Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:29, 23 December 2006

Books Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Stein

A note to clarify regarding the Stein reaction: December 15, 2006 has not happened yet. Please fix the date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.45.152.134 (talk • contribs).

Done, thanks.--GunnarRene 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly PoV

I've added the {{NPOV}} template to the article. Today, the article contains a brief lede paragraph and then the rest of the article is criticism. Clearly, this is not the proper Misplaced Pages neutral point of view as there must be at least something favorable to say about the book.

Atlant 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's criticism of the criticism here. -- Kendrick7 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. There is little to no information provided on the actual content of the book, and someone has taken it upon themselves to essentially open and close with criticism. --AWF

As of this editing, I strongly agree with Atlant's and AWF's sentiments above. There's little to no context, no substance, no discussion of the charges in Carter's book. Most if not all U.S. Congressmen will not run counter to the principal views of the strong Israel lobby, this is a given, and to quote ad nauseam the predictable responses of Congressmen in the article is unnecessary: consolidating and footnoting the Congressional criticism is sufficient. Furthermore, pronouncement from the highly-biased mouthpiece Alan Dershowitz should be removed entirely: not an elected or appointed official of any group, his views regarding Israel have never been accused of balance or thoughtfulness (unlike the target of this criticism) and they add nothing to the discussion. 64.0.112.5 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I think a big step is either removing the Dershowitz commentary entirely or stating his bias clearly (Something like: "Dershowitz himself has been described as an apologist of the Israel lobby, and has consistently held negative opinions of publications which are critical to Israel's policy of Palestine."). I prefer just removing it completely, as he is not really a book reviewer or an authority on the subject. if not remove the whole thing, at least remove the specifics about whether or not the 6 day war was a preemptive attack, as this itself is quite a complex topic and not simply a 'factual error' as the article implies. --18:26, 9 December 2006 Kingkool

I think the inclusion of Dershowitz is begging to turn the article in to a shouting match. Dershowitz can probably be included, but we could probably cut some of its contents down. I agree that it is also worth mentioning that he frequently has an opinion on these things, but let's please try to keep the rhetoric down and the sources notable and mainstream. --YoYoDa1 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz commentary

An unregistered editor keeps blanking out the Dershowitz review, referring to a discussion on the Talk page. There is no discussion on the talk page, aside from borderline offensive ranting about the "Jewish lobby." I'm inclined to view this blanking as vandalism - if editors feel that the content here is lopsided, the right approach is to include quotes from favorable reviewers, not delete quotes from unfavorable ones. --Leifern 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, two different anonymous editors have removed the Dershowitz commentary, and in the absence of any positive reviews being included, I'm inclined to remove it as well. Dershowitz is not exactly neutral on this topic so his review is likely to be very biased.

I'm also going to take this moment to remond you that content disputes are not vandalism; please don't accuse content editors of being vandals.

Atlant 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody claims Dershowitz is neutral. His quotes are presented as a book review, and a critical one at that. Blanking is in fact vandalism, and these deletions are not well-founded. And you don't know if these unregistered editors are different. --Leifern 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, content disputes are never vandalism, no matter how much you'd like to construe them as such. This isn't some random drive-by vandal erasing some text; you must understand exactly why people are removing Dershowitz's comments because you've been explicitly told. Content disputes may rise to WP:3RR violations, and they often provoke violations of WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, but they are never vandalism.

Atlant 12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about this stupid question, but why do zionists keep on quoting this most unprofessional writer who have been repeatedly proved to plaigiarise many of his writings? He is an unreliable, hardly objective let alone scholarly in his writings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.124.20 (talk • contribs).

Yes, Mr. Unregistered, you should be "sorry about this stupid question." It is not really a question at all, but an insult to a prominant commentator on this issue that is extremely careful with his sources (as proven by Harvard University's exoneration of any and all plagiarism accusations). Your charge that he is "hardly objective let alone scholarly in his writings" apply as much to Jimmy Carter as they do to Alan Dershowitz. --GHcool 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz's objectivity fails when Israel (or its enemies) is involved. As you'll recall, though he is usually very strongly in favor of civil rights, immediately after 9/11, he came out in favor of the United States torturing suspected Islamic terrorists. He's also expressed some controversial opinions regarding Israel's prosecution of its war in Lebanon. It's not at all surprising that he would be opposed to Carter's book.

Atlant 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Therefore, Alan Dershowitz's writings should not be considered a reliable source on the history and politics of the region. However, Dershowitz's writings are extremely reliable and valid for as a source on the criticism of Carter's book. To this I am sure that we can all agree. --GHcool 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Does anyone think that the current edit might be unfairly weighted towards criticism of the book?

I'm not able to address this in detail at the moment, but I wonder if we should consider adding some further information to the article ... like, maybe, an overview of what the book actually says. CJCurrie 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV notice. In its current form, the article is little more than a series of negative reviews strung together. CJCurrie 04:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the NPOV tag was added before, and was subsequently removed. I agree with you that until someone finds something positive to say before the very long criticism section, the article is not a proper expression of a Neutral Point of View.

Atlant 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the tag. I actually did quite a bit of searching for positive reviews, and the Nation one was the only one I could find outside of the blogosphere (where there are plenty of negative reviews, too). I'm not sure if we should obsess too much over this article - it isn't getting much play, in large part I think because Carter made the mistake of using "apartheid" in a very limited sense that frustrate the anti-Israel crowd and is an easy target for the pro-Israel crowd. This may turn out to be his last book. He has so much to offer, but he's clearly way way way out of his depth on this issue. --Leifern 13:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I think it would be reasonable to have more information about what the book says. So, how far are you in the book? 6SJ7 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Does anyone think that the current edit might be unfairly weighted towards criticism of the book?": Yes, absolutely. To an ubiased observer, it would appear that this lopsided treatment serves to prove many of Carter's points. The "Praise" section is perfunctory, and the "Criticism" section is extensive. --15:53, 15 December 2006 139.68.134.1

Dershowitz's comments

Small problem -- Dershowitz claims that there are many factual innacuracies, but the only one he actually points out, that Israel's attack on Jordan during the Six Day War wasn't pre-emptive, is actually factual, according to its wikipedia acticle, which agrees with Carter. Any thoughts on how to write this up NPOV? I don't think Dershowitz is an expert on that conflict, such that we should change its lead to agree with him. -- Kendrick7 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Carter an expert on the conflict???? Is the Misplaced Pages article on the '67 war authorative???? Don't think so. Elizmr 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither is Dershowitz. The point is his only claim that something in Carter's book isn't factual (though he makes a fair ammount of innuendo) isn't factual itself. I guess the article reads ok as it is, and if readers want to follow the linkout and discover that Carter is actually correct, that's their perrogative. -- Kendrick7 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt, and then Jordan attacked Israel, after Israel begged it to stay out of the conflict. Dershowitz also points out other factual inaccuracies, including his claim that the "initial violence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict occurred when "Jewish militants" attacked Arabs in 1939", ignoring, for example, such infamous events as the 1929 Hebron massacre. I've accurified your edits to the article; it's best not to try to edit these things if you're not familiar with the history of the period. More importantly, who is "Michael F. Brown at the Palestine Center", why would we care about his opinion, and what is he doing in a "Criticism" section, when he's clearly not criticizing the book? Jayjg 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's chronology does fail to mention the 1929 riots in his brief timeline. He does mention Palestinian violence in 1936. Carter's timeline doesn't actually make the claim that the 1939 violence was "initial", but I guess if Dershowitz says that's what it says.... As for the Nation article, don't look at me. I wasn't going to add it myself; I only pointed out its existance to those who were claiming all the criticism was unbalanced. He does have good things to say about the book which it now seems to me belongs in the article somewhere. -- Kendrick7 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Jews that haven't read the book

Here's a start: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2680021

Excerpt: Carter's 'Palestine Peace Not Apartheid' Former President Shares His Plan for Middle East Peace in New Book Nov. 27, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.222.112 (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

This is the Disruptive Apartheid Editor. He's already been blocked. Don't feed the trolls. CJCurrie 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote in the intro

Can someone check whether Carter indeed wrote this ungrammatical sentence (emphasis mine): "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"? Beit Or 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check. Somehow I'm still only on page 13. -- Kendrick7 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC) < --shoulda got the (searchable) e-book

Carter and his Nobel Peace Prize

Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work attempting to promote peace in the Middle East. This prize seems to recognize that he has some moral authority to speak about the issues regarding the Middle East, but now we see that one editor will not recognize this fact or, at least, permit it into the article. To me, this seems to be exactly the sort of PoV-pushing that I was referring to above when I added the NPOV tag to the article; the article has few or no positive statments and, in fact, when one is added, it's just as quickly reverted out again.

Do you understand that this is the sort of thing that leaves Misplaced Pages with very scant credibility in the world at large?

Atlant 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point; I don't have a problem with this in the article. -- Kendrick7 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "work attempting to promote peace in the Middle East." The Nobel Committee wrote that he won it "For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts." and made no particular mention of the Arab Israeli conflict. --Leifern 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Even so, I agree with Kdndrick7 that this is valuable information and certainly applicable to this subject. --GHcool 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected now until you guys can resolve your dispute relating to Jimmy Carter. After consensus is reached by all parties, message me on my talk page and I'll unprotect, or post a request at WP:RFPP. Nishkid64 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I didn't even know we were at war. Anyone else aware of this?? -- Kendrick7 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

War is just the term. Call it "repeated revert editing" if you want to. Just look at the history. It was probably going to progress into something further, so I took a precaution. Nishkid64 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a pretty mild war, but I don't mind that its protected. --GHcool 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it was more of preemptive protection than anything. Nishkid64 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't even imagine what policy or guideline prompts this kind of protection. Semi-protection is fine, but although there's plenty of disagreements, I see no edit warring here, and preemptive protecting would put virtually all articles in WP off limits. --Leifern 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He said he'd take it off in a few days, which from now should mean one more day. We could (sigh) go thru the motions... um... is there a cite template for book jackets? -- Kendrick7 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected. I'm sorry if you guys felt my protection was not entirely warranted, but I did what I thought was right. Anyway, I did unprotect like I said, so hopefully everything is fine now. Nishkid64 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Remark on Leifern's Dec 6 comment: If you read the Nobel committee's grounds for awarding Jimmy Carter the peace prize in 2002 you would find the following statement: "During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize." (See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html). And as everybody knows, the subject for the first of these agreements were the Gaza strip, the West bank, and SC 242 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Camp_David_Accords_%281978%29). PJ 07:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth W. Stein resignation

For "Other commentators"

Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and Israeli studies at Emory University, resigned from his position as Middle East fellow with the Carter Center in protest against the book, breaking off 12 years of involvement with the center. He accused Carter of errors, omissions, plagiarism and of inventing information.

That's a little off regarding plagerism; Stein's actually accusing Carter of copying information from a book he and Carter co-wrote. The full text of the letter is here. I would just replace the last sentence there with the exact quote from the letter, as they are comparable any way. -- Kendrick7 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times (2006-12-7, page A33 of National Edition) says that Stein "ended a 23-year association with the institution "; it reports also that a spokesperson for Carter said that Stein "has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years". Kirtag Hratiba 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The other day I added :On December 5, 2006, Kenneth Stein, a former Carter aide, resigned from his position as a fellow at the Carter Center and issued a public statement criticizing the book. Stein wrote: ::"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments," Stein wrote. "Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."

Stein further accused Carter of engaging in superficial analysis, selecting only those sources which supported his position, and of outright fabrication.

A user removed it for reasons that defy my comprehension. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, there are editors who are concerned that the article isn't balanced enough. Though you'd be hard pressed to find a favorable review, apparently. --Leifern 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Briangotts, I removed your change because the article was (and still is) under protection which means that ordinary users can't edit it. You used your powers as an administrator to bypass the protection and edit the article anyway. I believe that this is considered improper use of administrator powers so I reverted your change back out again. I also made this clear in the audit trail comment.

Atlant 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary said it was improper to insert POV. It boggles my mind that accurately reporting Kenneth Stein's (a long time Carter associate) statements and actions with regard to the book could be seen as POV. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my edit summary again (emphasis added):

(Revert; administrators should honor the page protection just like anyone else; now is *NOT* the time to insert further PoV.)

And yes, when negative fact upon negative fact is piled into an article where people are actively editing out positive facts, that preponderance of negative evidence along with the exclusion of the positive becomes PoV.

Atlant 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected. You guys can go back to editing the article. Nishkid64 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It seems that Jimmy the Dhimmy plagiarized material, a map he did not credit. It should be added... 88.113.137.249 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jimmy the Dhimmy"? No WP:POV on your part, is there? This article really is bringing out a lot of PoV pushers. The funny thing is, big publishers have entire departments charged with obtaining copyright clearance on items such as this. But Fox News would never distort the turth, would they? Atlant 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey genius, the guy whose map this scumbag worst president of the U.S. plagiarized broke the story himself. Figure it out yet? 88.113.137.249 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the article you cited doesn't raise that claim. It simply says:

And in what seems to be an open and shut case of plagiarism, Ross explains that the maps in Carter's book were specifically created for his book "The Missing Peace"--and Ross created them himself.

But remember, those wrapper words are not Ross's words; instead, they are supplied courtesy of Fox News, a well-known source of bias. In fact, there's no direct quote from Ross, but even if we accept that Ross's paraphrased claims that he created the maps for his own book, there's no claim there that proper copyright clearance wasn't obtained for the re-use in Carter's book. And although a talk page isn't a biography, you also might want to go visit WP:BLP to better understand what you can say on Misplaced Pages regarding living people before you edit any articles about them. Atlant 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude... it's in the video. Look at it. He says it himself (Ross). 88.113.137.249 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Ross interviewed and he makes no definite claims of plagiarism but merely remarked on the similarity he saw between the maps he created and the ones in Carter's book. It was also mentioned that Ross's publisher had contacted Carter's publisher and asked them to provide the source for the maps. And I'm not sure that anyone who describes Carter as "scumbag worst president of the U.S." is in a position to edit this article objectively. --Lee Vonce 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added in a section on the Ross controversy, using Ross, Carter and Stein's appearance on CNN's The Situation Room as a source. I was very careful not to say more than what the participants say (e.g. to avoid using the word plagiarism). My interpretation is that Ross is far too much of a diplomat to accuse a former president of plagiarism and that he thinks that just as important as Carter's attribution problem is Carter's argument that Israel rejected the American proposals at Camp David, which Ross thinks is wrong. GabrielF 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Vonce, I never asked to edit this article. It's enough that somebody else does so and exposes this sleazebag traitorous dogs plagiarism. 88.113.137.249 07:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable to lock the article when it only contains criticism

It seems questionable to include only critical views of the book, and then block further edits. While I know little about the book, clearly censorship is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Ujalm 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reviews:

a courageous new book by President Jimmy Carter Perhaps President Carter should send copies of his book to members of Congress they might learn a thing or two about the long-festering conflict at the heart of so many of our current troubles in the region.

He continues to work for peace and writes about one of the world's most troubled spots in his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Carter, who brokered the peace between Israel and Egypt in 1978, has a unique perspective on the situation in the Middle East.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" eloquently describes the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip his book challenges Americans to see the conflict with eyes wide open.

In this book President Carter shares his intimate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and his personal experiences with the principal actors Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a challenging, provocative, and courageous book.

Nobody expects instant miracles to come from Carter’s book, but hopefully, it will spark the sort of robust discussions that even Israeli society and media already engage in

His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma. .

But is Jimmy Carter anti-Israel or anti-Semitic as his enemies claim? Of course not. Jimmy Carter is CRITICAL.

I find the blocking inexplicable and am completely at a loss what the admin is waiting for before unblocking it. --Leifern 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely - no need to be a genius to know that there are two sides to every story. Clearly biased and one-sided criticisms of a piece of controversial work (written by a Nobel prize laureate no less!) in respect of which the world’s population taken as a whole is, at best, equally divided (otherwise mostly in favour of Carter’s position) only serves to discredit the objectiveness and validity of what those in control of this page are presumably trying to achieve. The manner in which information relating to contentious issues is presented on this site is critical to the relevance of wikipedia on a global platform. If one is looking for a biased perspective, Fox, CNN and Al Jazeera will do. Shame on those responsible for this site for allowing self-interested parties to take over what is meant to be a balanced source of information and turning it into another piece of the problem instead of a piece of the solution. AZ

Don't read too much into this. I bet this happens all the time at wikipedia, during an edit war, the article gets locked and the version that's locked is one that many people consider outrageous. I bets that's why they add the disclaimer about how locking the article isn't an endorsement of the locked version. Don't worry, it will hopefully be unlocked soon and we can get some balance into it. I agree that it is pretty awful the way it is. --Lee Vonce 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unlocked now. I did not intentionally fully protect the page to endorse the current version of the article. I know this is a sensitive topic, which is why I prompty unprotected the page. Nishkid64 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine

Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine, Jimmy Carter, LA Times. "Jimmy Carter says his recent book is drawing knee-jerk accusations of anti-Israel bias."

Quotes:

• "The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."
• "Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel."
• "My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors."

--64.230.125.115 11:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentary film: "He Comes in Peace" from Participant Films

It is not mentioned in the current version of this article, but there is a documentary film crew following Jimmy Carter around. They are professionals who have had previous major films. It should be an interesting film given the controversy over the book and its reception. The working title is "He Comes in Peace" and it is being produced by Participant_Productions, a socially oriented production house responsible for Syrianna among others. Here is the story on Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i01ddb1dac0f7f4bdbbcd6bc13c187fd4 --64.230.125.115 12:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Article contents

It seems that this page should either be renamed "Criticisms of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" or that much more Misplaced Pages content needs to be added about the actual contents of the book. --YoYoDa1 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what makes the book particularly notable is the large controversy it's fuelled, both among its supporters and detractors, so it makes sense to me that that forms a big portion of the article. --Delirium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The book's controversy is certainly part of what makes it notable. But it's notable mostly because it's a best-seller by a Nobel laureate and former president of the United States on a highly topical issue.--G-Dett 19:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm much happier with where the article stands now because it now has response, and most importantly, information about the actual book. I was thinking that it is important to document the controversy surround it, but that it is more important to document the book itself. As I've said, I think the article is a lot better now than it was when I posted that. My main focus now would be working to improve all of the content in the article. --YoYoDa1 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto.--G-Dett 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on above discussion, I removed NPOV tag for now. Support the request to have more information about the book's contents. --GunnarRene 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be clearly stated in the summary of the book's contents that the book is about Palestine (the territories, not the historical region of Palestine which includes Israel) and not Israel. There is a lot of confusion about this and this is probably where a lot of problems start. For example Carter wrote in the LA Times that "The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status." --70.51.230.254 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Another aspect of the book's contents, which Tim Russert brings up in his Meet the Press interview with Carter, deals with the lack of balanced debate in Carter's opinion. The exchange went as follows in the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: As I read your book, this struck me, particularly from someone in political life. You wrote the following: “There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.”

And then you went on to say: “There’s no doubt there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel in this country. I wouldn’t say it’s all because of intimidation, but that is one factor.”

FMR. PRES. CARTER: Yeah. Do you disagree with that? Well, I won’t ask you that. You’re the one asking questions. But I don’t think anyone could disagree with that. There is—there are very few, if any, voices in the political realm of Washington, or in the major news media, who would raise the kind of issues that are raised in this book.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

FMR. PRES. CARTER: I have said in the book, I don’t know if it’s intimidation or just reticence. There are some factors that are involved even in the religious circles. But it’s completely—almost completely unacceptable in this country for any public official to criticize the policies of Israel, even if they are horribly abusive against the Palestinians and violate human rights.

MR. RUSSERT: This is, this is, in effect, taking on the “Israeli lobby” or the “Jewish lobby.”

FMR. PRES. CARTER: That’s part. The Jewish lobby may be part of it. I didn’t say that in the book, but I think that’s part of it. But even—you know, I don’t think that The Washington Post or The New York Times or NBC or others are intimidated by, by the Jewish lobby. But I think there’s a reticence, even in public fora, to describe both sides of the issues in the West Bank.

--70.51.230.254 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Official "New York Times ® Best Seller" in "Hardcover Non-Fiction" category

The controversy really helps sell the book it seems. I checked the book's rank in the "Hardcover Non-Fiction" category of the highly reputable/notable New York Times Best Seller list. It is important to note that while the published rankings for each category list the top 35 best selling books for the week, only the top 16 books are officially designated as "New York Times ® Best Sellers."

Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" has ranked in the top 16 (twice now actually) and thus is officially a "New York Times ® Best Seller" (and probably going to be labelled as such on subsequent editions.) Here is the details and links:

• Rank #11 for the week ending November 18, 2006 (book was released November 14, 2006.) Best seller status since it is in the top 16. .
• Rank #17, week ending November 25, 2006. Not in the top 16, thus not official a best seller this week. .
• Rank #7 for the week ending December 2, 2006. Best seller status again.

--70.51.230.254 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

this might be worth briefly mentioning in the lead --75.46.88.163 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

153.109.125.52 reports that this is "Actually 7", meaning only the top 7 books are on the list rather than the top 16. Confirmation, anyone?

Atlant 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the references -- the NYT web links. It's clear that the list goes to 16. There is a break at that point where they then list the remaining books. Although the Misplaced Pages article on the NYT best seller list says it only goes up to 15 -- see New York Times Best Seller list. It would be nice if "153.109.125.52" had a reference for the best selling list to only include the top 7. --70.51.230.254 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A correlating fact is that the NYT list for the week ending December 2 lists the number of weeks Carter's book has been on the list -- and it says it has been on 2 weeks. Thus the list at least goes to 11 (to include the week ending Nov 18), but it doesn't go as far as 17 (to exclude the week ending Nov 25.) Thus the claim that it only includes the top 7 seems to be unreasonable. --70.51.230.254 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter on the book's provocative title

The title of the book, which contains the hot button term "apartheid" is part of the reason why it is such a topic of discussion or controversy. Jimmy Carter discussed his feelings towards provoking a controversy with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press two Sundays ago. Here is a snippet from the official "Meet the Press Transcript for December 3, 2006":

MR. RUSSERT: Your 21st book. “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Mr. President, that title alone is going to create some controversy.

FMR. PRES. CARTER: Well, well, maybe it’s provocative. That’s —- I prefer that. I don’t look on provocative as a negative word. If it, if it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process—which is now completely absent or dormant—rejuvenated, then—and brings peace, ultimately to Israel, that’s what I want.

--70.51.230.254 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a section on the title is warranted. It should answer a few questions that anyone who encounters the book is likely to ask: Why does Carter use the word apartheid? How does he justify his use of the term? What do others, especially experts on the Middle East have to say about his use of the word apartheid? GabrielF 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A few sentences from Carter explaining his title could be useful. A sentence or two going in to detail from experts or people noting controversy might be appropriate. An entire section seems like overkill to me though. --75.46.88.163 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we just refer readers to the relatively well written "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid " article?68.166.30.6 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we pasting in television transcripts to this page?--G-Dett 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More Jimmy Carter on the title from the LATimes :

"...it would be presumptuous of me to ask to be on 'Larry King' or to talk to the L.A. Times to promote my ideas about the Middle East. If I write a book about it, however, this gives me a vast array of forums where I can express views and answer questions. The book gives me this opening."

--70.51.230.196 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He discusses the title here too: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225 . If we need to label the book as controversial, polemical, etc. then Carter seems to embrace the word 'provocative'. I think that might make everyone (close to) happy. --YoYoDa1 15:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Work in Progress...

Excellent re-formatting and general editing, GabrielF. The article reads much better now.--G-Dett 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only major formatting change left to make at this point is to move the "praise" and "criticism" sections up so that they precede the "controversy" section. At least for the present. Stein's major allegations remain unspecified and Ross's minor one unverified, and in the national media both critics are making rapid segues from complaints about scholarship to statements of ideological opposition. In other words at the present moment the "controversy" over scholarly practice gives every appearance of being an outgrowth of the controversy over the book's content, and so should naturally follow it. As the dispute over scholarship comes into focus, the order of primacy may well change.--G-Dett 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter's response to map allegations + Finkelstein comment

Q: "He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.

Carter: "The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East."

From Newsweek interview .

Also interesting is this mixed take on Carter's book from Norman Finkelstein, a notable academic and commentator on the issue (who also fights with Dershowitz a lot.) .

--70.51.230.254 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Abraham H. Foxman / Anti-Defamation League criticism

From :

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has said that some comments from the former president border on anti-Semitism. "When you think about the charge that he has made that the Jewish people control the means of communication, it is odious," Foxman was quoted as saying last week. "If the Jews controlled the media, how come he is traveling around the country speaking about this book on talk shows?"

--70.51.230.254 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be sad if it weren't so cliché. When I started this article I shoulda started a betting pool on "how long until someone from the ADL calls Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite" (and a double jackpot if Haaretz breaks the story). Anyway, this is just slander. -- Kendrick7 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The piece cited above is pretty tame. Check out this one: . Or this response to a positive review of the book published in the AJC. --70.51.230.196 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why ADL's statement should be excluded. Actually, the term "slander" is far more appropriate for the title of the book in question (speaking of clichés). BTW, Ha'aretz is a leftist newspaper. ←Humus sapiens 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens - all criticism from notable sources should go in, just like all praise from notable sources should go in. We shouldn't pick and choose based on which pieces we feel are legitimate and which are smears. --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note -- Kendrick7 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) the onion really is his news source!

What if the cause were Muslim and CAIR was commenting? Would that be irrelevant? Elizmr 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From my position, the more outrageous over-the-top criticism the better since it makes Carter's book more prominent and the resulting movie more engaging and demonstrative of how screwed-up debate is in this area. --70.48.70.188 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More pointed criticism

Another pointed criticism: "Jimmy Carter making the rounds of all the national shows, talking about Israel as if they were the second coming of Nazi Germany."

Jimmy Carter is similar to Mel Gibson in that he is "obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews" and more according to this published piece in the NRO: . --70.48.70.188 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a positive review from a mainstream Syrian newspaper: . My hope is that we don't have a cultural bias where only commentary from US or British based media is considered valid. --70.48.70.188 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please revert Shamir1's most recent edit, the wording of which is quite leading? I am unable to do so at present, due to the provisions of the 3RR. CJCurrie 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I'm sure whatever it says wikipedia can survive the next 24 hours with it. -- Kendrick7 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's already been removed. CJCurrie 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And now it's back again. I reiterate my request. CJCurrie 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about 3RR, but I don't think I can touch it now either. --YoYoDa1 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ--could you be more specific about what you object to? Elizmr 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about all the labels that keep getting thrown in to the article, ie Jewish-American, left-wing activist, etc. Right now the only one in there is left-wing activist. --75.51.230.180 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's what he's talking about, then he's right the labels are poisioning the well and inapproriate. But why not let him speak for himself. I'm familiar with him from other articles I've often seem him insert those kind of labels himself (I think his intention is to be helpful to the reader), so I'm not sure he woudl be so upset about that. Elizmr 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you read the edits on the page history though, specifically around that time, then you will see what I am talking about. --75.51.230.180 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sappo12

Sappo12's behavior on this article is not acceptable. Labeling people who criticize Carter as Jewish is ad-hominen, irrelevant and inappropriate. Furthermore, his contributions are unsourced opinions (Washington Institute is pro-Israel, etc.) Anyone disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) No, no Kyle, don't be so hard on yourself!

Washington Institute is mentioned as being pro-Israel in both the Israel lobby in the United States and the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy articles. Thus it isn't a stretch to label it as such, although such a label should include a proper citation I would think. --70.51.230.6 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a much better way to say what he is trying to get across. --75.51.230.180 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "Jewish" is being used too broadly in an attempt to implicitly discredit some critics. There are more appropriate, and less prejudicial, ways to describe the established views of some of these critics, such as Alan Dershowitz is "pro-Israel" having written a number of books defending Israel such as "The Case for Israel" and Dershowitz has also been criticized in the New York Review of Books for launching "unjustified" attacks on Human Rights Watch because they issued a report critical of Israel's actions. The NYRB article critical of Dershowitz, and in defense of current HRW head Kenneth Roth, who happens to be Jewish, was written by the founder of HRW, who also happens to be Jewish, thus further making clear using the identifier "Jewish" as a simplistic means to discredit critics is really not appropriate, and shows a lack of fidelity in one's thinking. --70.51.230.6 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggsting the alternate "pro-Israel" as a better way of Poisoning the well against Dershowitz? Elizmr 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a difficult case in that his work in defending Israel (such as his more recent effort to bring the Iranian President to the ICJ for promoting genocide because of his recent comments) are more significant and relevant to his involving in this situation than anything else. Please note that Rabbi Michael Lerner is still being described in the current version of the article as being a "left-wing activist." --70.51.230.6 17:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey anon, poisoning the well by any other name is still poisoning the well. Elizmr 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue that it is manifestly relevant if a critic or supporter of the Carter books is either Jewish or Palestinian. This is, afterall, a dispute between Jews and Palestinians. It is important to point out that most of the critics listed on this entry (Ross, Dershowitz, Goldberg, etc) are Jewish. It is relevant to cite pro-Israel books they've written or the fact that someone has served in the Israeli Army. Equally, it is important to cite the fact that someone may have been a member of Hamas or Fatah or the PLO. Or simply that that person is Palestinian or has written obviously pro-Palestinian books or articles.

Also, I refer you to a paragraph frome the undisputed entry on Alan Dershowitz:

"Dershowitz was born in the Williamsburg neighborhood in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, and grew up in Borough Park. His parents, Harry and Claire, were both devout Orthodox JewsItalic text. Harry Dershowitz (May 8, 1909–April 26, 1984) was a founder and president of the Young Israel Synagogue in the 1960s, served on the board of directors of the Etz Chaim School in Borough Park, and in retirement was co-owner of the Manhattan-based Merit Sales Company. Alan Dershowitz's brother Nathan, at the time of their father's death counsel for the American Jewish Congress, is a partner in the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson"

Why are these references to his Jewish heritage not offensive?

How does stating factually that someone is Palestinian or Jewish constitute an effort to discredit?

Also, this commentary below is way, way off the mark and totally imflammatory. The comparison is offensive and in no way relevant.

In some circles, it is certainly ad hominem to say that someone is Jewish. Remember the folks who killed Daniel Pearl on video? They had him say he was Jewish right before they killed him. In their minds, that was enough to indite him and justify their murder of him. In other circles, no, it is not ad hom to say someone is Jewish, it is just an identifier. In other circles it might be a positive. In the context of this article, we need to be VERY careful about using the word "jewish" to identify any source or critic. Elizmr 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

note: above unsigned comment placed by Sappo

Thanks for you opinion and please see WP:NPA. My remarks were DIRECTLY responding to Ken7's comment: I don't know if calling someone Jewish is ad hominem. -- Kendrick7talk 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I was explaining why it is ad hom to call someone Jewish in some circles including people who might read this page. I am sorry if you found my remark extreme, but I was trying to make a point that anyone could understand using a well-known example. I agree my remark is hard to hear, but it speaks to the issue. I also hear you on what you are saying, but there is NOTHING about a Jewish POV or an Israeli POV that it is all homogenous. Elizmr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More commentary on the book

• Time for Canadian Arabs and Jews to work together, Globe and Mail.
• You'll get an earful if you oppose Israel, Toronto Sun.
• Saint James of Plains, American politician-martyr, Middle East Online.
• Telling it like it is, Guardian.

BTW why does it only say in the lead of the article that the book is controversial, but it doesn't mention its status as a best seller? Also, advanced numbers from S&S suggest that the book is going to be listed as #4 and #5 for the weeks following the data given above. --70.51.230.6 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

From a Google News search...

• Former President Carter says he won't visit Brandeis, Associated Press
  • "Former President Carter has decided not to visit Brandeis University to talk about his new book 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid' because he does not want to debate Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as the university had requested. 'I don't want to have a conversation even indirectly with Dershowitz,"'Carter told The Boston Globe. 'There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.' The debate request is proof that many in the United States are unwilling to hear an alternative view on the nation's most taboo foreign policy issue, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, Carter said."
• Carter: careful no more, Seattle Times
• Quakers back Carter book, Jewish Telegraph Agency
• Jimmy Carter: Human scum, WorldNetDaily
  • "These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs (read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer."
• 'How Many Bubbles in a Bar of Soap?' Jimmy Carter Fails the Literacy Test, New York Observer
  • "This was part of the Times' continuing series to give space to (Jewish) defenders of Israel to denounce Carter as misinformed and dotty because he dared to write a book likening the Israeli occupation to apartheid. Two days before, WINEP's David Makovsky told the Times the book is filled with errors, and he's 'saddened by it.' Back when Jimmy Carter was young, they used to have literacy tests to keep black people from voting. The black person would go to the polls and have to take a literacy test in order to vote. The pollworkers would ask the black person questions like, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" When the black person couldn't answer, they couldn't vote. The Times is enforcing the literacy test on Israel/Palestine. Jimmy Carter failed. He made too many mistakes so he can't offer his opinion. Only experts can vote, usually centrist-right Jews who have no interest in or idea what's going on in the Occupied Territories."
• Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar, David Horowitz

--70.51.230.6 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is one I just saw on the Jersualem Post site: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881904465&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . Note just because an article exists, we don't have to use it. I'm sure there are lots of newspapers in Palestine/Middle East which could also be cited. Also, a very substantial numbers of academics that support the views (of Carter) could also be cited. Then there could be some think tanks. The idea is to document notable and reliable information, not already contained in the article, that an average reader of Misplaced Pages might have an interest in reading to become informed. Just saying. --75.51.230.180 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

Hi Carter book folks. I haven't been really active on this page and took a stab at it today when I went in to fix something requested by an anon user on behalf of CJ Currie.

I'm outlinging the edits I did here, although I see that as I write they are already being reverted by Ken7.

• The article had a section on "response to criticism" but when I read the article carefully, I noted that there was much response also interwoven into the rest of the text. I removed this all to the exisiting section.
• The "controversies" section was really criticism and this ambuigity interfered with the flow of the article. I moved Stein and Ross's comments to the criticism section and elimitiaed "controversies".
• I tried to improve the headings in the criticism section to remove well poisioning stuff.
• There was a suggestion that the democrats criciszed the book only for political motivations, which I'd argue is WP:OR. The release of the book was after the midterm elections (I believe) but there was lot of publicity beforehand (and it was already mentioned on Misplaced Pages pages beforehand). If democrats responsded with criticism then, their criticism is still valid. Elizmr 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ken, please don't revert all my edits, OK? I worked hard on this. Elizmr 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- sorry -- you probably should have hollered at my talk page; I just saw this section. Oops. Anyway, I largely approve of this reworking and I think everything's coming along OK. -- Kendrick7 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Critism and countercriticism

I recently took out Carter's countercriticism to Dershowitz because there is a whole section for response to criticism. Ken7 put it back, calling the dialog between Carter and dershowitz a "feud". How do people feel about this? Elizmr 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted the added material which I thought made this worth it's own section. -- Kendrick7 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; I see it made it back. But I'm not too picky how this is organized, eitherway. -- Kendrick7 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the article was written before, there was response to criticism worked in all over the place and also a separate section. I'm just worried about the article being a messy collection of "he said she said" exchanges that will be difficult for the reader to follow. Elizmr 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter seems to have repeatedly reserved his most public critism of his critics speficially for Dershowitz though. -- Kendrick7 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is an argument for the article structure you are a proponent of. Elizmr 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've resectionalized things. -- Kendrick7 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I feel the top few sentences are now getting lost. I'll put yet another subject heading there so this doesn't happen. Elizmr 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned WaPo ref

There was a ref in there that was a mishmosh of an LA Times article and a Washington Post article. I wikified them both and left the WaPo one commented out -- it should be floating around the criticism section. If anyone knows what it's supposed to support exactly, please find a home for it. Thanks -- Kendrick7 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wait -- it was a duplicate; should be all set now. -- Kendrick7 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the refs formats etc. Elizmr 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: "He Comes in Peace" film

Hi. Above on this page I mentioned the movie "He Comes In Peace" that is currently being filmed. The movie is specifically about this book, Jimmy Carter and the response. It is a very serious production. Here are the core details:

• Production company: Participant Productions
• Executive producers: Jeff Skoll and Diane Weyermann
• Director: Jonathan Demme (with help from Neda Armian)
• Production start: November 11 2006 (at Carter's home)

Here are the main stories:

• Demme helms docu on Carter for Participant, Hollywood Reporter
  • Demme is quoted: The president's book tour occurs at a crossroads where the world of religion intersects with global politics. This picture is just an extraordinary honor for me. I loved Carter when he was president, and I've loved him more and more since he left office. He makes me feel so proud to be an American.
  • Weyermann is quoted: Jimmy Carter embodies a determined sense of justice and a devout faith, grounded in tolerance and driven by a fierce desire for world peace. Jonathan Demme is a filmmaker of immense vision who will be able to marry the intimate portraiture of 'Heart of Gold' to the political savvy of 'The Agronomist' and advance his series of 'portrait docs' with a subject so worthy of further examination.
• JIMMY CARTER ALOFT, New Yorker
  • Carter, who is eighty-two, was coming off a full day of interviews in New York (Rose, King, Gross) and embarking on another (Russert, Blitzer, Lehrer), but his zest for trumpeting his ideas and accomplishments seemed undiminished. He wore a checked jacket, gray flannels, and brown Kiltie loafers. Jonathan Demme, meanwhile, was shooting a documentary about him, to be called “He Comes in Peace.” Demme and his crew sat across the aisle, cameras rolling. They had even filmed him swimming that morning, in the pool at the Peninsula hotel. (“I do a variety of strokes,” Carter said, and it was a pleasure to hear him—an Annapolis man—use the term “Australian crawl.”)
• Demme on Carter trail, Variety
  • The former president is using the national tour to generate discussion and to hear from people with varying views on the polarizing topic -- all of which will be captured on camera. Demme said he is taking an experimental approach so as to avoid turning out a pic dominated by talking heads.

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This probably should just be it's own article, with a see also from here. I don't know if an article about a film that is only in production would survive an AfD, but if you want to put the effort into creating this article any way, feel free: He Comes in Peace. -- Kendrick7 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add: Election-context of Democratic party criticism

The release of the book so close to the election was a major concern to Democrat efforts to woo Jewish voters in the November midterms. This is important to include because it was the reason why so many Democratic politicians took positions on the book way so early, even before it was released -- normally politicians wouldn't even comment on a controversial topic, but they were forced into it -- see RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) executive director Matt Brooks' comments below. Also, Democratic leaders asked for the release date of the book to be pushed to later, so as to not risk interfering with the election -- see quote below.

Here are the relevant quotes from this article published in The Forward on:

• With less than three weeks left before Election Day, Jewish Democrats have been quick both to disavow Carter’s views and to assert that Carter is a marginal figure within the party on the issue, despite being a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
• Jewish Democrats say that they were pushing for a later release date.
• The RJC’s executive director, Matt Brooks, told the Forward that he has yet to see Carter’s new book; however, he seemed confident that it would provide additional ammunition for his organization’s campaign to woo Jewish voters. ... “Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there’s been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable.”
• Democrats involved in efforts to boost Jewish support were quick to criticize Carter’s views. “I disagree with President Carter fundamentally,” said Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat who is leading the efforts of House Democrats to reach out to Jewish voters and donors.
• Israel added that the “book clearly does not reflect the direction of the party; it reflects the opinion of one man.”

--70.51.230.6 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the basic context. We need to provide context so someone reading this 100 years from now is aware that there was an election about to occur and that these comments were made prior to the book's publication. Future generations, and our own, can draw whatever conclusions they want; somehow I personally doubt, FWIW, that these people had nothing better to do in October than track down an advanced copy and read it cover to cover. -- Kendrick7 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is ok to state that elections were coming up, but saying that these folks were just "distancing themselves" discredits their remarks as politically motivated and devoid of content. It poisons the well. Could we compromise on this? Elizmr 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob -- that hadn't occured to me. -- Kendrick7 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I hadn't spelled it out well. Good comprimise. Elizmr 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

here is extra material

This was removed and a summary put in place on the Jimmy Carter page, with a link to this page of course.

In December 2006, Carter released a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Kenneth Stein, one of the former president's aides at the Carter Center, said the book was filled with factual errors, material copied from other sources, and "simply invented segments." Stein later resigned his position at the think tank. Carter responded obliquely on December 7, 2006, noting that Stein had not played a role in the Carter Center in 12 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary role, though members of the Carter center have disputed this characterization. Carter was also accused by former Ambassador Dennis Ross of plagiarism, saying Carter used maps that look they've been drawn from my book without attribution. Carter argues that his source was the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem and that the maps are publicly available. In Slate magazine, Michael Kinsley criticized Carter's use of the "loaded word" of apartheid, purportedly without explaining the parallels. Carter has responded that, with the title, he "wanted to provoke discussion, debate, inquisitive analysis of the situation there, which is almost completely absent throughout the United States." But Maynard holds that provocation is not a defensible goal in and of itself when such provocation is "not only misleading, but also highly offensive." Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times points out that his book addresses the occupied territories of Palestine proper saying that he used the term "apartheid" to describe the situation in the West Bank and occupied regions and not Israel proper. The criticism leveled at that comment was the he intentionally invoked an easily misrepresented term, knowing that many would apply it to the entire State of Israel. Carter, again, stated that he was seeking to provoke discussion, and believes he achieved that goal. He holds that his book calls for Israel to abide by its agreements of 1978 and 1993. Though others have pointed out that Israel is in compliance with both its agreements of 1978 and 1993 and with applicable UN resolutions, while the Palestinians have rejected overtures which would have resulted in peace. David Harris, executive director of the AJC, who was quoted in President Carter's defense of his book in the Los Angeles Times, points out that one of Carter's many distortions in his book is his declaration that the Palestinians accepted Clinton's proposals for a negotiated solution at talks in Taba during the waning days of the Clinton administration while the Israelis rejected them. As Harris points out, Clinton says the opposite in his book and "Carter must have known this history.". The fact was that Yasser Arafat balked at the offer - stemming back to the Camp David Summit, that would have restored about 95% of the lands considered "occupied territories" by the United Nations.Jasper23 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

article structure

I'm not sure that I like the current article structure, specifically the decision to move Carter's responses to criticism to a separate section. The article just doesn't look right. For example, we have subsections e.g. Response to Ross, that are two sentences long and anyone interested in the Ross issue for instance has to go through seven paragraphs to get from the section where it is initially brought up to Carter's response. Why not put everything back inline? GabrielF 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a super big fan of the new structure either, I was just going with it to be agreeable. --YoYoDa1 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

More coverage

• A letter to Jewish citizens of America, Jimmy Carter (this really should be mentioned in the article, widely reproduced )
  • ADL Responds to Jimmy Carter's Open Letter

• Brandeis University/Alan Dershowitz debate flare up
  • Carter book won't stir Brandeis debate (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 15/2006.
  • Why won't Carter debate his book? (op-ed), Alan Dershowitz, Boston Globe, Dec 21/2006.
  • Brandeis group pursues Carter visit (news article), Boston Globe, Dec 22/2006.

• In defense of Jimmy Carter
  • Get Carter, Chris Hedges, The Nation.
  • Memoir of a great friend, Tom Segev, Haaretz
  • The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein
  • Bookman: Anti-Semitism label confines open debate, Jay Bookman. (Syndicated here, here, ...).

Gave some structure. --64.230.123.73 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz's Rwanda smear

Anyone who has reviewed the interview transcript should realize that Carter was comparing conditions in Palestine *now* to conditions in Rwanda *now*. He specifically refused to be drawn into a debate on the Rwandan genocide, and did not compare the current situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide.

For us to assert "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda" is both improper and inaccurate, given that Carter did not actually do what Dershowitz is said to have accused him of doing.

We could perhaps write "Dershowitz also criticized Carter for allegedly having compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the genocide in Rwanda", but then we'd have to include a follow-up sentence indicating that Carter didn't actually say this. I can't imagine Dershowitz coming off well in such a comparison and, frankly, I can't see Carter's original comments as being sufficiently important for inclusion. CJCurrie 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC) CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The new edit is no better. Anyone with the slightest bit of sense will realize that the current wording is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said, even if the words are technically correct.

• I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Add: I don't appreciate SlimVirgin's decision to remove the dispute template while I was still making my comments on this forum: . CJCurrie 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That disputed tag should not be removed till all of this is sorted. Dershowitz falsely accused is probably how the article should read. Jasper23 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I took this out of the article because it isn't true.

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. Jasper23 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jasper, in what way isn't it true? The transcript shows the comparison very clearly. The text previously said he was comparing it to the genocide, and that's not so clear, so it was changed to "situation." Having said that, it's not clear that he didn't mean the genocide; all he says is he doesn't mean "ancient history" in Rwanda, but the genocide isn't ancient history. I think this is an important example of him being caught out using ridiculous hyperbole, and being unwilling to retract. SlimVirgin 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear that he doesn't mean the genocide. You can criticize him for using the words "ancient history", if you wish, but it's crystal clear for the transcript that he's referring to Rwanda *now*, not Rwanda in 1994.

As to your "ridiculous hyperbole" argument, wouldn't that be original research? CJCurrie 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "genocide" now. I don't understand your last point. If I put it in the article, it would be OR, yes. Does that extend to talk too? SlimVirgin 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "genocide" now. It merely links to an article where Dershowitz incorrectly accuses Carter of comparing the situation in Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and is written in a such a manner that readers are likely to believe Carter was referring to the genocide. Seriously, you really need to take a step back if you can't see the problem with this text. CJCurrie 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are taking sides. We report what reliable sources say, not what CJCurrie wishes they had said. The transcript is clear. He does make the comparison and he thinks the situation with the Palestinians is worse. Dershowitz points that out. We publish that he pointed it out. End of story. SlimVirgin 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Dershowitz's comments draw into question his status as a reliable source. Anyone who reads the transcript can see for themselves that he was wrong. To the original point, Carter's observation that Palestine 2006 is worse than Rwanda 2006 is not particularly notable to begin with, so I can't see how AD's comments are at all relevant. CJCurrie 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) CJCurrie 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't say he compared it to the genocide. How many times? But he does compare it to Rwanda, and says it is worse. Read the transcript properly. And no, Dershowitz doesn't get called into question as a reliable source just because you don't like him. There is a real world out there in which Dershowitz has credibility, your personal opinions notwithstanding. SlimVirgin 03:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed this below. Even if we accept that the Dershowitz article should be included (and I do not accept this premise), the current wording is still a grotesque violation of both NPOV and BLP. Seriously, Slim, what do you think readers are likely to conclude from the present wording? CJCurrie 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It could not be clearer now. And it is not up to you to decide that Dershowitz is not a reliable source, just because you don't like him. SlimVirgin 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider Dershowitz to be an unreliable source because his recent article transparently misrepresents the context of Carter's remarks. My personal opinion of Dershowitz is not the point at issue. Why must you always assume the worst? CJCurrie 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Moments after I removed the Disputed notice (since the disputed text was no longer in the article), SlimVirgin decided to restore the disputed text without also restoring the disputed notice. Quite charming, really.

To the point at issue: the current wording may be technically accurate, but it is also woefully misleading and inappropriate for the article. That SlimVirgin doesn't seem to recognize this is quite disconcerting, although not entirely surprising.

At the risk of repeating myself, please note that I'm not going to back down on this point. CJCurrie 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent apology for this kind of behavior really didn't mean anything, did it. SlimVirgin 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CJCurrie 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about this, which I'd hoped was an apology for your intransigent revert warring, but clearly not. I've also asked you twice to show me examples of you adding, or agreeing to the addition of, criticism to articles about left-wing figures; you said you would supply examples but haven't. Here I see you once again editing only from your own narrow POV. SlimVirgin 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim, pay very close attention: I offered an apology on the Israeli apartheid page because I realized I was in the wrong on a particular point. I am not going to apologize for my behaviour here, because I am not in the wrong on this point. In response to your ad hominem attacks: (i) not that it's relevant, but I did provide you with an example, (ii) I'm reverting information that any reasonable reader would find inappropriate. CJCurrie 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking other editors to revert war for you. SlimVirgin 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Jasper23 to review your reversion of his edit. There's nothing wrong with that, or are we only allowed to make such requests on private listservs? CJCurrie 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You've asked him to revert for you because you're out of reverts, even though the text is now completely accurate and well-sourced. I can't say anything more to you. I've really had it with your editing. SlimVirgin 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie has asked someone else to intervene. SlimVirgin 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may be interested to learn that I have no strong personal history with YoYoDa1, and do not know how he will respond to my request. He may side against me, for all I know. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. All YoYoDa1 has done practically is edit this article, and he's given you a barnstar! SlimVirgin 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice why he gave me a barnstar? From what I can tell, YoYoDa1 has a genuine concern for neutrality on this piece. (In any event, he's decided not to intervene for the present time.) CJCurrie 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The text is technically accurate and technically sourced, but is still hopelessly wrong for the article. It's a shame that you don't realize this. CJCurrie 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is YOUR POV. The edit is accurate. It is sourced to a reliable source, albeit one you personally don't like. The source discussed it in the context of this issue, so it's relevant. Your POV is not relevant. It's a shame that you don't realize this. SlimVirgin 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim: The current edit is a grotesque distortion of what Carter actually said. It may be accurate in a very narrow and technical sense, but it's also an obscene violation of both NPOV and BLP. CJCurrie 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Carter said. He said: "he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know," and was called on it.

• CARTER: ... he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know.
• SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
• CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
• SHUSTER: Yes.
• CARTER: Yes.
• SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
• CARTER: I'm not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
• SHUSTER: You're talking about right now, you're not talking about say, a few years ago.
• CARTER: I'm not talking about ancient history, no.
• SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn't ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
• CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory .... They're taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks.

But you still don't seem to understand the NOR policy. Even if the above were completely irrelevant, Dershowitz criticized Carter for it. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because we are simply reporting what D said, and it's clearly not a trivial matter. SlimVirgin 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if I accept your premise that Dershowitz's piece is an appropriate source for this article (which I do not), the current wording is still a grotesque distortion of both NPOV and BLP.

Incidentally, I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 03:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you misdescribed the situation. SlimVirgin 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already corrected my remarks concerning Dershowitz's article here, and was about to do the same on the RfC page before you intervened. Everything else I said was correct. CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Slim has just adjusted the text. The current version is much better, although not quite perfect (the final section is still misleading, and requires either rewording or further clarification). CJCurrie 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not quite perfect? How careless of me. Why couldn't you have adjusted the wording? Why must you always and only revert, revert, revert? SlimVirgin 04:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that SlimVirgin has added further text. The current edit is not even close to being acceptable, and I plan to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity. (Carter did not "invoke" Rwanda, for a start ...) CJCurrie 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from Dershowitz. He is a prominent critic. You are not going to correct him. The interviewer asked Carter about Rwanda and he SAID YES. He could have said no. He is a former president, not a deer caught in the headlights. He said yes. Therefore, he opened himself up to this criticism, and we're not going to censor it for your benefit. SlimVirgin 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Why do you almost never edit? You revert, revert, revert, when all you'd have to do is edit, adjust the wording, find a better source. Often, you're reverting so much other people can't get their edits in because of edit conflicts with you. Then calling up other people, and RfCs, and time-wasting arguments on talk. Why couldn't you have done what I just did? It's a serious question. SlimVirgin 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He said "Yes", the situation in Palestine today is worse than the situation in Rwanda today. I suspect that certain people have an interest in twisting this comment, to insinuate that he said "Yes" to something else. Removing obviously tendentious editing is not "censorship", by any reasonable definition.

To answer your question: I add text frequently. If it seems like most of my edits that you happen to notice are reverts, perhaps this has something to do with the things that other contributors have tried to add to these articles. CJCurrie 04:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article now says that he compared the situation with the Palestinians to the situation in Rwanda today. You didn't answer the question. Why didn't you clarify the text, rather than remove it all, remove the sources, the transcript, revert it two or three times, put a disputed tag on it twice, and then file an RfC? Why didn't you just edit? Please answer. SlimVirgin 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is: because I don't believe a reference this misleading belongs in the article at all. CJCurrie 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then my question is: why do you feel you should decide which reliable sources who have discussed Carter get to be included? If you believe you have a right to ditch prominent, reliable critics with serious criticism, you've totally misunderstood the content policies and the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Instead, you could ensure that anything written is written accurately, but you almost never do that. You revert immediately, instinctively, and constantly, even though you must know by now that that's the most time-consuming route with these articles. I know that reverting with controversial articles is sometimes the best way to proceed, but you do it way too often and too fast. Seriously, when it gets to the stage that other people can't improve their edits (by finding sources, by adjusting the wording), because you're involved, and that means constant reverting and therefore constant edit conflicts (and others having to worry whether they inadvertently violate 3RR by making an improvement to something you've just reverted), then it means there's a problem. Please give this some thought. SlimVirgin 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for removing misleading and tendentious references, Slim. This particular Dershowitz article can hardly be called "serious criticism": it's a horrific distortion of Carter's literal words to suggest something he quite obviously never intended. Beyond which, I've not seen any indication that the mainstream media has covered this particular story, and I suspect that referencing this article before Carter has a chance to respond may effectively give Misplaced Pages a complicit role in a smear campaign.

I'm going to explain my position in more detail, shortly. CJCurrie 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dershowitz point is a very important, relevant one. The criticism is that some people on the left are obsessed by Israel for reasons that can't be explained, or rather it can be explained in some cases, but I'm assuming that's not relevant here. They focus exclusively on it, exaggerate what's going on there, and usually they don't know much about it themselves. Carter was caught doing that very thing. He said it represented the worst human rights violations he knew of. He was asked "Worse than Rwanda?" And, clarifying that he meant Rwanda today, he said yes. Even with that clarification, it's absurd for the reasons Dershowitz pointed out. Then he tried to backtrack, saying he didn't want to talk about it, because he knew he'd said something very silly. He's a former president of the most powerful country in the world. He doesn't need you to defend him. And the references were not misleading or tendentious. The transcript was even provided! And you removed that too ...

As I said elsewhere, it boils down to good editing. Please try to engage in good editing, instead of POV censorship, removal of source material, and the endless reverting. SlimVirgin 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The present controversy

I suspect that some readers may not want to read through all of the previous discussion between myself and SlimVirgin. For such readers, here's an overview:

On 28 November 2006, Jimmy Carter appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" to discuss his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". David Shuster was the guest host.

The full interview may be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

This the relevant section:

: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

Two things should be obvious to all readers: (i) Carter did not compare the current occupation of Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and (ii) Carter did not invoke the example of Rwanda.

On 8 December 2006, Alan Dershowitz responded with the following editorial piece in the The Huffington Post:

This was reprinted by the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs two days later:

Our article currently summarizes this situation as follows:

Dershowitz also criticized Carter for comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda. During an interview with David Shuster for MSNBC, Carter said: "he persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories ... is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know." When asked whether he believed it to be "even worse ... than a place like Rwanda," Carter replied "yes," and clarified that he was referring to the situation in Rwanda now, and not what he called "ancient history." Dershowitz called Carter's backing away from the analogy "disingenuous." He wrote: "Rwanda, when invoked in the context of a human rights discussion, stands for genocide, just like apartheid stands for the oppressive discriminatory and segregationist practices in pre-1990 South Africa. Everyone understands these symbols, and Carter recklessly traffics in them, until someone calls him out and he's forced to back-track." Dershowitz cited the interview as an example of Carter's and the far left's "obsessive focus" on Israel.

My position is that this summary is both misleading and prejudicial, for the following reasons:

1. Carter did compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the situation in Rwanda, except insofar as he responded to a specific question from an interviewer. Our first sentence, as such, seems to misrepresent Carter's approach to the situation.
2. A phrase such as "ancient history" is non-specific, and is likely to be misinterpreted. The interviewer asked Carter if he was referring to the situation in Rwanda "a few years ago", and he responded "no". If we are to reference this matter at all, we should clarify this point. (By way of an aside: I suspect that some readers may consider the "ancient history" phrase to have been inappropriate on Carter's part. They are entitled to this opinion, but it's entirely peripheral to the dispute at hand).
3. It is not clear that Carter "backed away from the analogy", except insofar as he declined to pursue his interviewer's invitation for a comparison. Even Dershowitz qualifies this particular accusation better than we do, saying that Carter "seems to have" backed away.
4. Since Carter did not invoke the Rwanda analogy, it is difficult to understand how he could have "trafficked in" its symbolism. We are not under any compulsion to reference Dershowitz's comments when they are flatly contradicted by the evidence.
5. Beyond these specific criticisms, it should be clear to any reader with even the smallest bit of sophistication in these matters that Dershowitz's piece was intended as a smear, not as serious journalism. Dershowitz was smart enough to avoid directly accusing Carter of comparing the current situation in Palestine with the Rwandan genocide, but it's unlikely that many people reading his blog entry would have made this subtle distinction (to their credit, however, some respondents did). It may not have been misrepresentation under a strict legal definition of the term, but the piece was clearly a distortion, elevating a trivial exchance to the level of a pseudo-scandal.

I also have some concerns about the use of sources. The other Dershowitz criticisms in this article are taken from the New York Sun, a credible journal. StandWithUs and Dershowitz's blog are not reliable, peer-reviewed sources, and I doubt that any credible paper would have published a piece so misleading. We don't regularly cite pieces from FrontPage Magazine, so why should we cite this?

Addendum: Dershowitz recently published a highly truncated reference to this controversy in a piece for the Boston Globe. It might be possible for us to reference that work, although I'm not certain how one could do this without engaging in "quote-mining".

From what I can tell, no other credible journalistic source has referenced this controversy at. I'm concerned that referencing this matter on Misplaced Pages would simply make us complicit in the smear. CJCurrie 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE. CJCurrie 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Double standard?

CJCurrie 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is it my double standard, CJ, and not yours? YOU think that Chesler's copy editing errors in one book must be alluded to because one source mentioned them. But at the same time you think a former president's comparison of the Palestinian situation to RWANDA (!) should not be mentioned, even though a source has criticized him for it. Were it not for WP:NPA, I'd be tempted to use the word "hypocrisy." SlimVirgin 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see how a former president's decision to compare Palestine in 2006 with RWANDA (!) in 2006 should occasion anyone's concern, especially as he wasn't the one who raised the issue. Rwanda still bears the scars of the horrific upheavals from twelve years ago (to say nothing of its more recent conflicts with Uganda over Congolese territory), but there's nothing particularly insulting about comparing the two populations today. I can't help but wonder if certain writers are deliberately encouraging confusion between Rwanda 2006 and Rwanda 1994 in order to make Carter appear to have said something he did not. Perhaps I'm overly cynical.

As far as Chesler goes, how do you know that her mistakes are merely "copy editing errors"? I'd be hard-pressed to define the Aung San Suu Kyi error in those terms, personally. CJCurrie 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. DeYoung, Karen (2006-12-07). "Carter Book on Israel 'Apartheid' Sparks Bitter Debate". Washington Post. Retrieved 8 December. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
2. Boone, Christian. "Adviser breaks with Carter on Mideast book." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. December 6, 2006.
3. http://www.nysun.com/article/44869
4. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/07/news/carter.php
5. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235422,00.html
6. http://www.arij.org/
7. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/08/sitroom.02.html
8. http://www.slate.com/id/2155277
9. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/carter_11-28.html
10. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936711/
11. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,1775669,print.story
12. Dennis Ross.The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (2003), p. 765
13. Dershowitz, Alan. "Jimmy Carter Trivializes Rwandan Genocide." Editorial. StandWithUs.com. 8 December 2006. 21 December 2006.

• Unassessed Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles