Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Current paragraph on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

[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)]

Consensus?

Pro

1. This short paragraph (ending w/ word "controversy") has my approval. This is, in my view, the most reasonable and most NPOV treatment of this topic. It is an alternative that I proposed some time ago too. Taken together, the cross-referenced main articles on the book and commentary on the book present representative POVs on the book (Carter's and his critics'). --NYScholar 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [updated: NOTE: My "Pro" comment refers now to my own most-recent version of the section, including the cross-referenced Wiki. main articles in it. See my block quotation (#New consensus proposal) added below in "Comments." --NYScholar 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)] [Further updated: I also support/approve the current version that someone edited after me, which I will quote below now in place of my previous version. It has my strongest support. --NYScholar 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]

Comments

[response to NYScholar above]I presume the paragraph that meets your approval is the one after your and Jiffy's reverts:

"Carter's treatment of the subject matter and the use of the word "apartheid" in the title and throughout the book have created considerable controversy within the United States and Israel.[41]"

...which is absurdly tepid and inadequate. I've substituted:

"Carter's adoption of the analogy between Israeli policies and South African apartheid is controversial, and he has been accused of "factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."[15]

...which better expresses the criticism he has received. Stein said it, but it covers most of the other critics, and I'll leave the attribution (but not the cite) to the sub-article in the name of reducing detail. Andyvphil 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with "Carter's adoption of the analogy between Israeli policies and South African apartheid is controversial," but not with the other part. How about something more npov? Jiffypopmetaltop 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jiffy. Also, if you do quote a critic, do so by name. However, I think the quote is tangential to the driving force of the little tempest, which seems to be the core analogy with apartheid. I believe there's a guideline somewhere against a quote like that, because the quote is not in itself notable, but serves as a way to inject wording that we could not ourselves use. Finally, is anyone notable taking Carter's side in this? If so, that's part of the controversy, and just mentioning the critics would be one-sided. Derex 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That quotation is not really accurate. Carter does not "adopt" any such analogy. Hhe makes clear in the book and in his interviews and responses to questions about the book that he is not referring to Israeli policies in general (e.g., in Israel) and comparing them to wholesale to "South African apartheid"; the book is about "Palestine" (not "Israel") he emphasizes when he explains the title, and he is referring to the condition of the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories ("Palestinian territories"), not within Israel, and saying that their situation is like that (or, he and others who agree with him as cited in the "Commentary" article)--or some say even worse--than the situation of black citizens of South Africa during the Apartheid era. See the links currently in the version (just corrected and or provided). Carter is not the first to make this comparison; the Wikipedia article Allegations of Israeli apartheid discusses these "allegations" and presents NPOV on them in its introduction (though it is a contentious article too). One needs to make clear what the controversy about the "use" of that word concerns. See the editing history of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, where, in past comments, Wiki. editors struggled with the word "analogy" (a battle over that word occurred there, and its use was rejected). The word is a word that appears in the title, some argued, it is not an "analogy" in the title; it's a word that the author "uses"; what the word does is raise the "analogy" in readers' minds, and that, apparently, acc. to Carter, was part of his intention. (Please read both main articles for more perspective. Thanks.) --NYScholar 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Carter did not invent the analogy. That's why I said he adopted it, insead of just "used" it, as the Revert text would have it. If he says that conditions in the Palestinian Territories are "like" or "even worse" than those in apartheid ZA, in what sense is he not adopting it? You appear to be drawing a distinction without a difference. Andyvphil 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Carter's title does not "use" an "analogy"; it uses a word; apartheid. See the passage again (as revised; quoted in full below in #New consensus proposal. --NYScholar 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Apartheid", used outside its original historical context, is always an analogy. Like "stormtrooper" or "bowdlerize". Andyvphil 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I once referred to Carter's "analogy" in the title and found resistance in the articles on the book/commentary. See the talk pages for that (the "analogy" dispute may be in archived talk pages). --NYScholar 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The "resistance" was wrong even if it prevailed there. Andyvphil 01:20, 26 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:

"...none of the options is attractive for all Israelis:

• ...
• 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. This is the policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, 'I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it.' ..." [1](emphases added)

...as I said, I believe the use of the Afrikaans word, rather than an English one, is always an analogy. But the approving quote should be dispositive. Andyvphil 09:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we hash this out here:

• Version 1
  • Carter's treatment of the subject matter and the use of the word "apartheid" in the title and throughout the book have created considerable controversy within the United States and Israel.[41]" The adoption of the analogy between Israeli policies and South African apartheid is generally regarded as especially contentious and has been the subject of much debate among supporters and critics.

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)

I'd cut the "is generally regarded as especially contentious and". It's a bit redundant to the next phrase. I think it was intended as an amplifier, but "subject of much *heated* debate" would be more direct. Or some other one-word modifier indicating it's an emotional or sensitive issue. Derex 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Version 2
  • Carter's treatment of the subject matter and the use of the word "apartheid" in the title and throughout the book have created considerable controversy within the United States and Israel.[41]" The adoption of the analogy between Israeli policies and South African apartheid has been the subject of much heated debate among supporters and critics.

I agree. Just trying to get direct discussion started.Jiffypopmetaltop 22:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to say more on the Israel=South Africa analogy than I did. There's a whole article on it that I linked to. His adoption of a pro-PLO propaganda analogy is telling, but I trust the discerning reader to see that without pounding it home. I didn't do an inline attribution to Stein (I did cite him, and when converting the inline cite to a ref I intended to identify as well as name him) because I'm using his words as a summary of the criticism. Naming him inline would make it seem that it is an argument between Carter and Stein, not between Carter and his critics, and clarifying that will take us down another metastasizing content fork. The reason I rejected the reversion to the wording of several weeks ago is that it does not summarize the criticism, particularly the factual errors. Carter is his own most prominent supporter and he has already been quoted positively and at length on the merits of his book. The purpose of this sentence is to notify the reader that Carter's self-evaluation is not universally shared and to point to a fuller treatment. Jiffy, there is no npov wording of the criticism. It is harsh criticism and needs to be reported as such. NPOV requires that it be reported accurately and with due weight -- it does not require or allow it to be Bowdlerized. Andyvphil 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, "there is no npov wording of the criticism". Then it is inherently pov and shouldn't be put in the summary of the article. Is that what you were trying to say? Or are you saying that no compromise can be reached? Also, you say "There's a whole article on it that I linked to". Well, there is a whole article on this too. No "reason to say more", right? Jiffypopmetaltop 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't just toss in a stray unattributed quote to skirt NPOV policy. If the quote is notable in and of itself, then it's fine to use as a specific example. That does not seem to be the case here. But, we don't just regurgitate talking points. Use your own words to summarize what you can cite as notable criticism; then we can craft that phrasing to meet NPOV. Derex 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The NYTimes characterized Stein as "citing concerns with the accuracy and integrity" of the book, and I would find wording of that sort acceptable. It accurately, but neutrally, characterizes the substance of the criticism. Derex 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A cited quote is not "unattributed". Both Stein and the quote are notable IAW WP:NOTABLE. Why use my own words to summarize the notable criticisms when Stein has already done so so succintly? There is no WP:NPOV problem, nor would there be any had Stein not provided the summary and I had written the sentence without the quote marks. The sentence

"Carter's adoption of the analogy between Israeli policies and South African apartheid is controversial, and he has been accused of factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.

is an accurate, NPOV, summary of the criticisms. It is not an attempt to summarize the WP article you are then referred to -- rather than "skirt" NPOV is is exactly the purpose of the sentence is to provide NPOV to the section in which it appears. What part of this don't you get? Andyvphil 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One could write an entire article on Carter comprised of quotes. To do so would not produce a better article. I have no issue with summarizing the substance of the critique. That does not require wrapping it in words such as "glaring". However, if you are enamored of quotes to characterize the debate, here's a menu from which to choose a representative for the other side of the controversy.[2]

See the Wikiquote page for the main articles

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)

I suggest "President Carter has done what few American politicians have dared to do: speak frankly about the Israel-Palestine conflict… [he] has braved a storm of criticism, including the insinuation from the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League that his arguments are anti-Semitic." Why indeed simply state that some support his Carter, when we can use their own words? Derex 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as the intensity of the crit is accurately represented I don't have a great problem with quoting a supporter or briefly summarizing Carter's support, in addition to his own words. I've copied a sentence from the referenced WP article as a placeholder for this. I don't want to select his defender or make that summary. Over to you. Andyvphil 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, advocate for neither quote. It would simply be poor and pov writing. I have no problem at all with quotes where appropriate, which is a rare event. They seldom add to the substance, and are seldom notable for their particular phrasing. In particular, I disagree that a quote by Kenneth W. Stein is notable enough to include in a brief summary. I think in a sub-article devoted to the topic it might be fine, but certainly not here. To the extent that his position is representative of a much wider dispute, his position is. But, his particular expression of the dispute is not. This basic dispute has been repeated ad nauseum throughout Wikipedia for years. It's always resolved the same way. We don't repeat talking points for the hell of it. somebody ought to write it in policy. Derex 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood you were inviting me to write a version you wouldn't agree with anyway. My insistence is that the crit be summarized pungently. Everything else is negotiable. Stein did it, but I can come up with my own summary. But toning down the crit is not what NPOV requires. That's it for today. Gotta run. Andyvphil 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view, any change to the current paragraph that cites the points of view of one particular critic or one particular supporter is not NPOV; the NPOV is presented in "Commentary" article already cross-referenced. To the person who asks about whether Carter has any "notable" supporters; he does indeed; read section on the positive reactions to the book in both the "Commentary" article and Wikiquote. There is really no need to ask these questions here ; follow the links in the Jimmy Carter article on the book and you will find the answers to them. This is not a forum on the subject; it's a talk page for discussing ways to improve this article. I think the current section is NPOV as is; I support it ([am "Pro" it; scroll to top for "Pro" on this section on the book]). --NYScholar 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [corrected in brackets--sorry I didn't notice my typo. error before--there are so many comments that it is now hard to see the sections for putting "Pro" and "Con" positions in this (what started out to be) section of discussion re: the PPNA sec. in art.]--NYScholar 12:55, 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)]

Not playing that game. The "current sentence" when you wrote the above sentence was the proposed sentence/proposed revert, so you are "Pro" not "Con", but the proposal to mention only "apartheid" was DOA. Andyvphil 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just saw that and corrected it in brackets in my own comment above. --NYScholar 12:55, 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)

New consensus proposals

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))

The correct procedure would have been to propose the text on the discussion page, not to delete/revert to a text known to be unnacceptable to others and expect it to remain inviolate while its acceptability is discussed. If we are now discussing the following, the old Pros and Cons are n/a, although the lineup may be the same. Andyvphil 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes had already been made by several other people after I began this consensus survey; they should not have made those changes. I am still "Pro" the version that I quote in the block quotation (Do not alter it here; this is my comment and I wrote the comment, so do not make changes to it.) Also: you need to place a number sign prior to a statement in either the "Pro" or "Con" section (you can put a statement there only once (register as one voice) and only using one user name (no sock puppets or anon IP user names; This survey of consensus is for registered users/editors only). --NYScholar 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1.

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Main articles: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on 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" 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." 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."

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".

Main article: Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Main article: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid § Carter's_response_to_criticism_of_the_book

Notes

---

Well, his use of the word "apartheid" isn't merely "tutular", and I want to preserve the link to the article discussing this particular libel. The excessive quote marks are an insertion of editorial POV. Critics have accused him of factual errors, not "factual errors". This is similar to the excessive use of "alleged" (not in this article, that I recall -- but rampant on Wikipedia) to indicate that the statement, though clearly attributed, is so radioactive that the editor wishes to indicate his disagreement by using both lead gloves and tongs. Andyvphil 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole phrase: "Carter's titular use of the word apartheid and the book's comparisons between Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and South African apartheid": that is not referring to Carter's use of the word in only the title ("titular"): please read more carefully. Please read the full main articles before you comment here. Stop commenting on editors; comment on content (after you quote it correctly): Read the talkheader as tagged above and see WP:NPA. I have no point of view on this book. I'm just editing the POVs of other editors out of the passages. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; abide by the guidelines. They are not my guidelines; they are Wikipedia's editing policies. As far as any kind of "libel" goes; it is prohibited in articles on living persons: WP:BLP. Quotation marks and uses of words like "alleges" and "allegations" are entirely called for in these articles. See Wikipedia:Libel. Reverting which involves deleting libelous comments about living persons is permitted in Wikipedia: WP:BLP. E.g., see bottom of this talk page; delete the libelous comments on the subject of this article. Comment only on making improvements to the article. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrases in quotations marks are quotations from the sources cited in the article in the "Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" article; they need to be in quotation marks; they are charges (allegations) and not facts: "scare quotes" are appropriately used in the passage. --NYScholar 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes "scare" quotes can give the impression that the quoter finds them dubious. What we really want is for the reader to have no idea what we think. So, language such as "critics have challenged the accuracy" can be more neutral than a quote, while being just as substantively accurate. Derex 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what's meant; but they are "dubious": they are charges not proven facts. They are charges of critics; the charges are not something that a Wiki. encyclopedia article is engaged in proving; it just reports them, in quotation marks. To leave out the quotations marks (they are words and phrases of the critics) is misleading and gives the charges the appearance of fact, which they are not. To leave out the quotation marks presents the appearance of agreement/validation of claims, which NPOV prohibits. Please re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in conjunction. --NYScholar 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are charges of critics. My point is that's what we should say, using normal writing style exactly as you just did. Critics have charged X. No scare quotes necessary. I'm not going to fight you on this, but the idea apparently coming from both sides that Wikipedia can't simply describe something neutrally in plain English, without quotes, is mistaken. Derex 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said I couldn't describe the criticism of PPNA without quotes. I just didn't think my proposed sentence was improved by expunging the quote marks. But that opinion is one I was willing to sacrifice to get a pungent summary. And it has nothing to do with "scare quotes". No matter how many times we follow NYScholar's instructions to reread WP:NPOV we won't find anything that says leaving out the interior quotation marks in "Critics accuse Carter of 'factual errors'" claims (~"agrees"/"validates"~) anything other than that the critics have alleged factual error. Andyvphil 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2. [most recent version that I've seen: also has my support [see Pro section above]:

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Main articles: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on 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" 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." 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."

[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)]

---

Further comments on above version

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)

Pro

1. See my earlier comments. --NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Con

[Giza D: Do you want to add your numbered sentence here? --NYScholar 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]

Comments

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).

Do you know what the phrase "loaded wording" means? Carter spoke to an audience of Brandeis students and faculty, after declining the initial Brandeis invitation to debate Alan Dershowitz, author of The Case for Israel. But no, the fact that Carter chose not to debate someone at some college, but spoke alone instead, does not go into the main bio. Can you even remotely conceive how many times Carter has been lambasted for things far more notable than that? Here's a clue: thousands upon thousands of times. This isn't Britney Spears, this is a President of the United States. This is an encylopedia article about him, not a book, not a newspaper. There is a place for your information in Wikipedia. This main article is not that place. Derex 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[In agreement with Derex.] I do not support this alternative at all for the reasons that I have already stated in the "Pro" subsection and my previous comments in this talk page. I did try to edit the part on the Brandeis visit here, but it is all already discussed, documented with sources, and fully presented in a NPOV way in the main articles and in the article one sees when one clicks on the Wiki. link to Dershowitz's name. There is no missing it. It should not be brought up (again) in this article; it puts too much emphasis on it w/o giving any emphasis to the rest of the information already developed in both main articles on the book; if you want quotations, then please go to Wikiquote and read them; sources are cited there too; if you want discussion of the Brandeis visit or on Feb. 22's Carter Center "conversation" between Carter and former Sec'y of State Madeleine Albright, then please go to the sources in the article Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. All that material is linked and accessible to any reader of this article on Jimmy Carter. There is no attempt to hide anything or deceive anyone. But negative POVs cannot be raised in absence of positive POVs in this article on a BLP and there is not room for doing adequate justice (NPOV) to both kinds. The main article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid does that. Unlike this article, it is not tagged with a "neutrality" issues tag. --NYScholar 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tangent

Derx, I know Carter is a former President, which makes [...] even more disturbing (this is a POV). I added two lines initially, and then this argument took off. Don't blame me that Carter is an [...] to this country. 65.96.132.149 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giza D (talk • contribs) 21:19, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

Deleting potentially libelous comments above; see talkheader; "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." WP:BLP; Wikipedia:Libel. WARNING: Do not Delete this comment; it explains the reason for the deletions above. It is Wikipedia editing policy to allow editors to delete potentially-libelous comments (about subjects and other editors; about living persons) from talk pages of articles. See also WP:NPA. --NYScholar 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

While the comment was off-topic and in poor taste, it was definitely not legally libelous. I shudder to think of a country where I cannot call politician X an idiot without fear of lawsuit. Not that I live in the U.S. anyway ;) However, I don't mind the deletion on the grounds that it was off-topic. Derex 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See the talkheader and please stay on point: discuss only making improvements to the article; this is not a talk forum on the subject. Such comments are not appropriate in the talk pages of articles about living persons (or really any talk pages); focus on how to improve the article, not on these other matters. This is not a free for all or a "free speech forum" about Jimmy Carter (or anything else other than making improvements to the article). Please delete the inappropriate discussion and the discussion of the inappropriate discussion. Thanks. [Note: I didn't say "libelous"; I wrote "potentially libelous"; that is the concern of WP:BLP. See the footnotes in that section w/ W founder's comments. We are not lawyers, and it is not up to us to "rule" on what is or is not potentially libelous; we are to stay away from making any such comments on persons. The talk page is not for doing that. This is not a forum for making general (irrelevant) comments on the subject; it's for making comments on how to make improvements to the article (writing).] [updated]--NYScholar 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I wasn't referring to Derex discussing what I wrote; I was referring to Derex discussing what the person before me wrote (an irrelevant comment on Carter himself [the subject]). I do not judge what is potentially libelous as being libel for sure: I'm not a lawyer. Whether or not one is an American (as referred to in a comment in the editing history of this page, since deleted) is not relevant either. A talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and replying to relevant concerns of people who are asking (above) whether information being posted is erroneous or true; verifying its accuracy or inaccuracy (separating fact from speculation and hearsay). If a point is not verifiable, it should not be included (even in the talk page acc. to WP:BLP). If some opinon or other is merely one's own POV (even if other users share it), that is irrelevant to this discussion. (Opinion is not fact.) These articles can only include facts that are verifiable using reliable sources (which I've been referring people to in the cross-linked articles and my references to them in this talk page). I delete potentially libelous remarks that are irrelevant in the talk page following WP:BLP, which also is an exception to W:3RR.) --NYScholar 09:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that what Giza D wrote was not libel. NYScholar, you need to read WP:LIBEL, then follow the last link on the page to [3]. Look for the "opinion"/"fair comment" exception.

I've read it: "libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast)"; talk pages in WP:BLP (See that page for context) discourage such comments about a living person because that person may find it "libelous" (It's not what I consider libelous that matters; it's what Carter might consider "libelous" that matters (Take a look at this Wikipedia article from potentially that perspective [his]); Wikipedia is a "published" source of writing; the writing is in a form that is to some degree "a fixed medium" (the internet; via the Wayback Machine: The Internet Archive, the writing online may be "fixed" nearly forever, archived). What one person might consider "harmful" may differ from what another considers "harmful": Jimmy Wales is pretty clear about avoiding such problems entirely by not making such potentially-harmful ("potentially-libelous") comments about living people. He wants to avoid potential dangers of law suits in Wikipedia. Whether or not you or I or anyone else thinks such suits are likely is irrelevant; the guidelines are here due to such legal concerns. They are Wikipedia's concerns (those of the founder et al.), not mine. I simply try to follow the guidelines. I myself am very sensitive about "personal attacks" (WP:NPA), and don't like them directed against me or anyone else, including the subjects of articles. These articles must conform to Wikipedia's most standard guideline: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Anything else is not to be left in Wikipedia articles and talk pages on articles dealing with living persons. How much clearer need WP:BLP be. It refers to both talk pages and articles. --NYScholar 13:18, 25 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)]

Overall NPOV of Article

[Do you (Andyvphil)have to repeat this? --NYScholar 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]

For the record, what GizaD said was that Carter was an embarrassment to his country. Which is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said that Carter was the Ramsey Clark of ex-Presidents. What makes that comment appropriate on a page devoted to improvement of the article is my further comment (and GizaD's correct opinion) that this view of Carter is both widely held ("not idiosyncratic") and underrepresented in the article. WP:NPOV says "all significant published points of view are to be presented" and one of those is that Carter is "Our Worst Ex-President".[4]. Consigning harsh criticism of PPNA to a cross-reference is emblematic of the NPOV problem of this generally hagiograpic article. Andyvphil 10:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "Giza D" now posting using both a user name and an anon IP address? He/she needs to post using one user name and to identify himself/herself clearly; he/she can only post once as a user (using one user name) in a poll/survey of consensus. --NYScholar 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you got some poll numbers or something we can put in demonstrating that Carter is widely viewed as a failure as an ex-president? I just read the ex-president section carefully and didn't see much opinionating besides what a fantastic cook he is. Basically, if you devote your life to building housing & fair elections & eradicating horrifying diseases & you win the Nobel peace prize, you're going to sound pretty good with or without any wikipedia flattery. I read the Commentary article you linked, and basically it complains about his post-presidency diplomacy. Reading that section, I see _plenty_ of criticism mentioned. Where's the whitewash? Derex 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost 4am here, and I just looked in to see what happened while I was out dining and dancing, so I won't now be drawn on the article's faults. I confess, anyway, it's just an impression, and it was the post-prez dip section before I worked on it that caught my eye... Anyway, NYScholar probably thinks describing Carter as "devot{ing his) life to building housing & fair elections & eradicating horrifying diseases & (winning) the Nobel peace prize" is an NPOV summary. I think you know better. And I see literacy and pungency in the crit of PPNA is now reduced to "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book"... *sigh*. Makes it hard to AGF. I'll try, I'll try, really I'll try. But it's hard. Andyvphil 12:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, of course it's not an NPOV summary, but it's not in the article that way either. The point is that he's notable for a lot of good things in his ex-presidency. Covering those things, which few people find controversial, is going to sound hagiographic. That's not because we wrote about all the praise he gets, we largely didn't. The area where he's drawn flack is diplomacy/politics. I see criticism covered there. So, I in all seriousness don't understand the substance of your complaint. I'm not saying the writing can't be improved, but your assessment sounded more like a sweeping condemnation than something a few tweaks would fix. At any rate, I've got work in the morning (wrong side of the international date-line) and I'll let you all have at it without me for a few days. Derex 12:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is in the article just that way. At least in one case. It's not what's said -- it what's left out. Just did a search on "Nobel" in the article and there's no mention of the political motive of the Norwegian Parliament in awarding Carter the Peace Prize. You have to do pretty decent physics to get the Nobel Prize in Physics. It gives unjustified prestige to the Peace Prize... see [5]. And while we're on the subject of published viewpoints on Jimmy Carter slighted in the article, see [6]. Andyvphil 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it's not presented that way. I made a cavalier remark intended emphasize a point with humor. The text rather soberly reports the facts. However, I'll grant you that it is true that we've omitted criticism of him for supporting destruction of an endangered species. We've also neglected to mention that he has the worst golf game of any recent ex-President; I can see why he's considered an embarassment at the job. Derex 06:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was Gerald Ford who was famous for beaning people with golf balls. But that may have been a Pinto Effect. As probably the best athlete ever to be President I wouldn't be surprised if he was also the best golfer. That disjunction between reality and media caricature is on point here. OK, I got that what you were saying was humor. And by channelling Saudi money into fighting the guinea worm and spending the occasional weekend pounding nails Carter sought and earned some credits. But, "[t]he text rather soberly reports the facts"? Carter's Nobel Prize makes the first sentence of his bio -- isn't it worth a mention somewhere that Norwegian politicians gave it to him at least partly as a way of criticizing G.W.Bush? If not here, where? Andyvphil 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting response. I was actually alluding to the fact that Carter is best known for spending his time on humanitarian work, while other ex-President's are best known for other things, such as celebrity golf tournaments (whether fair or not). I think that has quite a lot to do with Carter's favorable post-Presidential perception. I have no problem with a brief mention of the Nobel Committee chair's comment that the context of Iraq was relevant. That's entirely different than saying it was undeserved or was criticized or political or whatever. In fact, right now the article doesn't even say why he was awarded the prize, so that should be expanded and your point would fit right in. It's a big deal, so the Nobel probably deserves 4 or 5 sentences rather than the current 2. This puts my position on the Dershowitz debate in perspective. Two days ago, his non-debate had more coverage than his Nobel prize. Clearly, I'm a wiki-junky, because I vowed not to do this anymore except on weekends. Derex 07:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Still the weekend for me, but it's distracting me from other things... Will be interesting to see if NYScholar allows you to cast aspersions on Carter's Nobel, next weekend or ever. Andyvphil 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If neutrally stated, it's not necessarily an aspersion. Some take it as cheapening the award by a slap at Bush, others see it as holding Carter up as a shining example in times of poor statesmanship. Properly written, the reader isn't spoonfed one interpretation or the other. Derex 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're the one taking me too literally, although I was being ironic, not humorous. Andyvphil 08:50, 26 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)

Reactions to a user's comment

[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 don't understand Giza D's comment at all. What is it in relation to? Giza D. are you pro or con the current proposal (current version)--6.4 Palestine Peace Not Apartheid-- in the article? Please thread your comment in terms of what it responds to. [Scroll up to first occurrences of "Pro" and "Con" where I asked before what exactly your position is.] --NYScholar 13:18, 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)

Which version, Giza D? Please, scroll up, follow the format for registering consensus and move (copy and/or cut and paste) what you consider your relevant comments to an appropriate place in either "Pro" or "Con", or their "Comments" sections (in each survey of consensus). Thanks. --NYScholar 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[copying below:]

Is "Giza D" now posting using both a user name and an anon IP address? He/she needs to post using one user name and to identify himself/herself clearly; he/she can only post once as a user (using one user name) in a poll/survey of consensus. --NYScholar 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [I added the "unsigned" template with the info. from the editing history: please sign in and sign your comments using four tildes. You should not be posting both as an anon IP and as a user name in the same talk page where a survey/poll of consensus is being attempted. And please do not post off-topic remarks that are against the guidelines of talk pages. Thank you. Please delete your own irrelevant opinions and aspersions about living persons (in this case, former President Jimmy Carter) from talk pages. They do not belong here. No one is interested in your opinions. We are interested only in facts documented with notable and reliable sources; users (especially those posting as anon IP addresses) are neither notable nor reliable soources; their opinions do not count in Wikipedia articles or talk pages. They are labeled "POV" and need deletion. You should know better, Giza D. --NYScholar 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[...]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)

I had no idea the anonymous poster was Giza D, until someone else said it was. Posts need to be signed with four tildes: see talkheader. --NYScholar 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Given what Andyvphil is saying about Giza's POV, it should be clear to anyone that Giza D has not read the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; not only has Carter's attitude toward Dershowitz been documented in it, but so has Dershowitz's attitude toward Carter been documented in (1) that article; (2) the article Alan Dershowitz; (3) Dershowitz's over two hours devoted to rebutting Carter and Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in his "rebuttal" opportunity afer Carter's 15 min.-speech and 45-min. Q&A at Brandeis University; (4) in multiple publications in editorials, blog posts, and other opinion-pieces that Dershowitz has written, published in newspapers, and on internet sites: all documented in the Wikipedia articles already. Giza's so-called being "offended" appears to result from a lack of knowledge of the subject, which could be easily redressed if he/she (and others) would read these other Wikipedia articles and the many, many documented sources cited in them (incl. Wikiquote). One or two users' own POVs have contexts, but their POVs are not the subject of this Wikipedia article. The subject is Jimmy Carter and only notable, reliable, and verifiable sources are allowed in it. Not Giza D's POV, not anyone else's if they are not notable, reliable, and verifiable sources. Wikipedia editors are not sources, they are writers, and they must write the articles in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. What Wikipedia editors believe about the subject is irrelevant. What are relevant are facts, not opinion. It is a fact that this book is "controversial"; the article on the book document the controversy and the issues which those involved in the controversy dispute. The dispute is a fact; the claims made by the disputants are not fact; they are opinion. Taking sides with one or another such claim (opinion) is not the job of a Wikipedia editor. A Wikipedia editor must remain neutral, however hard it is to do that. That is what he or she has to do. Otherwise, his or her work is of no value to this project (making a neutral encyclopedia that is of use to people all over the world). If one has trouble reading these articles online, use the print feature and print them out and read them on pages. Online you can follow the links to the sources and read the material cited. In print you can see the number and kinds of citations documented in relation to one another. --NYScholar 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus survey/poll on section of this article Jimmy Carter#Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

"current version":

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Main articles: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on 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" 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." 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." 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.

Other

1. I'm not sure exactly what we're debating. If it's whether the section as currently written is satisfactory in all details, then I'd be "con". If it's whether the section is of roughly appropriate length and scope of coverage, then I'd be "pro". I also agree with Andy that a poll is not the most productive format at this stage with this small number of editors. Derex 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)]

You need to decide one way or the other. Either Pro or Con. Your comments can follow the section already quoted in full. --NYScholar

If you know what question you're asking Derex has told you which his answer is. Andyvphil 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No he has not (currently): he needs to re-post what someone (not I) deleted in either the pro or the con column; not in both. This is an either-or (pro or con) poll. If he doesn't want to participate, he doesn't have to. --NYScholar 00:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to see Derex post at all since he said he would be away working for a few days. He chose to post under "other" but "If it's whether the section as currently written is satisfactory in all details, then I'd be 'con'" is a pretty clear Con to the "current version". On that question it's pretty clear that we're going to end up with you and Jiffy Pro, Derex, Bart, Giza and I Con. Don't beat a dead horse. Andyvphil 01:08, 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)

See: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid#Brandeis University visit for how the main article already covers that very fully, including many sources in both notes and references sections. --NYScholar 00:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also: People may want to review previous passages and versions quoted and linked to and discussed earlier. There are previous polls some of you did not participate in earlier. Please try to cooperate with this effort to iron out these problems of lack of neutrality in this article. Right now (in my own view) the section is neutral and it refers to a wide variety of both positive and negative commentary about the book via the cross-links; if you haven't done so yet, you need to read those articles and the Wikiquote pages cited in them. If you don't do that, you have limited knowledge of the subject of this section (the book and verifiable and reliably-sourced reactions to it). --NYScholar 00:57, 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)

Directions

• No further comments necessary. Comments sections are already placed above. Scroll up. Just sign in with your user name and participate in this poll/survey. Sign your sentence of support or opposition to the current version with four tildes (see talkheader and Wikipedia:Consensus for directions). Thank you. --NYScholar 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines pertaining to consensus, read Wikipedia:Consensus. --NYScholar 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Scroll up for the places where you need to add a number sign followed by a brief sentence registering of your "pro" or "con" position on the current version of only this particular section. Thank you. I started doing that in the "pro" column relating to particular versions of this section. You can follow through by scrolling up to the section. To repeat it here for convenience.

• Only sign once in either the Pro or Con section; use a user name and four tildes; this is not a poll for anonymous IP users. --NYScholar 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sign with actual user name, not an alias. Give a reason for your support (pro) or opposition (con) in a brief sentence. --NYScholar 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Bart is using the alias "Extremely sexy": it's confusing. Use one user name; don't start with one and then shift to another. This is one user, not two users. (Click on the signature to highlight full actual user name. That is what I had to do due to the confusing use of the alias and someone's ref. to "Bart" above.) Please, try to make this simple, not complicated; just follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I already corrected this, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 01:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (Editing comments sometimes cross w/ one another; or people don't see what's posting and then get an "editing conflict" message while they're still simultaneously working on something. These glitches occur in a lot of my editing on active article and talk pages. Sorry. It often takes me a long time to construct an edit.) --NYScholar 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure really and you are forgiven. Extremely sexy 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro

1. See my previous comments already registered. --NYScholar 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Con

1. For clarity, I ported over the "current section" (above), not as nicely as it might have been done:

   "...although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" is both ill-written and inadequate. Andyvphil 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Honestly, I also want Carter's aversion towards Dershowitz in it, hence my vote against it. Bart Versieck 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Ok, con then. Yeah, I'm at work, but couldn't resist checking in (twice). I have to agree with Andyvphil's assessment above, though we clearly disagree on the best alternative. A poll would be more useful in determining specific elements to include than in settling on an exact draft. For example, I oppose this in part because the writing needs work. Derex 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved for further discussion

[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" 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." 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." 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.

Notes

[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)]

Deletion of PPNA content as a POV fork

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)

There you go, again, telling me a mishmash of things I know and things that aren't true. Yes, "the article on POV forking is talking about subjects of whole articles". And Jimmy Carter is, exactly, the subject of a whole (main) article. And you deleted the PPNA content in order to exile the criticism of PPNA "so that the main article can favor some viewpoints ((the uncritical ones)) over others". That's what creating a POV fork is. You've just created a POV fork. If you can find an exception in the guidelines to allow this, quote it, don't just assert it's there somewhere and ask me to find it. Andyvphil 07:11, 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)

Indeed, I agree with you once again. Extremely sexy 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Neither non-book topic needs mentioning. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely has something to do with it. Extremely sexy 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez: huh? Extremely sexy 19:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)

Perhaps it would be productive to discuss what specific elements we have a consensus to include? For example, clearly you, Jiffy, and I take the view that the debate business has no place here. It's just too picayune. But, what about other elements such as the anti-Semitism charge? Derex 08:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be entirely out of place as it relates to this book, and it is already fully documented and discussed in the other article(s): both in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and in Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. Moreover, the main article on the book also cites Carter's responses to such opinions of others (and they are just that, opinions). The References include several articles documenting such opinions.

This is a biography of a living person: see WP:BLP. See also anti-Semitism and linked articles there. This is not a place for such accusations. They are extremely POV opinions, not facts. That such opinions exist (the fact that they exist, not that Carter is or is not such and such) are properly presented in a NPOV manner in the other articles on the book.

In terms of the topic ("anti-Semitism") in relation to other matters in this article (not related to that specific book), I also caution that this is an article on a living person and unsubstantiated opinions about the person are really not considered facts; they are opinions. What are the opinions based on? Are they reflective of POV held by those with those opinions? Consider the slippery slope....

This is an encyclopedia article not an argumentative term paper or a newspaper or magazine editorial. Try to maintain some perspective on what a Wikipedia article is aiming to present about a living person.

You can find all the "anti-Semite" charges to your (collective) hearts' content in the critical book reviews and verbal reactions and editorials and other "opinion" pieces cited and documented in the already-cross-referenced main articles on the book and in their Wikiquote pages (also linked in them).

No one who reads these Wikipedia articles cares about the "opinions" of Wikipedia editors; they care about facts established by notable, reliable, verifiable sources. Such sources are already provided in the main articles: if it is a "fact" that someone or other or representatives of organizations have expressed the view that Carter is an "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic" (which many have actually qualified after suggesting that; even the Anti-Defamation League has done so), then that fact is already documented well enough in the other articles. Try to put yourselves in the position of being a subject of a Wikipedia article. Would you want someone calling you pejorative names? "Anti-Semite" is a very loaded word. See the way the term (as a topic) is handled in the other two articles on the book. --NYScholar 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it is a loaded word, and what should be a serious charge. It also makes me cringe to see the charge bandied about so cavalierly, because it serves to discredit the accuser and weaken the force of the term. I have previously, in the now archived discussion, opposed its inclusion. However, if it has by now been made by several notable people/organizations and been reported in notable outlets, then I would reconsider. I don't know that it has been; I raise it as an example, since someone else had recently included it. However, there's absolutely nothing POV about reporting the charge so long as it is a clearly attributed and sourced opinion, and doing so has nothing to do with BLP. The only relevant question is whether it rises to the standard of notability that it should be mentioned in the summary. For that to be true, I beleive we would need evidence that it's being taken seriously by parties with no particular axe to grind. Derex 09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no axe to grind and never called Carter an Anti-semite, I believe he is ignorant and arrogant. But for the entry page it seems NY Scholar and Jiffy object to any criticsm of Carter. ((unsigned -- by Giza))

Seriously, we have tried very hard to work with you guys.Jiffypopmetaltop 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've got to be kidding. "My insistence is that the crit be summarized pungently. Everything else is negotiable...And I see literacy and pungency in the crit of PPNA is now reduced to 'although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book'..." (see above) And then all the content was deleted on the grounds that reporting that there has been caustic response to PPNA is somehow POV. I don't see the "working with". What I saw was the article put in a form acceptable to you two and then discussion invited. Well, it is not POV to report the existance of criticism without enervating its description, and my patience with the censored state of this article is wearing thin. Andyvphil 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are the very model of flexibility and are the near perfect state of an editor looking for consensus. Nobody has tried to compromise except for you and the discussion has dragged on so long because other editors don't understand the brilliance that is your opinion. In seriousness, this entire page is dedicated to other editors diligently trying to work with you but you have little patience for compromise and at the same time accuse you accuse others of bias. I will wait until a compromise version has been produced and then I will weigh in. Way too much time has been spent on this page trying to suit a clearly biased point of view. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant found notable by notable non-Wikipedia parties with no axe to grind. You clearly do have an axe to grind though, as you keep insulting Carter and trying to insert massively loaded wording. There's a difference between having a POV and pushing a POV, and you have been doing the latter. Jiffy & Scholar & I have all been willing to include criticism. Where everyone has differences is on which criticisms are important enough to note in the main bio and in how to phrase them. I'm trying to start a discussion on what substance to include. With that settled, we can work on how to phrase it. Derex 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The anti-semitism charge is usually attenuated by responsible critics and I don't need it here. I haven't noticed the plagarism charge take off yet. "Apartheid" was a pre-Carter partisan characterization and Carter's adoption of it needs to be noted as such. The well-supported charge of gross factual errors (and if you don't like "gross", find some other term to indicate that we're not talking about errata -- we're talking about charging gross mischaracterization of 242, etc.) needs to be mentioned. So, "Carter's adoption of the partisan charge of 'aparthieid' is controversial, and he has been accused of grossly misrepresenting the historical facts (see Criticism of PPNA(wikilink))"is, I think, an NPOV formulation. If you think not, why not? Andyvphil 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ok. i'm good with apartheid & accuracy. "gross" is a loaded word. so is "misrepresent". critics have challenged the book's accuracy on several important historical points would be a more neutral phrasing. It's also loaded to say that 'apartheid' is "partisan", because that endorses the critics' view. Derex 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That "apartheid" was a semantically pre-loaded partisan charge that Carter adopted (see my quote from the excerpt, somewhere above) seems to me a simple factual observation (do you disagree with this as a matter of fact?) but if you want to attribute that observation to "critics" in the mainspace I'll only grumble a bit here. But critics haven't "challenged its accuracy", even if you add the emphasizer ~"important points"~. That sounds like they're accusing him of bad research. No, they're accusing him of knowing and partisan misrepresentation. Toning that charge down misrepresents it, and is a form of editorial distancing only slightly more sophisticated than the "scare quotes". I hope I can get you to see this. Andyvphil 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that he adopted apartheid from some certain political context. It may be correct opinion, but it's not verifiable. It's a fairly obvious analogy after all in many dimensions, whether fair or not. All we can verify is the controversy. As to charging intentional misrepresentation, that may be, as I'm not immersed in the details of the dispute. Can you document that the interpretation of lying is common? Derex 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for actually addressing my points. It's refreshing. Anyway... (1) Note that I didn't specify where Carter got the analogy from in my proposal for mainspace. The possibility that he adopted it without reference to the previous usage is not excluded, although I (and notable others whom I could cite -- consider this parenthetical usually implied; that's what I mean by "not idiosyncratic") find it completely implausible that Carter was unaware of its widespread propaganda use beforehand. But I made no unverifiable or uncited assertion of any fact other than that it was an analogy (contra NYScholars assertion that previous discussion elsewhere had settled it was merely a "word") and that Carter approved of it as such (see my quote from the excerpt). (2) My mainspace proposal was "grossly misrepresenting the historical facts", not explicitly "lying", because that is the level of assertion practiced by Carter's notable critics. I'm thinking specifically of the CAMERA crit in the Jerusalem Post and Stein's various letters and articles, and -- I don't have time to look right now because I'm off to work -- I think I would find most of the notable crit at that level of assertion. Can we agree that assertiveness of the notable crit should not be further attenuated in the reporting of it, here? Andyvphil 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting previous: I understand that critics used emotionally charged phrasing in criticizing; it's called "spin". We don't repeat spin; we report substantive charges in a neutral phrasing. You want "gross" because it indicates importance. Well, what's wrong with "important"? You want "misrepresent", but haven't document an explicit assertion of malicious intent of inaccuracies. But, then all you've really got is "inaccurate". I understand that you want to emphasize the critics are strident. So, we can write "strident criticism". What we can't do is use loaded words to describe the actual substance of the criticism, because that's implicitly endorsing the critics' views. As to apartheid: yes, I understand that you made no explicit link. However, there's absolutely no purpose to having the 'partisan' tidbit unless such a link is meant to be implied. Juxtaposing two facts is almost always taken to imply a connection, if one can reasonably be made. And this is exactly what you intend "parenthetical usually implied". So, I don't see much difference between you explicitly making the link and implicitly making the link. However, if you can attribute the position to a notable critic, that would be a different matter. Derex 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your response, just don't have time right now to provide the requested documentation. Maybe this weekend... Again, thanks for engaging on substance. "Touche" re mentioning "partisan". I wasn't looking at my proposed text, and I take your point. But more on this later. Andyvphil 23:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: the point I'm conceding is the implied connection (not the "absolutely no point" part, though), not the impropriety of implying the connection, particularly after revising to meet your first request re attribution. That is to say, I intend to make sure there is attributed crit on these points in the article summarized... gotta run. Andyvphil 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The anti-semitism charge was inserted here: [7].

The "scare" quotes were added here: [8]

With elimination of "scare quotes" and a tighter 2nd sentence, I could live with something like this: [9]

Instead, NYScholar created the POV fork here: [10]. Andyvphil 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please; stop it! It's not a "POV fork": that's your own misleading POV. It's tiresome. --NYScholar 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeating myself: "...you deleted the PPNA content in order to exile the criticism of PPNA 'so that the main article can favor some viewpoints ((the uncritical ones)) over others'". The guideline is clear that doing what you did for the reason you did it is a POV fork. Your several gaseous "responses" have been off-point. Andyvphil 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thus, repeating myself: It is not a "POV fork"; I have not intended it as a "POV fork". Focus on the content (by reading it) and not on the contributor. If anything is "off" the point of editing, it is your comments. I stand by the content that I have contributed by providing cross-references to existing Wikipedia articles (that existed before I saw the section on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid in this article on Jimmy Carter; I object to your perverse characterizations of my responses above. See the tagged talkpage header and start focusing on reading content of articles so that you know what you are talking about when you try to edit material in other articles relating to what they already discuss. See also the links within those articles to the Wikiquote page and to other Wikipedia articles. --NYScholar 00:37, 1 March 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).

Also please stop quoting older versions of since-edited material out of context. If you scroll up this talk page, you can see how these versions developed and where and when they changed and various earlier comments on them. Some of you just keep ignoring the previous discussion and re-hashing the same old arguments. Read the articles on the book and commentary about the book and read their sources. They already document representative concerns of both supporters and critics of the book and the issues that they have raised as well as Carter's responses to both positive and negative criticism. See these articles in relation to guidelines provided in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:Cite, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as well as WP:AGF and other Wikipedia editing policies nad guidelines. --NYScholar 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, gassing on and on again about about the articles that are linked to from the main Jimmy Carter article as a substitute for responding to my simple point that even if they were flawless articles you would still have to accurately summarize the critical response to PPNA here to avoid violating the POV fork guideline. I'm not rehashing the argument, I'm repeating it to emphasize the fact that you have not once responded to it.

I can certainly see your hand at work in those other articles, though. I love the weaseling in this sentence from [[11]]: "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." Some do? You mean there are others who read Carter saying "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...is the policy now being followed,"[12] and don't conclude that Carter is alleging Israeli apartheid? Who? Andyvphil 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you are taking the sentence out of context: the sentence has other sentences before and after it that relate to its point. There are critics of Carter who focus on other issues (discussed fully in the article following the summary. That is one example of an issue that some critics complain about; not everyone who criticizes the book criticizes the word "apartheid" in the title. The sentence (with citations to sources following it is:

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.

Notes

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)

As usual, you've entirely failed to engage my point, instead gassing on about how no one who hasn't read every bit of repetitive nonsense written about PPNA could possibly have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Well, you may have read it, but unless you've done a better job of understanding what you read than you've done understanding what I've written, it will not have done you much good.

Perhaps I can attempt help you with my meaning, at least: The sentence I find so typical of your work is, again, "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."(emphasis added) That there are critics of PPNA that do not object to his use of apartheid is irrelevant, for they are not the noun at issue. Now, if you had written "Some of the book's critics...believe Carter's allegation of Israeli apartheid is inflammatory and unsubstantiated" I would not have recognized the sentence as yours, and I would not be pointing at it with derision. As I've pointed out before, Carter explicitly states that: "A system of apartheid...is the policy now being followed" You've inserted an invented uncertainty of interpretation in your sentence for no other reason than to make its meaning more vaporous. Andyvphil 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read both articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and also read the sources linked in them?

[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)]

Yes

1. I have read both of these articles and the sources linked in them. --NYScholar 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2. I have read both of these articles. Jiffypopmetaltop 16:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No

1. I haven't read either of these articles and the sources linked in them. Bart Versieck 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Derex 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem in way a user is posting above

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)

What's the problem? I am in a quantum superposition. I reject your narrow yes/no dichotomy. I am curious as to the purpose of this poll. I thought talk pages were reserved for discussion on ways to improve articles. How will this poll accomplish that objective? Derex 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the question was supposed to: read "How many people commenting on this talk page about the sub-section "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" have actually read EVERY WORD OF both articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and also read EVERY WORD OF the sources linked in them?"? I certainly haven't. A while back I tried reading the Crit article, and got as far as "Selected negative..." without finding any positve reaction that warranted further investigation. The priviledged position of positive reaction is a minor structural POV problem if the article is viewed as a true main article, but since it's really an appendix I won't suggest rotation or other remedy, at this time -- when referring to neg crit one can link directly to the subsection, after all. The PPNA artcle goes into Carter's thesis in greater detail, plus the Brandeis kerfuffle and other details, and I've dipped ito it on occasion, but I am frankly uninterested in Carter's expounding on a misbegotten and fully rebutted premise. I haven't read Carter's book, beyond the excerpt. So, I've scanned and dipped into both articles on a number of occasions, and am familiar with what seems to be a representative sample of the critical response. So my answer to your question (clarified) is "no" -- and what's your point? Andyvphil 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Derex's name again from the "Yes" sub-section; his putting it there is not an honest answer to the questions asked in this survey of which users have actually read the two main articles that they are commenting on. If they haven't read them and the sources cited in them, then their "opinion" about the articles is not worth much (in my view) and I give their comments no weight at all. [Point is that other users' knowing who read these articles enables them to evaluate various comments in this talk page section about the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (the two inter-linked articles in Wikipedia: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.] (If one doesn't want to participate in the survey, then don't; but one should not add one's name at all in either subsection then. Derex: stop mucking up the works here.)--NYScholar 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]

I find your attitude arrogant and unhelpful in the extreme. I see very little effort by you at reaching a consensus, and very much effort at trying to dictate to and denigrate others. I refuse to answer your question exactly because it's fairly obvious that it's your little litmus test. You don't know what I have and haven't read. If you want to play little games, there is statistically an extremely high probability that my scholarly credentials trump yours. So, I place very little weight if any on your comments .... Now does that attitude make you respect me more or less? Take a clue from your reaction and quit trying to boss people around and play little power games. (not really to the immediate ellipses antecedent). Derex 06:50, 2 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)

I'm in the process of discussing compromise with Derex, in case you didn't notice. I didn't have time to respond to him further last weekend, but this article isn't going away, and PPNA won't be left blank forever. If you have a more recent proposal for a text that adequately reflects the critical respose to PPNA than "although several critics have questioned whether Carter has consistently presented actual 'facts' and other aspects of the book" (the last proposal from the deletionist duo that I can identify), let's see it. Andyvphil 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)