and include them rather than only resort to him quoting them possibly in a selective nature. -- 64.230.125.2 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have concerns about this sentence as well:
Dershowitz writes that "[m]any of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by 'representatives of Jewish organizations' as Carter has claimed."
This is not a completely accurate reflection of Carter's original comments. Carter's actually wrote: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel".
Is it appropriate for us to reprint AD's selective half-quote, without having the full version nearby? CJCurrie 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The title of the book, which contains the hot button term "apartheid" is part of the reason why it is such a topic of discussion or controversy. Jimmy Carter discussed his feelings towards provoking a controversy with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press two Sundays ago. Here is a snippet from the official " Meet the Press Transcript for December 3, 2006":
-- 70.51.230.254 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are we pasting in television transcripts to this page?-- G-Dett 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.-- G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only major formatting change left to make at this point is to move the "praise" and "criticism" sections up so that they precede the "controversy" section. At least for the present. Stein's major allegations remain unspecified and Ross's minor one unverified, and in the national media both critics are making rapid segues from complaints about scholarship to statements of ideological opposition. In other words at the present moment the "controversy" over scholarly practice gives every appearance of being an outgrowth of the controversy over the book's content, and so should naturally follow it. As the dispute over scholarship comes into focus, the order of primacy may well change.-- G-Dett 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.
Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning [Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."
From Newsweek interview [2].
Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) [3].
-- 70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
From [4]:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"
-- 70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What if the cause were Muslim and CAIR was commenting? Would that be irrelevant? Elizmr 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany." [8]
Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: [9]. -- 70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a positive review from a mainstream Syrian newspaper: [10]. My hope is that we don't have a cultural bias where only commentary from US or British based media is considered valid. -- 70.48.70.188 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
CJ--could you be more specific about what you object to? Elizmr 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Hey anon, poisoning the well by any other name is still poisoning the well. Elizmr 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would respectfully argue that it is manifestly relevant if a critic or supporter of the Carter books is either Jewish or Palestinian. This is, afterall, a dispute between Jews and Palestinians. It is important to point out that most of the critics listed on this entry (Ross, Dershowitz, Goldberg, etc) are Jewish. It is relevant to cite pro-Israel books they've written or the fact that someone has served in the Israeli Army. Equally, it is important to cite the fact that someone may have been a member of Hamas or Fatah or the PLO. Or simply that that person is Palestinian or has written obviously pro-Palestinian books or articles.
Also, I refer you to a paragraph frome the undisputed entry on Alan Dershowitz:
"Dershowitz was born in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, and grew up in Borough Park.[1] His parents, Harry and Claire, were both devout Orthodox JewsItalic text. Harry Dershowitz (May 8, 1909–April 26, 1984)[2] was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company. Alan Dershowitz's brother Nathan, at the time of their father's death counsel for the American Jewish Congress, is a partner in the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson"
Why are these references to his Jewish heritage not offensive?
How does stating factually that someone is Palestinian or Jewish constitute an effort to discredit?
Also, this commentary below is way, way off the mark and totally imflammatory. The comparison is offensive and in no way relevant.
In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
note: above unsigned comment placed by Sappo [11]
BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. -- 70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
From a Google News search...
-- 70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie.
I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7.
I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is an argument for the article structure you are a proponent of. Elizmr 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7 talk 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:
Here are the main stories:
-- 70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC ( Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.
Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:
-- 70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is ok to state that elections were coming up, but saying that these folks were just "distancing themselves" discredits their remarks as politically motivated and devoid of content. It poisons the well. Could we compromise on this? Elizmr 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.
In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank. [1] Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role, [2] though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization. citation needed Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution. [3] Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem [4] and that the maps are publicly available. [5] In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels. [6] Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States." [7] But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive." [12] [8] Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993. [9] Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace. [13] David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history." [14]. The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations. [10] Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a super big fan of the new structure either, I was just going with it to be agreeable. -- YoYoDa1 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Gave some structure. -- 64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who has reviewed the interview transcript should realize that Carter was comparing conditions in Palestine *now* to conditions in Rwanda *now*. He specifically refused to be drawn into a debate on the Rwandan genocide, and did not compare the current situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide.
For us to assert "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda" is both improper and inaccurate, given that Carter did not actually do what Dershowitz is said to have accused him of doing.
We could perhaps write "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for allegedly having compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda", but then we'd have to include a follow-up sentence indicating that Carter didn't actually say this. I can't imagine Dershowitz coming off well in such a comparison and, frankly, I can't see Carter's original comments as being sufficiently important for inclusion.
CJCurrie 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [Clarification: I've re-read Dershowitz's article. He was smart enough not to accuse Carter of directly comparing Palestine today with the Rwanda genocide, although the character of his piece is such that readers are likely to draw this very conclusion.]
CJCurrie
03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Add: I don't appreciate SlimVirgin's decision to remove the dispute template while I was still making my comments on this forum: [16]. CJCurrie 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I took this out of the article because it isn't true.
Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. [11] Jasper23 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long. Moments after I removed the Disputed notice (since the disputed text was no longer in the article), SlimVirgin decided to restore the disputed text without also restoring the disputed notice. Quite charming, really.
To the point at issue: the current wording may be technically accurate, but it is also woefully misleading and inappropriate for the article. That SlimVirgin doesn't seem to recognize this is quite disconcerting, although not entirely surprising.
At the risk of repeating myself, please note that I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Carter said. He said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know," and was called on it.
But you still don't seem to understand the NOR policy. Even if the above were completely irrelevant, Dershowitz criticized Carter for it. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because we are simply reporting what D said, and it's clearly not a trivial matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Even if I accept your premise that Dershowitz's piece is an appropriate source for this article (which I do not), the current wording is still a grotesque distortion of both NPOV and BLP.
Incidentally, I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Slim has just adjusted the text. The current version is much better, although not quite perfect (the final section is still misleading, and requires either rewording or further clarification). CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that SlimVirgin has added further text. The current edit is not even close to being acceptable, and I plan to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity. (Carter did not "invoke" Rwanda, for a start ...) CJCurrie 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:
On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.
The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/
This the relevant section:
Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.
On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post: [19]
This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later: [20]
Our article currently summarizes this situation as follows:
My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:
I also have some concerns about the use of sources. The other Dershowitz criticisms in this article are taken from the New York Sun, a credible journal. StandWithUs and Dershowitz's blog are not reliable, peer-reviewed sources, and I doubt that any credible paper would have published a piece so misleading. We don't regularly cite pieces from FrontPage Magazine, so why should we cite this?
Addendum: Dershowitz recently published a highly truncated reference to this controversy in a piece for the Boston Globe. It might be possible for us to reference that work, although I'm not certain how one could do this without engaging in "quote-mining".
From what I can tell, no other credible journalistic source has referenced this controversy at. I'm concerned that referencing this matter on Wikipedia would simply make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE. CJCurrie 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CJC emailed me and asked me to look in and give my view on this.
It seems pretty clear from that transcript that:
I would also add to that: Dershowitz is not exactly known for fair treatment of critics of Israel. I would agree with CJCurrie's characterization of this as a smear.
I don't find anything in the exchange or in Dershowitz's remarks that at all obviously rises to the level of belonging in an encyclopedia: it reads to me mostly like Carter being tired and not choosing his words carefully. I think CJCurrie's remark "It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal" is absolutely on the mark. I'd be inclined to leave the whole thing out.
But if we are going to include it at all, I would be inclined to write something like:
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, interviewer David Shuster asked Carter a series of questions inviting comparison of the situation of the Palestinians with "a place like Rwanda". In the course of his answer, Carter "the Rwandan civil war" (Shuster's wording, presumably the 1994 Rwandan Genocide) as "ancient history", and asserted that the "persecution of the Palestinians is one of theworst examples of human rights abuse I know".
I'd put the full exchange reproduced above in a footnote. If we really want to, we can include Dershowitz's remarks, but only after such a neutral description of what Carter actually said. I, myself, would not be inclined to include Dershowitz's remarks. I think they are a smear, based on a presumption that his immediate reply to an unexpected question should be treated on the same level as his writings, and that his clarification was eitehr insincere or otherwise to be dismissed.
Alan Dershowitz criticized Carter's backing away from the Rwanda analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.
(Footnote Dershowitz as appropriate. And, yes, Dershowitz's blog is citable for what Dershowitz says.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
One gripe I think most would share: The Dershowitz section twice lists Carter's use of the term apartheid as a criticism. We should just mention it once to conserve space. -- YoYoDa1 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's very simple. Why not let readers and other editors judge for themselves whether we've portrayed it accurately. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia says:
Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "[T]he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.
Here is what Dershowitz wrote: [21]
Here is what Carter said:
Readers may note that the excerpt I've provided above is more complete. CJCurrie 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As the person who first found the StandWithUs article and the "Hardball" transcripts and added them to Wikipedia, I am honored that it has received such heated debate. I am even more honored that SlimVirgin has taken up the responsibility to preserve the integrity of myself, herself, Alan Dershowitz, Israel, and Wikipedia standards without fail. Let's analyze the statement line by line:
So we have established that as of this moment, every statement in the disputed section is true, therefore none of it should be removed for the sole reason that any one claim is false or misleading or is original research. How about the claim that Alan Dershowitz is an unreliable source? That would challenge statements 1 and 5, but not 2, 3, and 4. I offer this compromise to CJCurrie and other like-minded Wikipedians: if anyone can find a reliable source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not criticize "Carter for comments that he made in an interview with David Shuster on MSNBC" or a source that says that Alan Dershowitz did not accuse "Carter of trivializing the Rwandan genocide through his comments," I would accept the removal of Statements 1 and 5 from the article. Statements 2, 3, and 4 would stay, of course since the "Hardball" transcript is not a disputed source. ;) -- GHcool 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[28] CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I fail to see how a former president's decision to compare Palestine in 2006 with RWANDA (!) in 2006 should occasion anyone's concern, especially as he wasn't the one who raised the issue. Rwanda still bears the scars of the horrific upheavals from twelve years ago (to say nothing of its more recent conflicts with Uganda over Congolese territory), but there's nothing particularly insulting about comparing the two populations today. I can't help but wonder if certain writers are deliberately encouraging confusion between Rwanda 2006 and Rwanda 1994 in order to make Carter appear to have said something he did not. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.
As far as Chesler goes, how do you know that her mistakes are merely "copy editing errors"? I'd be hard-pressed to define the Aung San Suu Kyi error in those terms, personally. CJCurrie 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticism and responses have been written up separately. They really need to be together, in part because it's fairer, but also because it's more interesting to read. The current article is very list-like, with virtually no narrative. I would like to try to rewrite it, but there's so much reverting, I hesitate in case it's a waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just saw the RFC and thought I'd poke my head in, hopefully not landing on a minefield. So, does Carter actually compare Palestine to Rwanda in "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"? Or is this something he said outside of the book but is relevant because it reflects Carter's views on the situation in general.
If he mentions it in the book, I don't see how you could possibly not mention it in this article-- I mean-- it's a very bold and obviously inflammatory statement to make in a book. If it was just something he said off the cuff in an interview, then the situation is grayer-- maybe it was a major point, or maybe he just misspoke. In that case, comes down to sheer notability: has the major media picked up on the Rwanda analogy issue, i.e. are there CNN/Nytimes/whatever stories which mention it? If so-- you gotta talk about such a controversial statement. On the other hand, if it's just something that hasn't gotten much media attention outside of the blogs, then perhaps don't mention it, lest we give it undue weight-- but being sure to re-evaluate that over time for if and when the major media picks up on it. -- Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents off the top of my head. -- Alecmconroy 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
MH, you shouldn't change what Carter said. He said "ancient history," and it's arguably important to keep that in, in part because we shouldn't guess what he meant, and in part because it's disrespectful and shows a certain mentality: that one million people being murdered in a few weeks in 1994 is "ancient history." Remember that we're not here to attack, but also not to defend. We should simply report what was said. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that I don't believe the "Rwanda" nonsense belongs in the article at all, but I've chosen rewording over deletion for the time being. I await SlimVirgin's outraged response. CJCurrie 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is criticising the actions of the Israeli State anti-semitism? Apparently so. I wait for the POV scarebox to be reinstated... Mostlyharmless 09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The template is transparently POV, and should not be returned to this article under any circumstances. CJCurrie 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
(I've deleted the rest of the discussion, as several comments violated WP:BLP. Please use this page to discuss how the article can neutrally cover what reliable sources say.) Kla'quot 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Odd that Dershowitz didn't mention this ...
Still, philanthropy could be complicated. In 2004, he withdrew a $2.5 million gift to Harvard Divinity School after protests about his earlier support of an Abu Dhabi research center that had invited anti-Semitic speakers. Zayed had already closed the think tank, saying it "starkly contradicted the principles of interfaith tolerance."
(From Zayed's obit, printed in the New York Times, 4 November 2004, p. 2) CJCurrie 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
CJC, you appear to have violated 3RR. I've left the diffs on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim: I have reason to believe that another contributor to this discussion is actually in violation of the 3RR right now. For reasons of consistency, will you tell this person to self-revert?
CJCurrie 10:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) I misread one of his edits, never mind.
CJCurrie
10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The new book carter made does two things omit facts and say innacurate statements. As this article said, ross [who was at Camp David unlike that Cater that peanut head], even said that Carter's statement to israeli reaactions at camp david in 2000 are wrong. I know that article was saying the truth when it made that statement. I remember hearing an interview when carte rsaid that Hamas stopped doing terrorist attacks in 2004. Carter, wrong again. Every sensible person knows that Hamas did some terrorist attacks in 2005 and did some terrorist attacks in 2006. When I say tha tHama sdid sme terrorist attacks in those two years, I include the Qassem rocket attacks. The Qassem rocket attacks are terrorist attacks. Hamas intends to have the Qassem rockets kill innocent Israeli civilians. Everyone at Camp david [excluding the Palestinians] all agree that Israel offere da generous offer and arafat rejected it not even making a counterproposal but just leaving. This is an accurate article. Dendoi 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two things I'd like to point out:
You were clearly gaming and were 49 minutes outside the limit with complex, partial reverts. Diffs below. You do this often, so I'm not sure why you think this example in particular will be "used." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem not to have read my comments, I should reiterate that I self-reverted the 01:00 edit a few hours later. My understanding is that this edit would not count toward the 3RR, accordingly. I could add in passing that your own decision to revert my "Totally Disputed" template seems at least equally questionable.
Nothing about Lance? CJCurrie 04:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Did some work on this article; more is needed (see history). --NYScholar 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following added without a source; the editor who added it needs to find and to cite a reliable source before putting it in this article:
<< In a December 23, 2006 letter to The Boston Globe, Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey expressed that, while Carter "raises some legitimate concerns" about Israeli settlement policy, Markey notes that Israel has in the past attempted to work out peace deals and that Carter's terminology is unnecessarily inflammatory. citation needed >> --NYScholar 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to take it down as I'm not sure why it is up anymore. If anyone has a reason to leave it there though, let me know.-- YoYoDa1 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In one move, SlimVirgin has removed the provisional consensus on the Alan Dershowitz section and restored text that many editors have criticized. ( [29]) From what I can tell, she did not consult with any other editors before making this change.
Do others believe this edit was appropriate? CJCurrie 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And does anyone seriously believe that this is neutral? I don't believe that Slim is even pretending to edit this piece in an objective manner. CJCurrie 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
... unless it's Uri Davis or Tariq Ali, but I digress. I have no desire to keep on debating this endlessly with you either, but I'm really not impressed with your decision to ignore the complaints raised by several other contributors to this page, while offering preposterous justifications in the process. There a million other things I'd rather do as well, but I'm not going to let you turn this page into an extended smear. CJCurrie 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not pretend that you alone are somehow the model or the abitrer of objectivity, CJC. It's easy to criticize other people's bias, but apparently hard to acknowledge your own. No doubt everyone editing and commenting here has their own biases. The point is to work within the rules to overcome those sharp differences of opinion. Pretending that you are neutral and that everyone else is skewed doesn't help matters. Gni 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
First come the claims, next the praise and only at that point the Critism. Thuis is not what NPOV policy says.
Withh all respect to Carter - his view is a fringe minority view and should eb treated as such. NPOV means that the other view should have equal standing in each paragraph and in the lead. The organization of this article (as well as the allegations article) need to change. Zeq 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
List of problems throughout the article:
We also need to make sure that all the information appearing in this article has to do with the contents of this article. -- 76.214.110.18 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
With this diff [30], the stuff about Rwanda and UAE prizes has been added again. This has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, it would have more relevance in the Jimmy Carter article. Please justify the inclusion of this material. Catchpole 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey slim, my main concern is the lack of dialogue on changes being made throughout the article, but especially the Dershowitz section. While some of the above sections deserve a place in the article, some are less deserving than others. I agree that the Rwanda statement has got legs under it, but the Sheikh money is almost not related to the book at all. Valid and/or well-connected criticisms should be included but I don't think the sheik thing qualifies. Especially the picture. If possible, could we all decide on one version and then keep it the same and stop this annoying edit war? I think everyone working on this article can agree that the Dershowitz section needs work. Jasper23 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you post what you think is a final version on the talk page. I have seen past versions that I think are fully acceptable but then they were changed with no comment. I would be fine with this section without the sheik material and a few very minor grammar changes. Jasper23 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is way, way too much in the way of commentary from other people, particularly Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who is not even an expert on the subject, has EIGHT paragraphs in this article, plus sections in his own article on his comments on both Carter and on the book. The main effect of all this is to make the article cumbersome and ultimately unuseful. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 ( talk) 19:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Why don't the editors who like Carter's ideas concentrate on finding positive things to say about this book (within V and NOR), and leave the criticism completely alone for, say, seven days. In the meantime, editors less keen on him should concentrate on the criticism (within V and NOR), and leave any praise alone for the same period. Both "sides" should concentrate on finding good praise and criticism, writing it up well and accurately, and sourcing it well. Then at the end of seven days, we can see what we have in place, and if disputes remain, we can ask uninvolved editors to take a look. How does that sound as a way forward? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, NYS! Blessed are the peacemakers, and far too few and far between! ;) -- DLH
Could everyone editing this article please note whether or not they have read the book? I myself have not, yet. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.41 ( talk) 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Well, its hard to just pick any particular quote to include in the article, but maybe one could include its table of contents:
The appendices are just the texts of the resolution or agreements, there is no commentary. We could directly link to the appropriate articles from those items in the ToC.
-- 64.230.125.2 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be editing this particular section in the past couple of minutes! how about having the following:
Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is a New York Times Best Seller [13] book written by Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, published by Simon and Schuster in 2006. While President, Carter initiated the talks between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin that led to a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In this book Carter argues that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." [14]
Since saying that it's a NYT best seller "since its publication" could be old news tomorrow, just simply saying that it is an NYT best seller should suffice methinks. what does everyone else think? --20:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoever added that box into this article is "privileging" Dershowitz's criticism of the book. That is not following W:NPOV; it privileges one POV over others. It needs to be removed, in my view. The Rwanda ref. also, as someone says above, seems irrelevant to this article. --NYScholar 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the box material that I believe is inserting POV into this article: <<
>>
Quotations and dev. of Dershowitz's views are currently greater than those of any other critic; his criticisms of Carter's book are amply covered here, and there are already cross-references to the main article sections pertaining to his views of the book at start of this subsection for anyone who wants to read more about Dershowitz and his views in the sources already cited and linked. Any more coverage inserted in this article (like such a box) is POV. The main subject of this article is Carter's book, not Dershowitz and his extensive critique of it. The latter is already sufficiently developed and no box is needed or appropriate.--NYScholar 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the article is disjointed. I think it needs to be structured in a way that a) outlines the main points of the book, and b) describes the controversy clearly, with references that exemplify the points of view of the controversy. -- Leifern 00:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I leave it to others to Wikify links in the material added in the article recently, as doing that would be helpful to other readers. --NYScholar 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the Deshowitz section starts off with:
It would be best for us to find the exact reviews of the book that he is referencing and include them rather than only resort to him quoting them possibly in a selective nature. -- 64.230.125.2 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have concerns about this sentence as well:
Dershowitz writes that "[m]any of the reviews have been written by non-Jewish as well as Jewish critics, and not by 'representatives of Jewish organizations' as Carter has claimed."
This is not a completely accurate reflection of Carter's original comments. Carter's actually wrote: "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organisations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel".
Is it appropriate for us to reprint AD's selective half-quote, without having the full version nearby? CJCurrie 02:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)