This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
[Note added: If you support the current wording in the (now) 2 paragraphs please put a number sign (#) in the "Pro" subsection; if you don't, please put a short sentence preceded by a number sign in the "Con" subsection (below); you must sign with four tildes to have your response considered significant. Otherwise, you are not really participating in this discussion, as we can't tell who you are. Also, use only one signature name; any sockpuppets will be ignored. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I expect eventually to restore content to the PPNA section, including the use of the word "analogy" to refer to Carter's use of "apartheid". Here is the first appearance of the word in the main text of the book:
Is that a step in the right direction? I don't mind adding more about the controversy as long as it conforms to npov standards and undue weight. (undue weight not so much in controversy but the spotlighting of specific critics) Jiffypopmetaltop 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikiquote page is prominently linked in each of the main articles. You cannot write this section on Jimmy Carter without reading those articles. Trying to do so is really ridiculous. The material is already in the other articles. All this section needs is cross-linking to them. That is not a "POV fork"; they are NPOV articles on the book and commentary on (incl. reactions to) the book. --NYScholar 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[If these are not "Pro" comments, but are "Con" comments, please cut and paste them in subsection "Comments" under "Con", so everyone can see your viewpoint, and put a number sign before your one-sentence position in the "Pro" or "Con" section (Please see note in bold typeface added above. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
In response to the version that someone or some people have changed before consensus was fully reached here, I have restored the more NPOV to the section on this book in this article on Jimmy Carter. I am supporting this current version, not the changes made in the interim, which resulted in more POV (not NPOV). The current version (last edited by me, NYScholar) is, in my view, still NPOV. The sources to support the generalization currently in this section are not necessary because they are all given in the cross-linked article(s) in the section. "Commentary" has the representative sources. No need to quote directly from or to list them in notes here again. --NYScholar 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The section has now been changed a number of times; some of them are not in keeping with my comments; people really should not be changing this section substantively while we are seeking consensus; the version that I currently can approve is this one (some of others' edits, some mine): (--NYScholar 02:??, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
1.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this book Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3]
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter's book, specifically lauding his courage for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a media environment which they believe to be hostile to opponents of Israel's policies. Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid are controversial, however. Critics of the book have accused him of "factual errors", "misstatements", " plagiarism", "anti-Israel" sentiments, and " anti-Semitism".
2. [most recent version that I've seen: also has my support [see Pro section above]:
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this [controversial] book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3]
[I would add "controversial" as an adjective to describe the book: see bracketed word. I am adding it to the passage in the article. --NYScholar 08:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I've added the following to the end, because, as I say in editing history, it seems to end abruptly; I also added the word "controversial" as an adjective describing the book:
The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
--NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[Giza D: Do you want to add your numbered sentence here? --NYScholar 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
When I did the initial edit it was mentioning a major news story. It was demonstrating Carter does not want an open debate. Deshowitz has written several books on the subject. How about this:
Carter refused to debate Israeli exprert Alan Dershowitz and Brandies acceded to his demands and barred any non Brandies student and proffessors from Carter's speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giza D ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
[I've labeled this section "Tangent", because it's going way off the intended topic: the section on the book and an attempt to reach consensus about a very particular proposal (current version). --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
[Do you (Andyvphil)have to repeat this? --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
Just to be very clear: The only part of this article that I have read and worked on is the section that I was directed to come to aid in: the section on this book. I have not read or worked on the rest of the article, and I do not have time to do that. At one point in my comments somewhere I said that there are a lot of problems with this article that I currently do not have time to devote to trying to work on correcting. So, please, do not bring other parts of the article in relation to my comments on just one section. Please, scroll up for the beginning of where I have been commenting. --NYScholar 12:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[Edited the heading: Wikipedia talk guidelines say not to put users' names in headings.]
Look, what I put on the discussion page was an example of a POV edit. This as opposed to my edit on the article page. I was hoping those who object to Carter being crticized would see the difference. Giza D 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am against that version because it does not mention Carter's refusal to have a discussion with those who disagree with his point of view. Giza D 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[copying below:]
[...]We don't need you lecturing us on policies you only half understand. So, Giza forgot to log in once before closing his edit. This is an excuse for a long lecture on anonymous posting? It wasn't anonymous -- the content made it clear it was Giza. There aren't so many participants in this discussion that we need your cumbersome and ill-implemented mechanism for a survey to identify our opinions. You and Jiffy, who recruited you, want criticism of PPNA unobtrusively exiled to the third or fourth screenfill of a linked article. I want that criticim pungently, if briefly, expressed here, followed ASAP by the link. Derex would be happy with a less pungent summary than I insist on, but is having problems with your lecturing and use of "scare quotes". Giza is offended that Carter gets to say, unrebutted, that he wanted to "precipitate discussion" when his actions indicate that he doesn't want to discuss anything with anyone, just lecture them from on high. Bart lurks around copyediting, not always appropriately, and I think there have been some indications that he's more sympathetetic to Giza and I than you, but I can't right now say where. That's the complete cast of characters at present. Andyvphil 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. No one "recruited" me. I was simply asked by a user I do not know and had never encountered before to read an earlier version of this section and to try to present a "fair" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is what I have been trying to do and, in the course of doing so, I've encountered a lot of resistance from POV editors. --NYScholar 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"current version":
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this controversial book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3] The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
[moved up.] Don't add comments here. This is a poll section that I created. Start your own new section in comments above or an entirely different section below.--NYScholar 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[Please move this up to a "comments" section. This doesn't belong here. No one should put anything that is not signed with a user name (no anon IP adds.) in either "Pro" or "Con", and you can only register in one column once. --NYScholar 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
In response to some of the "Con" views: scroll up to the earlier versions that do have Dershowitz mentioned in them. See my earlier version that did include ref. to Dershowitz (via editing history of the article). (Currently, I do not support adding such details; they are unnecessary; there is full disc. of Carter/Dershowitz sit. in the main articles. People kept revising passages after I first posted an earlier version and asked for consensus. I added the last couple of sentences to finish what seemed an incomplete paragraph. But there are other possibilities. Just make your views clear, and try to iron this out in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP and the tag for "controversial" articles; all need to be followed in this article. --NYScholar 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility (in my view) is to have no additional content after the section heading of this article on Jimmy Carter entitled "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" except for the cross-refs to the two Wikipedia main articles already cross-linked. That would be, in my view, the most neutral way of handling this problem. (Many Wikipedia articles follow that procedure.) Apparently, the people commenting here on this talk page cannot make a decision in agreement with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This article on Jimmy Carter has been tagged indicating its "neutrality" issues for quite some time. The main articles on the book do not have these problems; they adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (in the last version that I edited). --NYScholar 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[See my comments above on current "possibility" that makes sense to me, given this editing dispute here.]
It was published in December 2006. In this controversial book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [4] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3] The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
[The notes are part of the material that I added earlier; don't interrupt the previous section as I posted it originally. --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]
I thought we came within deletion of a few "scare" quote marks of a version minimally acceptable to me, and maybe Bart and Giza could have been brought on board without Dershowitz as long as there was something in the section to challenge Carter's self-evaluation. But, anyway...
NYScholar wrote, at one point, ": Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not a 'POV fork'; it is a NPOV article discussing various points of view on the book in a neutral way ... --NYScholar 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)" This understanding of the term is incomplete. POV_fork#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles reads "...the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." In this case material is being deleted "so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." The result is the same. The fact that the article pointed to is allegedly NPOV is irrelevant. Andyvphil 03:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not accurate. Many articles in Wikipedia have sections and subsections where there are simply cross-references to other main articles on the exact same sub-topic (in this case a book) already written in Wikipedia. The cross-referenced articles on a sub-topic are not POV; they are NPOV. --NYScholar 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What Andyvphil inadvertently is not noticing is that the article on POV forking is talking about subjects of whole articles. This article's subject is Jimmy Carter, not the one book. The single book already has two main articles (which themselves are cross-linked) relating to it. We are talking about cross references in a sub-section about a topic (the book) of an article about the subject Jimmy Carter, not cross references to alternative POV articles on the same subject (Jimmy Carter). There is a big difference. Andyvphil needs to re-read the POV fork Wikipedia article more carefully and also to read the two articles on the book ( Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid). --NYScholar 06:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The mentioning of Dershowitz does not have to be in there, as long as it mentions Carter's refusal to debate opponents of his book. Giza D 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All of you: stop accusing me of things that simply are untrue. I cross-linked to what I believed was (the last time that I myself had edited it) two NPOV articles. Since then, other people posting in various places have gone to the article and made changes that are POV changes. The article was NPOV until these people (since I last posted in this talk page) started putting their own POVs into it. [Since then, I restored NPOV, but that could change if people start doing that again; always a problem in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] There was no "POV fork" in this article on Jimmy Carter. There were two cross-references to NPOV articles on the book and its commmentary, which both cross-ref. each other. As long as NPOV articles on the book and its commentary already exist in Wikipedia, all the subsection on the book (not on Jimmy Carter, but on the book) needs are the cross-refs. You are involved in contentious editing disputes and need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This article is marked "controversial" as are the other two articles. They are also articles pertaining to living persons; reread the tagged notices. Stop this POV editing.
There needs to be no mention of anything specific if the full articles are cross-referenced. Giza D is promoting his own POV, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia editing guidelines. Jimmy Carter did not want to debate Alan Dershowitz; that is his prerogative. The discussion is already well covered in the "Brandeis visit" section of the main article (the last time I looked at it, yesterday). Palestine Peace Not Apartheid#Brandeis University visit; all the source citations are already there (see also References section), along with ample cross-refs. to the related main article and sections on Dershowitz. Giza D. won't let this go. Why not, one might wonder. Has he even read the other articles? I doubt it. Has he read the "References" section in the main article on the book; I doubt it. In my view, he has quite a bit of reading to do to be informed about what Wikipedia already includes on the book. (I oppose the POV editing war now going on in these articles on Jimmy Carter and his book.) --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the link to the "Brief summary" of "Critical reaction and commentary" on the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (current version, as I write this comment); it is in both main articles on the book (which are split off from one too-long article by an administrator after a consensus discussion on their talk pages): the main article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and the main article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; each of these main articles has a cross-link to the other one, prominently featured right after the heading: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid: Critical reaction and commentary: Brief summary. The articles have complete notes sections; the article on the book has the References section and the Commentary artilce has a cross-link to it. I suggest reading this brief paragraph and the references listed in it and the longer exposition in the rest of both main articles, and I suggest reading the Wikiquote page for the book (also prominently linked).
Some of the book's critics, including several leaders of the Democratic Party and of American Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated. [1] [2]
As far as who edited parts of these articles on the book, the editing history establishes clearly who attempted to improve it over quite an extended period of time. Obviously, I've worked hard on those articles. I find it too bad that those complaining about these articles here (in this contentious discussion of a subsection on the book in this talk page about an article about Jimmy Carter) can't or won't or don't even bother to read the whole articles and the sources cited in them. They might learn more about their subjects (the book and commentary on the book) if they did to overcome their obvious POV and biases about them (subjects of those articles). No one is interested in Wikipedia's POV and biases; they are interested in facts about the book and facts about commentary on it (both positive and negative). --NYScholar 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[Use a number sign before your answer. I have edited signatures by users who use more than one name in commenting on this talk page to indicate that they are the same person. --NYScholar 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] [You can list your user name and sentence in only one sub-section (Either "Yes" or "No"; not both). Removing duplicate; user needs to post correctly. There is no one or the other article in this section; you have to read both to say "Yes": see the heading as I wrote it. --NYScholar 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] [If someone places his or her name in both sub-sections, he or she is invalidating both entries and will be ignored. --NYScholar 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
Derex, please post appropriately: add a sentence saying what you are saying "No" you have not done; if you have read only one or only parts of both articles and not read all the sources provided in them, you cannot put your user name in the sub-section headed "Yes." I think that you know that. I deleted your name from the "Yes" sub-section because you also put it in the "No" sub-section. There is no "either/or" choice re: the articles in my section heading; you have to have read both articles and all the sources cited in them to be able to post "Yes." Otherwise, your answer is "No." --NYScholar 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[I deleted my previous comments that were placed here because I misread a comment posted by Andyvphil as posted by Derex. Sorry Derex...and Andyvphil. [I added some additional space between their two comments; I had mistaken them as written by the same person.] --NYScholar 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
From the talkpage header: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." It is also not a forum for discussing contributors: See WP:NPA: focus on content not on contributors. --NYScholar 07:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I note the blank PPNA section attracted another editor, Eric1985, whom Jiffy reverted with a curt "rv". Tsk, tsk. It appeared to deserve WP:AGF. Andyvphil 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Tsk.Tsk yourself. Are we ready to compromise or should the section be left blank forever. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
[Note added: If you support the current wording in the (now) 2 paragraphs please put a number sign (#) in the "Pro" subsection; if you don't, please put a short sentence preceded by a number sign in the "Con" subsection (below); you must sign with four tildes to have your response considered significant. Otherwise, you are not really participating in this discussion, as we can't tell who you are. Also, use only one signature name; any sockpuppets will be ignored. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I expect eventually to restore content to the PPNA section, including the use of the word "analogy" to refer to Carter's use of "apartheid". Here is the first appearance of the word in the main text of the book:
Is that a step in the right direction? I don't mind adding more about the controversy as long as it conforms to npov standards and undue weight. (undue weight not so much in controversy but the spotlighting of specific critics) Jiffypopmetaltop 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikiquote page is prominently linked in each of the main articles. You cannot write this section on Jimmy Carter without reading those articles. Trying to do so is really ridiculous. The material is already in the other articles. All this section needs is cross-linking to them. That is not a "POV fork"; they are NPOV articles on the book and commentary on (incl. reactions to) the book. --NYScholar 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[If these are not "Pro" comments, but are "Con" comments, please cut and paste them in subsection "Comments" under "Con", so everyone can see your viewpoint, and put a number sign before your one-sentence position in the "Pro" or "Con" section (Please see note in bold typeface added above. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
In response to the version that someone or some people have changed before consensus was fully reached here, I have restored the more NPOV to the section on this book in this article on Jimmy Carter. I am supporting this current version, not the changes made in the interim, which resulted in more POV (not NPOV). The current version (last edited by me, NYScholar) is, in my view, still NPOV. The sources to support the generalization currently in this section are not necessary because they are all given in the cross-linked article(s) in the section. "Commentary" has the representative sources. No need to quote directly from or to list them in notes here again. --NYScholar 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The section has now been changed a number of times; some of them are not in keeping with my comments; people really should not be changing this section substantively while we are seeking consensus; the version that I currently can approve is this one (some of others' edits, some mine): (--NYScholar 02:??, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
1.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this book Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3]
Some journalists and academics have praised Carter's book, specifically lauding his courage for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a media environment which they believe to be hostile to opponents of Israel's policies. Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid are controversial, however. Critics of the book have accused him of "factual errors", "misstatements", " plagiarism", "anti-Israel" sentiments, and " anti-Semitism".
2. [most recent version that I've seen: also has my support [see Pro section above]:
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this [controversial] book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3]
[I would add "controversial" as an adjective to describe the book: see bracketed word. I am adding it to the passage in the article. --NYScholar 08:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
I've added the following to the end, because, as I say in editing history, it seems to end abruptly; I also added the word "controversial" as an adjective describing the book:
The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
--NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[Giza D: Do you want to add your numbered sentence here? --NYScholar 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
When I did the initial edit it was mentioning a major news story. It was demonstrating Carter does not want an open debate. Deshowitz has written several books on the subject. How about this:
Carter refused to debate Israeli exprert Alan Dershowitz and Brandies acceded to his demands and barred any non Brandies student and proffessors from Carter's speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giza D ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
[I've labeled this section "Tangent", because it's going way off the intended topic: the section on the book and an attempt to reach consensus about a very particular proposal (current version). --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
[Do you (Andyvphil)have to repeat this? --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
Just to be very clear: The only part of this article that I have read and worked on is the section that I was directed to come to aid in: the section on this book. I have not read or worked on the rest of the article, and I do not have time to do that. At one point in my comments somewhere I said that there are a lot of problems with this article that I currently do not have time to devote to trying to work on correcting. So, please, do not bring other parts of the article in relation to my comments on just one section. Please, scroll up for the beginning of where I have been commenting. --NYScholar 12:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[Edited the heading: Wikipedia talk guidelines say not to put users' names in headings.]
Look, what I put on the discussion page was an example of a POV edit. This as opposed to my edit on the article page. I was hoping those who object to Carter being crticized would see the difference. Giza D 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am against that version because it does not mention Carter's refusal to have a discussion with those who disagree with his point of view. Giza D 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[copying below:]
[...]We don't need you lecturing us on policies you only half understand. So, Giza forgot to log in once before closing his edit. This is an excuse for a long lecture on anonymous posting? It wasn't anonymous -- the content made it clear it was Giza. There aren't so many participants in this discussion that we need your cumbersome and ill-implemented mechanism for a survey to identify our opinions. You and Jiffy, who recruited you, want criticism of PPNA unobtrusively exiled to the third or fourth screenfill of a linked article. I want that criticim pungently, if briefly, expressed here, followed ASAP by the link. Derex would be happy with a less pungent summary than I insist on, but is having problems with your lecturing and use of "scare quotes". Giza is offended that Carter gets to say, unrebutted, that he wanted to "precipitate discussion" when his actions indicate that he doesn't want to discuss anything with anyone, just lecture them from on high. Bart lurks around copyediting, not always appropriately, and I think there have been some indications that he's more sympathetetic to Giza and I than you, but I can't right now say where. That's the complete cast of characters at present. Andyvphil 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. No one "recruited" me. I was simply asked by a user I do not know and had never encountered before to read an earlier version of this section and to try to present a "fair" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is what I have been trying to do and, in the course of doing so, I've encountered a lot of resistance from POV editors. --NYScholar 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"current version":
Jimmy Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid ( summary), was published in December 2006. In this controversial book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [2] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3] The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
[moved up.] Don't add comments here. This is a poll section that I created. Start your own new section in comments above or an entirely different section below.--NYScholar 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[Please move this up to a "comments" section. This doesn't belong here. No one should put anything that is not signed with a user name (no anon IP adds.) in either "Pro" or "Con", and you can only register in one column once. --NYScholar 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
In response to some of the "Con" views: scroll up to the earlier versions that do have Dershowitz mentioned in them. See my earlier version that did include ref. to Dershowitz (via editing history of the article). (Currently, I do not support adding such details; they are unnecessary; there is full disc. of Carter/Dershowitz sit. in the main articles. People kept revising passages after I first posted an earlier version and asked for consensus. I added the last couple of sentences to finish what seemed an incomplete paragraph. But there are other possibilities. Just make your views clear, and try to iron this out in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP and the tag for "controversial" articles; all need to be followed in this article. --NYScholar 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility (in my view) is to have no additional content after the section heading of this article on Jimmy Carter entitled "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" except for the cross-refs to the two Wikipedia main articles already cross-linked. That would be, in my view, the most neutral way of handling this problem. (Many Wikipedia articles follow that procedure.) Apparently, the people commenting here on this talk page cannot make a decision in agreement with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This article on Jimmy Carter has been tagged indicating its "neutrality" issues for quite some time. The main articles on the book do not have these problems; they adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (in the last version that I edited). --NYScholar 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[See my comments above on current "possibility" that makes sense to me, given this editing dispute here.]
It was published in December 2006. In this controversial book Carter states that " Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land" [1] and that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." [4] Carter has explained that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors." [3] The book has indeed "precipitated discussion" in the United States and in the Middle East, although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual "facts" and other aspects of the book, some making what Carter refers to as "ad hominem" attacks on him for writing it. Whether or not the book will "help restart peace talks that can lead to a permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors," as Carter says that he aimed to do, remains to be seen.
[The notes are part of the material that I added earlier; don't interrupt the previous section as I posted it originally. --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]
I thought we came within deletion of a few "scare" quote marks of a version minimally acceptable to me, and maybe Bart and Giza could have been brought on board without Dershowitz as long as there was something in the section to challenge Carter's self-evaluation. But, anyway...
NYScholar wrote, at one point, ": Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not a 'POV fork'; it is a NPOV article discussing various points of view on the book in a neutral way ... --NYScholar 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)" This understanding of the term is incomplete. POV_fork#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles reads "...the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." In this case material is being deleted "so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." The result is the same. The fact that the article pointed to is allegedly NPOV is irrelevant. Andyvphil 03:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not accurate. Many articles in Wikipedia have sections and subsections where there are simply cross-references to other main articles on the exact same sub-topic (in this case a book) already written in Wikipedia. The cross-referenced articles on a sub-topic are not POV; they are NPOV. --NYScholar 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What Andyvphil inadvertently is not noticing is that the article on POV forking is talking about subjects of whole articles. This article's subject is Jimmy Carter, not the one book. The single book already has two main articles (which themselves are cross-linked) relating to it. We are talking about cross references in a sub-section about a topic (the book) of an article about the subject Jimmy Carter, not cross references to alternative POV articles on the same subject (Jimmy Carter). There is a big difference. Andyvphil needs to re-read the POV fork Wikipedia article more carefully and also to read the two articles on the book ( Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid). --NYScholar 06:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The mentioning of Dershowitz does not have to be in there, as long as it mentions Carter's refusal to debate opponents of his book. Giza D 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All of you: stop accusing me of things that simply are untrue. I cross-linked to what I believed was (the last time that I myself had edited it) two NPOV articles. Since then, other people posting in various places have gone to the article and made changes that are POV changes. The article was NPOV until these people (since I last posted in this talk page) started putting their own POVs into it. [Since then, I restored NPOV, but that could change if people start doing that again; always a problem in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] There was no "POV fork" in this article on Jimmy Carter. There were two cross-references to NPOV articles on the book and its commmentary, which both cross-ref. each other. As long as NPOV articles on the book and its commentary already exist in Wikipedia, all the subsection on the book (not on Jimmy Carter, but on the book) needs are the cross-refs. You are involved in contentious editing disputes and need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This article is marked "controversial" as are the other two articles. They are also articles pertaining to living persons; reread the tagged notices. Stop this POV editing.
There needs to be no mention of anything specific if the full articles are cross-referenced. Giza D is promoting his own POV, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia editing guidelines. Jimmy Carter did not want to debate Alan Dershowitz; that is his prerogative. The discussion is already well covered in the "Brandeis visit" section of the main article (the last time I looked at it, yesterday). Palestine Peace Not Apartheid#Brandeis University visit; all the source citations are already there (see also References section), along with ample cross-refs. to the related main article and sections on Dershowitz. Giza D. won't let this go. Why not, one might wonder. Has he even read the other articles? I doubt it. Has he read the "References" section in the main article on the book; I doubt it. In my view, he has quite a bit of reading to do to be informed about what Wikipedia already includes on the book. (I oppose the POV editing war now going on in these articles on Jimmy Carter and his book.) --NYScholar 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the link to the "Brief summary" of "Critical reaction and commentary" on the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (current version, as I write this comment); it is in both main articles on the book (which are split off from one too-long article by an administrator after a consensus discussion on their talk pages): the main article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and the main article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; each of these main articles has a cross-link to the other one, prominently featured right after the heading: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid: Critical reaction and commentary: Brief summary. The articles have complete notes sections; the article on the book has the References section and the Commentary artilce has a cross-link to it. I suggest reading this brief paragraph and the references listed in it and the longer exposition in the rest of both main articles, and I suggest reading the Wikiquote page for the book (also prominently linked).
Some of the book's critics, including several leaders of the Democratic Party and of American Jewish organizations, have interpreted the subtitle as an allegation of Israeli apartheid, which they believe to be inflammatory and unsubstantiated. [1] [2]
As far as who edited parts of these articles on the book, the editing history establishes clearly who attempted to improve it over quite an extended period of time. Obviously, I've worked hard on those articles. I find it too bad that those complaining about these articles here (in this contentious discussion of a subsection on the book in this talk page about an article about Jimmy Carter) can't or won't or don't even bother to read the whole articles and the sources cited in them. They might learn more about their subjects (the book and commentary on the book) if they did to overcome their obvious POV and biases about them (subjects of those articles). No one is interested in Wikipedia's POV and biases; they are interested in facts about the book and facts about commentary on it (both positive and negative). --NYScholar 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[Use a number sign before your answer. I have edited signatures by users who use more than one name in commenting on this talk page to indicate that they are the same person. --NYScholar 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] [You can list your user name and sentence in only one sub-section (Either "Yes" or "No"; not both). Removing duplicate; user needs to post correctly. There is no one or the other article in this section; you have to read both to say "Yes": see the heading as I wrote it. --NYScholar 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] [If someone places his or her name in both sub-sections, he or she is invalidating both entries and will be ignored. --NYScholar 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
Derex, please post appropriately: add a sentence saying what you are saying "No" you have not done; if you have read only one or only parts of both articles and not read all the sources provided in them, you cannot put your user name in the sub-section headed "Yes." I think that you know that. I deleted your name from the "Yes" sub-section because you also put it in the "No" sub-section. There is no "either/or" choice re: the articles in my section heading; you have to have read both articles and all the sources cited in them to be able to post "Yes." Otherwise, your answer is "No." --NYScholar 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[I deleted my previous comments that were placed here because I misread a comment posted by Andyvphil as posted by Derex. Sorry Derex...and Andyvphil. [I added some additional space between their two comments; I had mistaken them as written by the same person.] --NYScholar 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
From the talkpage header: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." It is also not a forum for discussing contributors: See WP:NPA: focus on content not on contributors. --NYScholar 07:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I note the blank PPNA section attracted another editor, Eric1985, whom Jiffy reverted with a curt "rv". Tsk, tsk. It appeared to deserve WP:AGF. Andyvphil 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Tsk.Tsk yourself. Are we ready to compromise or should the section be left blank forever. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)