Talk:Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Please see Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version. Thank you. --NYScholar 12:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "merged" isn't quite right; see my editorial interpolation in the editing mode in this article. What I have in mind is cross-linking the two articles, this one and the "draft" of the article on the book, via a cross-ref. supplied in the section on "Critical reactions and commentaries" in the main article on the book (both long version and "draft" version have that section, but the "draft" version has the material moved from it to this article "Commentary...." --NYScholar 13:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past, in the archive talk pages of the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, several editors have expressed concern that this kind of structure leads to increasing adding on of examples; notice that there are already a lot of them; there is a sort of balance if one considers that the first two book reviews do contain negative comments on the book. It is not advisable to continue tacking on commentary upon commentary (tit for tat, e.g.); one needs to evaluate the sources' value (credibility, reliability, notability, representativeness, etc.) and now to scrutinize what is included with an eye for neutral presentation and conciseness. There are editors who have expressed a desire to restructure this part of the article more topically; that could be problematic because it would probably result in trying to find similiarities among what in at least some cases are rather idiosyncratic comments on the book. To do that would be to distort what those commentaries state.

We provided the introductory section to define some prevailing recurrent topical patterns (recurrent themes, motifs) in the reviews and other commentaries on the book. Perhaps some editors could work on trying to decide on a possible more topical organization that would also maintain neutrality and yet reduce verbiage or numbers of examples. Just some thoughts. --NYScholar 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to: Controversy on "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"

The article on the book should just speak about the book and any reviews that are not merely limited to condemning Carter. This article should be renamed from Commentary to Controversy as things like 14 people quitting is more than just commentary and words but political action.--Wowaconia 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Any commentary from notable figures should not be deleted, if length gets to be a problem make a sub-page. So this sub-page would be renamed "Controversy..." and if the collection of commentary quotes here becomes too long than that could be made into another sub-page called "Commentary.." or two sub-pages one for notable individuals and one for notable groups. As long as its quotes and refs are made its not POV; its reporting. If there was an article called "Shia opinion of Saddam Hussein" it would not be POV even if the vast, vast majority said nothing but bad things. Quoting notable people and groups is not POV.--Wowaconia 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I adamantly do not support renaming this main article as "Controversy...." That is not NPOV; more neutral language is necessary so as not to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The people who resigned wrote letters commenting on their resignations and on the book directly. note the use of "commentary" in para. 2 above. Obviously, this article (which is to be a "main article" (see the links) not a "sub page" cannot be called "Controversy." For a precedent see the history of the naming of the article Plame affair. Renaming any such article "Controversy" is asking for trouble. This article clearly states what it concerns:

Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006) summarizes and illustrates some representative critical reaction to and commentary on this book by former president Jimmy Carter, which has been highly controversial.

--NYScholar 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

How about "Reactions to..."? AnonMoos 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See sentence quoted above: "Reactions to" is not broad enough to include both ". . . critical reaction to and commentary on"; whereas "Commentary on. . . ." is broad enough to include both "reactions to and commentary on" and to include "criticism" and "book reviews"; I don't have a particular problem with "reactions" otherwise, but I think that it is too limiting a category, potentially would raise some kinds of "reactions" that are POV from various users who would drop in to post them, creating possibly vast problems, and that "commentary" is broader and more neutral. --NYScholar 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant content for this article

I generally support the idea of moving some of the content out from the parent article in to one or more articles for readability purposes. I have a concern with this version because it lacks Carter's response, which is pretty relevant to this information. The proposed version would also leave a much longer response than description of criticism in the main article, which doesn't seem like a very logical layout to me. Just my two cents. If we included Carter's response here, I don't know if that would require renaming the article to something more appropriate. --YoYoDa1 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a cross-link to "Carter's response to criticism of the book"; see the article. Thanks. --NYScholar 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus reached?

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

See updates at Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version#Requested_move. --NYScholar 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I created a sample Wikiquote page (for purposes of illustration) in the event that the consensus reached is rather to have a short page or section re: "Critical reactions and commentaries on the book" in the longer article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and to add a Wikiquotes template tag to it. Then there could just be a paragraph of introduction (as in the first paragraph of that section) w/ such a tagged template to Wikiquote. The format of that Wikiquote page needs more work, but that is an illustration of its potential usefulness in resolving some of the arguments about the quotations alluded to in the talk pages of the main long (too-long?) article, where people complain of a so-called "quotefarm".

--NYScholar 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fifteen resign

[1] --Shamir1 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The text of the letter is already linked in the New York Times article cited (The Lede) in the main article and in the section dealing with the Carter Center's Board of Councilors. (See note 38 in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and note 36 in this article and note 34 in the Wikiquote.[2]; see also the references section (cross-linked in this article). Comparable articles incorporating links to the letter (and also from SPME) are already cited in the introduction and elsewhere in the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid/draft version and Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It refers to "over a dozen resignations"; if one says "fifteen" and more people resign, one continually has to revise the number. "Over fourteen" would do but is awkward. The earlier resignation (prior to the 14 more) was Stein's I think (first, then 14 more), and he has a considerable amount of space devoted to him in this article. The fourteen resignations apparently followed his. Maybe this could be clearer. Someone else can work on it if deemed necessary. I added brackets so your link posts as an external link now. I, you, or someone else can look into seeing how else possibly to incorporate it if not already cited in the article, in proper prevailing citation format. Please check the sources about these (additional fourteen) resignations already cited. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the NYT pdf link to the letter: Template:PDFlink. --NYScholar 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The members of the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center who resigned according to that letter are: Alan Abrams, Steve Berman, Michael Coles, Jon Golden, Doug Hertz, Barbara Babbit Kaufman, Liane Levetan, Jeff Levy, Leon Novak, Ambassador William B. Schwartz Jr., William B. Schwartz III, Steve Selig, Cathey Steinberg, Gail Solomon.

One more to make fifteen is Kenneth W. Stein. --NYScholar 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photo of one of Carter's critics

Removed the photo of the critic w/ the caption quoting his criticism; not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; the privileging of that critic's criticism through linkage of his image and caption is POV editing; removal of this image was already discussed in archived talk page of main article from which this "Commentary" has been split off. See the talk pages before adding content to this and related articles. There are various tags on the article indicating the controversial nature of the subject and the reason for increased vigilance about neutrality and avoidance of POV editing throughout articles about this subject. --NYScholar 13:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bases" is the plural of "basis"

[moved from the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by anonymous IP; re-copied for accuracy; the anon IP omitted my reply. --NYScholar 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)]

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

Hello, Yes, Bases may be the plural of basis. But I don't believe the word belongs in that sentence. Please review the last sentence of definition 4 below. It says "He was chosen on the basis of his college grades." It does not say "grade" which is singular, but rather "grades", which is plural. However, to insert "bases" does not do the english language justice. Language is not a science. It is more of a living thing, always changing, flexible. Therefore, it may be prudent to present the material without deviating from common english. To substitute bases for basis would sound like this: "He was chosen on the bases of his college grades." This is misleading. It suggests to the reader that the subject of the sentence was playing baseball or on a military base. Please refer to www.dictionary.com. Below is simply a pasted definition of the word for you. I hope you'll agree. Thank you. Anonymous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.90.92 (talk • contribs) 21:58, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

ba·sis /ˈbeɪsɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bey-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ses /-siz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.

1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.

2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.

3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.

4. a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like: The nurse is paid on an hourly basis. He was chosen on the basis of his college grades.

5. Mathematics. a set of linearly independent elements of a given vector space having the property that every element of the space can be written as a linear combination of the elements of the set.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.90.92 (talk • contribs) 21:45, February 15, 2007(UTC)

The plural form of the word "basis" is clearly "bases." (See "-ses": that's the plural form.) If one is talking about more than one "basis," e.g., two or more "bases" (as I was in that sentence), one uses the plural form. Your example is not related to the sentence in which "bases" appears. It could be re-written to use an entirely different word or construction for the sentence perhaps. But I can't take the time to do that now. --NYScholar 03:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [added threading to the comments.--NYScholar 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)]

I removed the word entirely, since the singular form does not convey my intended meaning. The second source cited makes Dugard's support for the bases of the analogy clear; the first source is no longer accessible to non-subscribers of the newspaper. (This subject relates now only to the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, not to this article, since the splitting of this article in a longer version has been approved by an administrator and occurred (see below). --NYScholar 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its better this way (removal). What troubles me is that the first source is no longer accessible- to me at least, and the second does not address Carter's book. A citation from the first source of Dugard referencing Carter's book specifically would be nice, but J Stor would be nice too. If the shoe was on the other foot, this matter would annoy me. I kinda like Carter you see. Thanks. [Please sign your comments with 4 tildes.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.90.92 (talk • contribs) 17:54, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

I've added an accessible version of the article as well and, after checking its content, elaborated a quotation from it for greater clarity of development. (Whether one "likes" Carter is not germane; the editors of this and other Wikipedia articles are striving to achieve the goals presented in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (Again: please see talk header information above and please sign your comments with 4 tildes.) [Also: Talk pages are only for discussion of making improvements to the article, not for discussion of its subject or how one feels about it.] --NYScholar 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Findley's Op-Ed on Carter book

Paul Findley, [3] --64.230.121.192 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added this source in bibliographical format to the main article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I had already moved the anon IP user's comment here, but realized later that the user probably intended people to consider adding the source to the appropriate sec. of the references list, which I did. Hope that's okay. --NYScholar 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt

Added in Lipstadts accusation of "soft-core denial" against Carter. Not sure why Lipstadt isnt listed as an academic/journalist critic already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJSemtex (talk • contribs) 15:50, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

She's an academic. Quotations from Lipstadt (along with linked sources) are already in Wikiquote regarding both the book and commentary about the book: see Wikiquote: Negative...Academics. This article includes "selected" negative comments, not every single negative comment: Please read the archived talk pages for this article and the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; consensus is to avoid a so-called "quotefarm". This material does not need repetition in this article. (See the replies to your unsigned comments already made in the article on the book.) Lipstadt's article about Carter's book is also already listed in the references; her name is linked and the discussion is already in a section of the article on her. See the tag re: WP:BLP as well. "Accusation[s]" against a living person are libelous and putting them in an article on a living person for the sake of putting in such "accusation[s]" violates Wikipedia policy. She is already listed both in Wikiquote (Please click on the link to it in the main articles) and in the references list and in the link to her own article (Please read it). I do not think that this is notable enough to highlight further; it is already accessible in the article about her, with corrected citations.--NYScholar 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please See previous comments on the page of the main article and please sign and date comments. If you are a new user, please consult Wikipedia guidelines, including talk page header links. If you do add material, you need to do so in a manner consistent with the hard work on citations formatting that others preceding you have done. The format needs to be consistent. Do not just toss in external links and unclear citations. Authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, and dated accessed are necessary in notes format. All that material re: Lipstadt's quotation is already provided in Wikiquote. Please read it. And please sign your comments with four tildes in Wikipedia format. (See talkheader.) Thank you. --NYScholar 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite my own sense that the material is already covered well in Wikiquote, I've added some development on Lipstadt to the article as economically as I could, giving full citations to the sources in the prevailing format for this article. --NYScholar 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As tagged above (tag "Controversial"): "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page [including archived talk pages] and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." --NYScholar 15:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of personal attack

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you. (Personal attack removed) --NYScholar 13:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of obvious vandalism

By 69.229.8.34. Warning to this user. You will be blocked if you persist in this behavior. --NYScholar 08:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Shulamit Aloni's "aparatheid" quote

NYScholar, why did you delete my quote of Shulamit Aloni arguing that Israel has "apartheid"? [4] It supports Yossi Beilin's acknowledgement that Israelis themselves use that kind of criticism. This is an important issue, because Americans were accusing Carter of anti-Semitism by using the word "apartheid". This shows that even notable Israelis like Aloni, a former Knesset member, use the word "apartheid" themselves to describe Israeli policies, just as Carter does. Nbauman 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong elaborated in this article. If you want to discuss it in detail, put it in the cross-linked article on her. This article is on the book. Read the citation in the footnote. The source is cited. There is a link to Yossi Beilin and to Shulamit Aloni in the citations to their articles; people can read what Aloni thinks in more detail in her own article. The point about Israelis' agreeing w/ some aspects of Carter's pov is already in the summary paragraph toward the top of page. Please scroll up; note to her work is there too I think. (I thought I added it in response to your earlier comments.) I'll check again later. The point was already made quite some time ago. Your addition to this is not new. This article is about selected representative views; every single example is not going to be explored in detail. It's enough to cite them in notes. People can read the source article for such detailed explanations. --NYScholar 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just re-checked the paragraph. Yes, note 9 is still there; it links to the title of her article, which makes her point clearly. Anyone who wants details can read the cited source. No more is needed. Note 9 is cited twice; in both places where the topic occurs. --NYScholar 12:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotation you supplied went off topic in its own direction. I linked her name; I added a brief sentence about who she was in note 9 before you wrote this comment. Please read the whole note and click on all links there. The subject is well covered via those links. If you want, follow the format already in Wikiquote and add her quotation and note citation there in a way that is parallel to rest of that format. Anyone who clicks on Wikiquote will be able to read a quotation that she might be making directly about the book; but the quotation has to be directly about the book; what you supplied was generally about apartheid, not the book per se. The title of her article concisely presents her perspective on the book; one realizes that she is answering a question posed about Carter's use of the word apartheid. It's clear enough, I think, as it is. --NYScholar 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Ross

[moved from my personal talk page. --NYScholar 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)] Hi, this is vital but missing from Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. Please take the time to add the bulk of the op-ed to the article, or let me know if you can't. Thank you. --Shamir1 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the Academy Awards and just saw this message before turning off my computer for the night. I don't agree that there is any justification "to add the bulk of the op-ed to the article" (that would be POV pushing). Quotations from Ross's earlier interview etc. are already in the part of the main article (Commentary) on his views. I have added a source reference that should suffice. The source is an op-ed; I've added it as a source in the appropriate sec. of references in the main article on the book and as a note citation in the main article on commentary on the book. It is now referred to. Any more would be POV pushing. You might choose a short quotation and add it to Wikiquote for the Commentary article following the format there. The Wikiquote is a selection of representative positive and negative comments re: the book. [Note: To Shamir and others: I have moved this exchange to the talk page of the article. Please place such comments in the talk pages of articles in the future and not on my personal talk page. You can easily bring a source to the attention of everyone else reading the talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]

Personal blog post (Reliable source?)

Moved here for discussion as to whether or not this personal blog post is citable given Wikipedia:Reliable sources in an article pertaining to a living person;: WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:

<<

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, includes a short review in his personal blog, stating:

And it's not just that he admired Hafez Assad, admired him more than any other poltical leader--Carter called him a "statesman"-- in the region. Or that he always had good words to say about Arafat. Or that he now has good words to say about Hamas. He almost never has a sympathetic or empathetic word to say about the Jewish state... But if anybody else is killed in the area it is the fault of the Israelis. Even the suicide bombers are the fault of the Israelis. And the arms smugglers. Plus the rocket wielders... It shows just how silly he is ... and malicious. And ignorant, since it also proves that he knows next to nothing about what apartheid was like in South Africa.

Notes

>>

It seems to me that the person cited (Peretz) is a "notable" source; but if he were writing a review that could appear in a peer-reviewed publication (his own--The New Republic)--why is it in a personal blog (posted on the website of the journal due to his being its editor in chief) and not a published bonafide book review? One may want to restore this after further discussion and a convincing rationale for its inclusion. The description of Carter as being personally "silly" and "malicious" and "ignorant", for example, are problematic, given WP:BLP. They really seem to amount to a kind of name-calling and are not backed up by the kind of development needed in a published book review in a peer-reviewed journal. They are his personal views (POV). Does his "notability" overcome the personal blog placement of the piece? --NYScholar 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also: Given the links to other blog posts in Peretz's commentary (it's not a book "review" at all), its inclusion appears to be a back-door way to including non-permissible blog posts in this article. I think that perhaps it should be deleted entirely. Quotations can appear in Wikiquote perhaps; but I really do not think it should be included in this article, given the policies in Wikipedia already linked re: reliable sources and BLP. --NYScholar 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Peretz is notable and a reliable source for his own opinions. The fact that the editor-in-chief of The New Republic thinks PPNA is the work of a jackass is a fact that should not be suppressed. Andyvphil 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of other POV editing

[moved from my talk page; concerns the insertion of the word "liberal" before a journal title in this article. Belongs in talk page of this article. Please do not post editorial differences about the article in my personal talk page. The discussion of such issues of editing belong here. This is a matter relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and not to WP:AGF. It is clearly a violation of NPOV to add such extraneous POV descriptions; the journal has an article on it in Wikipedia; the link to the Wiki article suffices; see editing history, where I indicated that already. --NYScholar 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Haaretz

Hello NYScholar. I encourage you to assume good faith and note that the identification of Haaretz as liberal is not POV, but fact. It has long favored Israel's Labour Party (Israel), publishes opinion pieces which are almost exclusively from a left-wing perspective, but above all, they identify their political allegiance as liberal. Even their stance on American politics is liberal. The edit is not POV (or even a big deal) but simply a description of the newspaper's self-proclaimed political affiliation. Perhaps you may also want to see here, here, [5], or here. Again, they proclaim themselves as liberal. --Shamir1 06:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment belongs on the talk page of the article. You violate NPOV by inserting "liberal" in the sentence; it is not a question of "good faith"; there is a link to the journal article in Wikipedia; the article on the journal describes it; it is not up to editors to insert POV descriptions of the journal in another article about another subject. It is POV to call it "liberal" or "conservative" or anything else. There is no neutral reason to describe the journal's own viewpoint on its own "political affiliation" in the sentence in the article. THe information is distracting from the sentence, which introduces a quotation from someone about the book. The "political affiliation" of the journal in which it appears is not relevant to this subject, and your pointing it out seems to hint at some unstated point (and hence a lack of neutrality). The link to the Wikipedia article on Haaretz suffices (read the description of it there; it identifies the journal with so-called "liberal conservativism"), a term which appears to be an oxymoron and controversial in itself; using "liberal" before the name of the journal would be controversial as well (and not neutral) in the context of the Wikipedia article on the journal. [This entire exchange belongs in the talk page of the article itself. I have moved it to the talk page of the article in question (which the prev. ed. did not identify. But it is this one).] --NYScholar 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not POV. It is not my point of view that Haaretz is liberal. Haaretz is proudly liberal (and a great newspaper, which is my pov). The main article for Haaretz does seem a bit messy, yes, but it also appears that you are not familiar with liberal conservatism. Please cool down. For one, you are making it seem like I am incorrectly labeling or smearing them, which I am not. Similarly, KPFK proudly identifies as progressive, CounterPunch identifies as left-wing, etc. It is perhaps more notable that the newspaper the article was published in is liberal rather than the fact that it is "daily". Most of all, I encourage you to read the very first rule on Haaretz's official website: "1. The Haaretz computerized site ('the site') makes it possible to access news, articles and reports that have been published in Haaretz newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs ('the service')." [6] --Shamir1 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to appropriate a political term eg: liberal, conservative (etc)to haartz? These terms, whatever the viewpoint, are misleading and often debilitate the people who use them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]])

Organizing article w/ Academics first, then Journalists, and finally Representatives of Orgs

Anyone in favor of listing Academics first in the "Selected positive/negative reactions" section because

                         :1. Naturally its alphabetical 
                         :2. Academics employ great depth and a high standard 
                             of objectivity
                         :3. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes.
                         :4. Academics are far less prone to sensationalize.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.91.107 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

What a great idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.49.78 (talk • contribs) 16:12, March 16, 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this suggestion. The current organization moves from book reviews by journalists (which generally appear first chronologically), to organizational viewpoints (which tend to appear simultaneously or next), to academics' reviews/comments, which tend to appear later. Academics are no "less prone to sensationalize" than anyone else; that is a myth and an overgeneralization. Many academics are also journalists and vice versa. Wikipedia's standard is not "objectivity"; it is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Moreover, academics are not more "objective" than other human beings. All writers have biases. Including Wikipedia editors, who must try to overcome them and to achieve "neutral point of view." --NYScholar 06:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to NY Scholar-I'm not sure you are correct about your view that academics are just as likely to sensationalize as journalists. But to go further into this would be trivial, a waste of my time and yours. However, I don't hear from too many PHDs in journalism,AND, Academics are trained to support their arguments with raw, undigested data- EVIDENCE. Journalists on the otherhand, are not always required to produce facts and evidence. To do so would jeopardize their job security. Take the IRAQ war for instance. Any "Journalists" speak out at the onset? One maybe? Amy Goodman? Journalists spin, spin, spin. The current format is simply an invitation to pile on journalist after journalist and only god knows what their credentials are. Look at the news readers on television that masquerade as journalists. The only Journalist I have seen recently is Peter Jennings and he is dead and so is journalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.91.247 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Irshad Manji and others

For starters, "Just prior to the November 2006 United States mid-term election" is not appropriate. What do general elections, at any time, have to do with commentary on the book? That statement makes it seem as if the Democratic Chairman and House Minority Leader's comments are not sincere. If not that, I do not know what it is inferring, but it is simply not relevant at all.

The time period in which the Democratic representatives made their remarks is entirely relevant and the historical chronological context of their comments. Not only is it "appropriate" to include that, it provides the historical time period in which their comments were made: during the last weeks of the campaign for re-election. Their remarks on Carter's book cannot be seen as independent of the time period in which they were making them. The political context is relevant, and it is entirely appropriate to make it clear. Your objection to the chronological transition is the only one that I have seen; the phrase has been in this article for many weeks if not months, without finding any other objection to it. --NYScholar 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Michael Oren's remarks, it can be seen here or here. His remark can be heard at 24:10. In regards to his review, it is entitled "Jimmy Carter's Religious Problem". That is why each of the "religious problems" were written.

That is not a source that you cited. You cited a press release about the conference. This is "original research"; you need to provide a verifiable reliable source; people shouldn't have to listen to an entire program to find a quotation that you put in this article. The exact source of the quotation is needed in a note. --NYScholar 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence "That is why each of the "religious problems" were written." makes no sense to me. --NYScholar 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Irshad Manji's review-- It took me a long time to appropriately summarize each of her points, and I put a lot of thought into it. I dont see that with the summary of now, nor do I think that the review was understood. Almost all of Manji's questions and tidbits about Israel are ones that tie up her conclusion: "The better question might be: who's willing to hear what they don't want to hear?" They almost all cover the freedom of expression in Israel and Israel's willingness to listen to pro-Arab and/or anti-Israel politics. Obviously I was not going to go through each of those questions and tidbits, so I (a) wrote the first one as an example, and (b) included "as Manji exemplifies Israel is." That sums it up, and is a much better representation of Manji's thesis. --Shamir1 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time to write the passage. But your deleting my revision of it and replacing it with the [almost] exact same problematic passage does not correct its misleading POV presentation. Your presentation takes quotations out of context, presents the author's statements that she presents as "facts" as if they are facts--that is, accepting her POV (not in a neutral manner)--and it is confusingly worded: This is the passage you wrote:

In an opinion piece in The Australian, Irshad Manji states, "To be sure, I've long admired the former US president. In my book The Trouble with Islam Today I cite him as an example of how religion can be invoked to tap the best of humanity." Beginning with "In a state practising apartheid, would Arab Muslim legislators wield veto power over anything?", Manji writes a series of questions and facts that attempt to refute the "absurd" idea of apartheid by Israel. She maintains that certain "contradictions of the Israeli state should be exposed, discussed, even pilloried. And they are: openly as well as often;" however, she finds that the book is "deciding whose camp is the paragon of vice or virtue" which she sees "little point in." "The better question might be: who's willing to hear what they don't want to hear?", as Manji exemplifies Israel is.

It needs further re-writing. I'll find my re-written version and put it in this talk page for comparison. Other editors need to read the article and to see the problems. E.g. "absurd" is not the author's word; it's the caption in the article heading (provided by an editor of the newspaper); your presentation makes it seem as if it is her word. Your addition "as Manji exemplifies Israel is" is extremely POV and not accurate. She does not necessarily say that. If she meant that, she would come right out and say that. That is your interpretation of her rhetorical questions and rhetorical answers. Your sentence ending "she sees 'little point in.'" is awkward (ending in a preposition) and misleading; she does not say that "she finds that the book is 'deciding whose camp is the paragon of vice or virtue'"; again, that is your interpretation. [Her point seems to be that there is plenty of "vice" to go around in all "camps." Read the full quotation in the passage as given below and re-read the article where she criticizes the Palestinians--which you omit, leading (in part) to your POV presentation.] You need to do less summary and more presentation of what she actually says, without distorting what she says. You are adding your own interpretations in a summary, which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The article is an "opinion piece"; you cannot take over her "opinion" and still present "neutral point of view." This is not a fair presentation of what she says. I found your paragraph very confusing and misleading (after I read the original article). It is not an accurate or neutral presentation of her views. --NYScholar 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the passage that I wrote after reading who the author is (the Wikipedia linked article on her) and the "opinion piece" that you gave as the source:

In an opinion piece in The Australian, Canadian feminist Muslim "refusenik," author, journalist, and activist Irshad Manji writes:

It's precisely because I embrace intellectual pluralism that I respectfully challenge Jimmy Carter's recent critique of Israel as an apartheid state. To be sure, I've long admired the former US president. In my book The Trouble with Islam Today I cite him as an example of how religion can be invoked to tap the best of humanity. In no small measure, it was Carter's appreciation of spiritual values that brought together Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, compelling these former foes to clasp hands over a peace deal.... Which is why Carter's new book [Palestine Peace Not Apartheid] disappoints so many of us who champion co-existence.... [T]he book argues that Israel's conduct towards Palestinians mimics South Africa's long-time demonisation of blacks. Of course, certain Israeli politicians have spewed venom at Palestinians, as have some Arab leaders towards Jews, but Israel is far more complex - and diverse - than slogans about the occupation would suggest.... [S]ome people still need to be told that Arab "freedoms" don't compare to those of Israel.... The Holy Land is gut-wrenching and complicated. As much as I applaud Israel's efforts to foster pluralism, I condemn its illegal Jewish settlements and less visible crimes such as the diversion of water away from Palestinian towns. These contradictions of the Israeli state should be exposed, discussed, even pilloried. And they are: openly as well as often. So there's little point in deciding whose camp is the paragon of vice or virtue. The better question might be: who's willing to hear what they don't want to hear? That's the test of whether a country is more than black or white.

It is not a matter of interpretation. I edited that way in order not to write every single question and tidbit she writes. By using "the way Manji exemplifies Israel to be", is simply a way to shorten those points. In her review of the book, she does say that that "there is little point in deciding whose camp is the paragon of vice or virtue," and the book is the subject matter. (And it is grammatically correct.) I don't mind having all that edited anyway, but calling the last sentence POV is inaccurate. Her whole piece is made up of examples to prove her point. Please accept the addition of the word "absurd" as an honest mistake, as I thought that was her viewpoint and her words.

As for the 2006 midterm elections, you wrote: "relevance is the chronological time period: see talk page; no convincing reason to delete this historical context." That does not answer my question. The question is: what relevance is the 'chronological' time period to the commentary? Why write that? The only historical context needed is the date. --Shamir1 05:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The historical context is also a political context; the Democrats made these comments on Carter's book during an election campaign period. That is highly relevant. Omitting that fact and the link (especially for readers who do not reside in the United States) is to omit a pertinent context of their remarks. There is no reason to omit it (unless one is trying to hide it from readers). --NYScholar 06:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For non-United States citizens unfamiliar with American national politics: Democratic candidates for re-election and election to Congress would be very concerned about alienating their base voters; among Democratic voters, support for Israel is strong. Reacting to negative comments about Israel in the book by Jimmy Carter at that time about to be published (and read in advance of publication by those receiving advance review copies) is an important factor to take into consideration. The fact that many Democratic members of Congress went on record to make public statements about the book at that particular time cannot be separated from the political context in which they were making those statements. The historical (political) context is highly pertinent, and mentioning it is not only appropriate but (I think) essential. --NYScholar 06:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[By the way: the phrase re: the midterm election does not originate with me; another editor originated it a long time ago; I kept it in (in various versions of the sentence) after recognizing its pertinence and importance as a transition. It needs to be kept (as explained already above). (As far as I know, Shamir is the only one who has objected to it.) --NYScholar 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes

The author's sentence "[S]ome people still need to be told that Arab "freedoms" don't compare to those of Israel...." sums up all of those rhetorical questions and "facts" that you refer to. It is not necessary or permissible to quote them in a POV manner; the full context that I give in the re-written passage illustrates how misleading your presentation is/was. --NYScholar 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I originally added more information about who the author is because she is not particularly "notable"; her name is not recognizable by most readers and they need to know why she is notable (worthy of inclusion). Everyone and his brother or sister who has something to say about this book is not worthy of inclusion in this article. The person has to have some notability to be included as a "commentator" on this book. Why is this person's "opinion" worthy of inclusion? What is her authority as a media commentator on a book on this subject (Israel-Palestinian conflict)? In your putting back your initial paragraph, you omitted all description of who she is. Why include her at all? --NYScholar 05:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless a better more neutral presentation of this author's "opinion" can be developed, it should be omitted entirely. The presentation by Shamir is not written in a neutral way. It presents his (the editor's) POV, an interpretation, not what the opinion-writer says. It appears to agree with the opinion-writer, which violates neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. --NYScholar 06:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read the "opinion piece" quotation that I include in the passage, I do not think that it is entirely clear what she is trying to say (especially her last sentence, which is highly ambiguous and not clear). The earlier presentation (by Shamir) interprets what she means, but I do not think that that interpretation of her sentences is convincing. I do not think that this "opinion piece" by this particular author is necessarily worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia article. One might add a brief quotation from it to the Wikiquote page on the book (perhaps). But one would need to be careful not to take what she says out of context in presenting the quotations. Notice how much of what she says is taken out of context of her full remarks in Shamir's presentation. See the difference between the first sentence that I quote from her "opinion piece" and the beginning of Shamir's paragraph presentation. Citing one rhetorical question does not make clear what her point is. The sentence that I included summarized all her rhetorical questions without having to quote any of them. --NYScholar 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do like your suggestions and your explanations. However, there is no ambiguity with Manji's last sentence. She is writing these like about the Israeli High Court overturning rulings in favor of Arabs, Arab political voices, anti-Israel work being translated into Hebrew, military officials going public with criticism of government, a Hebrew newspaper running an article by an Arab Israeli about why the Zionist adventure has been a total failure... I do want to base it on your suggestions, as well as keeping the conclusion. --Shamir1 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable commentary, as yet unincorporated

1. "Jimmy Carter and Apartheid" By Joseph Lelyveld, The New York Review of Books, March 29, 2007 [7] Generally favorable to Carter POV, feels he missed opportunity to make proper case for "A". Andyvphil 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Positive reactions should be listed first

[Revised heading back to original heading posted by original user creating it, which a later user changed to serve his own POV interest. Consensus on this order (first positive, then negative, then Carter's response to criticism) is to keep it. See discussion below and editing summary in editing history. --NYScholar 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]

I think this is standard procedure. I realize it's somewhat arbitrary, but I think to put the negative first appears more POV, especially since this is a controversial book written by a living author. Do other people have thoughts on this? Organ123 18:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section head to a question. I don't know that there is a "standard procedure" -- can you point to a guideline? I don't see why one order is more or less POV than the other. If position is an advantage, maybe you need to timeshare. My thinking is that this is primarily a sub-article to Jimmy Carter and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, both of which primarily concern themselves with Carter's own view of his book. So: point(there)-counterpoint(here)-rebuttal(here) is the appropriate debate order. Andyvphil 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the original heading. The user had no business changing it to suit his own POV. If he wants to ask a question, he can start another section to do so. It violates Wikipedia talkpage guidelines and policies to change other people's headings in talk pages or their comments. I've revised my own comments accordingly. --NYScholar 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And revised back to the question form -- this is a debate, and the title of the section should reflect that. Andyvphil 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored original user's heading. Andyvphil is violating talkpage guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. If he wants to create his own section with his own heading below this section fine; but he cannot change the original section heading to say the opposite of what it did. He is engaging in outrageous behavior and probably is heading for being banned. --NYScholar 09:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? If not, I'm going to direct my energies elsewhere. Organ123 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The order of the sections is standard practice in articles about books. The citations all are established in that order. The section on Carter's response to negative criticism follows the section on negative commentary with the citations in logical order, with clearcut transitions. The user who reversed the organization (see comments that the user put in editing history) clearly shows POV/bias, even in his/her description in the editing summary (editing history), where s/he states that the rationale for the article is to develop negative views of the book. The rationale for this article is not to provide the "negative" criticism of the book; it is to provide what Wikipedia defines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV on both positive and negative commentary on the book and Carter's responses to the commentary. There has been both positive and negative commentary on the book. See also the Wikiquote, linked in the article. The current organization is proper and the previous editor's attempt to change it introduced errors in citations and illogic. There does not need to be a "guideline" for having "positive" precede "negative"; generally, that is called "fair play," and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view permits fairness in treating a book, especially one written by a living person, given WP:BLP. The purpose of this article is not to provide negative criticism of the book more than positive criticism of the book, or vice versa; it is to provide a full account of representative commentary on the book, and it does that. If a user has not got the patience, due to his or her own biases, to read the whole article, that is the user's problem. If he or she wants to read only the negative commentary, he or she can click on the table of contents (which shows all the sections) and read what he or she wants. He or she has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines and policies for changing the organization of the article to suit his or her own personal biases to highlight the negative and to hope that readers will not read the positive (in keeping with his/her own impatience as a reader). The guidelines and policies are in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Attribution, WP:POV, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, and WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Public figures, and WP:NOR. If one needs to know the guidelines, read those articles in Wikipedia and visit the links that they provide. There is no reason to ask the question here; the answers are in the linked articles. --NYScholar 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Either the order advantages one POV or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it's no more "fair play" to put the positive before the negative than vice versa. If it does, then your preferred structure has a NPOV problem. Anyway, I gave an entirely different argument than "fairness" for putting the negative response first. And my challenge to Organ123 to produce a guideline for his preferred order was not a request to be instructed. Nothing in your typically gaseous response meets that challenge. Andyvphil 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you delete the personal attack on another contributor ("typically gaseous"--disgusting comment); focus on content not on contributors. WP:NPA; Wikipedia:Etiquette: see the talkpage tag at top and other template tags. Violation of talk page practice: do not change headings posted by original creator of a section; you are engaging in behavior that is coming close to Wikipedia:Vandalism of this article. The order of first a positive section and then a negative one and then Carter's response to criticism follows the order of the summary section; your changes are disrupting the coherence of the article and are clearly serving only your own POV interests. --NYScholar 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An article called Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not meant to be a "counterpoint" to an article called Jimmy Carter. That is not a valid argument to put the negative comments first. Should "Commentary on The Case For Israel" be counterpoint to the "Alan Dershowitz" article? NYScholar is correct that Andyvphil's POV motivation was revealed in his first edit summary for this topic. I think NYScholar's case is reasonable enough, and the arguments for changing the previous consensus to put the negative first are not convincing. Organ123 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Organ123; Andyvphil is engaging in POV editing violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, and other clearcut Wikipedia policies against making substantive changes to articles without consensus on talk page. Two editors now oppose what he is trying to do. He is engaging in reverting the longstanding order of the article, disrupting its coherence and citations format and following only his own POV biases in doing so. His changes have no consensus and he reverted to them contrary to the objections on this talk page to his making them. [Note: Andyvphil's own editing summary directly contradicts what Organ123 has posted; Organ123 says that my "case" for the original (first positive, then negative, then Carter's response to criticism) is "reasonable enough" and that, in contrast, Andyvphil's "arguments for changing the previous consensus [that is, the original order of having the positive commentary first, then the negative] to put the negative first [as Andyvphil has done now twice] are not convincing." [Being as generous as possible, to give him some benefit of the strong doubt both Organ123 and I feel about Andyvphil's editing motives, and to assume WP:AGF:] In his obviously-self-interested POV editing zeal, Andyvphil may have actually misinterpreted what Organ123 has said; s/he needs to reread both of our (Organ123's and my) negative reactions to his POV editing in this talk page and in the editing summary history comments. S/he needs to stop these reversions to his/her own idiosyncratic POV. He/she violates the guidelines and policies that I have already listed.] --NYScholar 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PPNA is a sub-article to JC. C on PPNA is a sectioning of PPNA for reasons of length and attention span, as mentioned in the relevant guidelines, e.g:[8]. You two (I don't understand NYS' allegation that I've misunderstood Organ) do not constituta a consensus. Andyvphil 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not and never was a so-called "sub-article" to Jimmy Carter. It is a separate article. It is simply referred to in the other article; I should know, because I added the cross-references to both Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in the highly-contentious disputed neutrality article that this user is misleading people about. The user has no consensus in the current or the past talk pages relating to this article (before and/or after splitting) and should not be making these changes. The clearcut history of this article is that it is cross-linked with Palestine Peace Not Apartheid based on Wikipedia administration action following consensus that the larger article on the book be split with clearcut cross-references. No one ever discussed the relationship to the article on Jimmy Carter in creating these two articles on the book. The current organization has consensus as well. The one user trying to destroy the organization of the content of this article is not a consensus and has no business making substantive changes that are contrary to the entire history of this article. There are archives of talk pages relating to the discussion. The summary was originally developed by another editor, and the rest of the article follows the development of the summary, as do the transitions and all the citations. --NYScholar 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are five archives relating to these two articles in Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, many of which were developed before the split. The user does not know what he is talking about and has clearly not read the five archives of discussion about the article(s) on this book. This current talk page began after the split; to see the entire history of these articles, one needs to go to Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and its archived talk pages. --NYScholar 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative reactions should be listed first

PPNA is inherently a sub-article to JC. C on PPNA is a sectioning of PPNA for reasons of length and attention span, as mentioned in the relevant guidelines, e.g:[9]. PPNA consists almost exclusively of JC's own takes on his book, which should have been follwed by the critical reaction and rebuttal, preferably on a thematic basis. That order should have been unaffected by splitting into first and second pages. Some of the defects introduced by the weaknesses of the wiki process, and bad design choices early on (particularly the idiotic organization by by critic "type") are difficult to fix. The preferred functional order thesis(PPNA)-criticism(CPPNA)-rebuttal(CPPNA) can be achieved without much difficulty, and I intend to start the process. Andyvphil 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to above user's statement of "intention" (which has no consensus)

No neutral Wikipedia user/editor who has commented in this talk page or in Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid agrees with Andyvphil's POV-pushing claim that "Negative reactions should be listed first" in either Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid or Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. No one agrees with his obviously-non-neutral POV expressed in his summaries in the editing history and on this talk page of this article, or in the talk page of Jimmy Carter (where he clearly has a vested POV), which is also a separate article from this one (see talk pages and archives of all three articles). Wikipedia does not exist in a literary-critical vacuum. (Book reviews and other commentaries on books are acts of literary criticism. Both fiction and non-fiction are kinds (genres) of literature; both genres are reviewed in publications like The New York Times Book Review, The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The London Review of Books.) Wikipedia does not invent conventions of how one comments on books and or invent conventions of how one writes book reviews; they preexist Wikipedia; Wikipedia guidelines and policies about comments on books written by living persons--see WP:BLP--and Wikipedia:Citations--draw upon already-established book review protocols and conventions. It is customary (conventional) for secondary summaries of "criticism" (literary criticism) of books (including summary accounts of book reviews and other "commentaries" on books) to comment on the positive reactions to a book and then to comment on more "critical" or "negative" comments on a book. Like the "presumption of innocence" in the American justice system, that is how neutral treatment of a book conventionally works. The obvious POV evaluations (as with "idiotic" above) are clearly not within Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; for actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, see the tagged notices and the material linked there at the top of this page. Andyvphil is clearly pushing his own negative POV on this subject (the commentary on a book), in relation to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; see also Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and its archived talk pages for concerns about achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the editing of these two related and cross-linked articles. The tag re: "neutrality" on this article was removed weeks ago, after the POV kinds of editing that Andyvphil continually engages in about the commentary on this book were corrected. He obviously intends to add his own POV to this article and is not intending to improve the article, and his statement of his intention clearly violates Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (which begins: "Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view."); Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citations, all of which the current version of this article follows (prior and after his Wikipedia:Disruption of it). --NYScholar 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My above comment also serves as a basis for semi-protecting this article due to previous user's statement of "intention": see current tag on the article page.--NYScholar 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of this article. --NYScholar 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The request was declined because only one user involved. Instead, administrator recommended that the disruptive user be warned about violations of Wikipedia:3RR and engaging in "edit warring." Forewarned. --NYScholar 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For more information about the clear-cut POV edits of the user causing these problems, see Talk:Jimmy Carter, where he is engaged in protracted editing conflicts about the section of that article pertaining to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and the linked archive talk pages relating to all three articles. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article unbalanced -- "negative reactions" more than twice as long as "positive reactions".

As of this writing, as I calculate, the "negative reactions" section is 5377 words, whereas the "positive reactions" section is 2265 words. I don't think that gives a balanced presentation of the critical reaction. There is no reliable source stating that in the world at large, there is over twice as much negative commentary as positive about this book; and given the controversial nature of the subject, I don't think this article should take that position, however indirectly. So I propose trimming the negative reactions section, or perhaps increasing the positive reactions section. Organ123 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Negative and positive reactions are not, and should not, be based on each on each other. You say "There is no reliable source stating that in the world at large, there is over twice as much negative commentary as positive about this book"; as far as I know, no editor has claimed such a thing, and not only is there no reliable source that says such a thing, but there is no source at all and there does not need to be as that statement or conclusion is never made. The commentary does not go by including one good review for every bad review or vice-versa, it is whatever it is. Keep in mind the negative review section is pretty much the "controversy" section, and is most likely bound to be longer. It also includes the lengthy battles Carter had with the former director of the Carter Center, as well as Professor Dershowitz. Those ones are not even complete. --Shamir1 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To take that logic to an extreme, if the "negative reactions" section to Carter's book were 20 words long and the "positive reactions" were 30000 words long, one might be reluctant to argue that "it is whatever it is" -- especially given the controversial nature of the book. I think a more accurate statement would be "It is whatever we make it." To present a balanced article on a controversial subject, editors should be careful to see that one viewpoint is not receiving much more airtime than another, and that includes not presenting more negative reactions than positive.

I think Shamir1's stronger argument is that this serves as a "controversy" section -- in which case the section might be renamed so as not to mislead the reader. However, that argument fails in this case since as far as I can tell, in the first 2265 words (the entire length of the "positive reactions" section), no controversy is presented at all. The controversy with the Carter Center does not arrive until word 2797 of the "negative reactions" section. So I still see the article as unbalanced and propose again that the sections be evened out. Perhaps another solution would be to tease out the controversy and make a new section out of it called "Controversy".

One argument I can think of for leaving the article as-is is that people's eyes may glaze over as they trudge through the dense, over-sized paragraphs of the "negative reactions" section, thereby negating the bias. Another is that "Carter's response to criticism of the book" counts as positive, so that balances out the lengths. Maybe so, but I am dubious. Organ123 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)