Jump to content

Talk:Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]

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

Negative and positive reactions are not, and should not, be based on each on each other. You say "There is no reliable source stating that in the world at large, there is over twice as much negative commentary as positive about this book"; as far as I know, no editor has claimed such a thing, and not only is there no reliable source that says such a thing, but there is no source at all and there does not need to be as that statement or conclusion is never made. The commentary does not go by including one good review for every bad review or vice-versa, it is whatever it is. Keep in mind the negative review section is pretty much the "controversy" section, and is most likely bound to be longer. It also includes the lengthy battles Carter had with the former director of the Carter Center, as well as Professor Dershowitz. Those ones are not even complete. --Shamir1 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To take that logic to an extreme, if the "negative reactions" section to Carter's book were 20 words long and the "positive reactions" were 30000 words long, one might be reluctant to argue that "it is whatever it is" -- especially given the controversial nature of the book. I think a more accurate statement would be "It is whatever we make it." To present a balanced article on a controversial subject, editors should be careful to see that one viewpoint is not receiving much more airtime than another, and that includes not presenting more negative reactions than positive.
I think Shamir1's stronger argument is that this serves as a "controversy" section -- in which case the section might be renamed so as not to mislead the reader. However, that argument fails in this case since as far as I can tell, in the first 2265 words (the entire length of the "positive reactions" section), no controversy is presented at all. The controversy with the Carter Center does not arrive until word 2797 of the "negative reactions" section. So I still see the article as unbalanced and propose again that the sections be evened out. Perhaps another solution would be to tease out the controversy and make a new section out of it called "Controversy".
One argument I can think of for leaving the article as-is is that people's eyes may glaze over as they trudge through the dense, over-sized paragraphs of the "negative reactions" section, thereby negating the bias. Another is that "Carter's response to criticism of the book" counts as positive, so that balances out the lengths. Maybe so, but I am dubious. Organ123 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the mistake of reading this article as an article rather than treat it as a quote farm and my eyes glazed over trudging through the "Positive" section. If you can find more notable positive reactions, add them. If there are more notable negative than posititive reactions to PPNA, them's the breaks. Artificially evening them out is giving WP:Undue Weight to the minority. Andyvphil 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine what's the actual majority? There's tons of commentary on the book (over 1.2m hits for it on Google, for example.) .V. [Talk|Email] 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is a bit of a concern. IMO, we should get the most high-profile critique both positive and negative and present the same amount (for example, 5 opinions positive and 5 negative.) If you went looking, I'm sure you could get enough of one side to fill a whole article. However, to avoid misrepresentation, equal article space should be given to both sides. In that case, the only factor which would influence the reader would be the persuasiveness of the arguments presented and not simply the amount of them. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with .V.. I could probably find enough positive quotes to fill a book, but that doesn't mean I should. This article should not be an unabridged directory listing of quotations. For this topic, there is no way to know which side has more quotes available, given the very large supply of available quotes on either side. Both sides could qualify as a "majority" viewpoint as described in WP:Undue Weight. We should get the most "high-profile critiques" on both sides and present them, letting the reader be influenced by the arguments, not the lengths of the sections, as per .V.'s post. Organ123 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if the reviews we find happen to outnumber one or the other, then that is the way it is. Also consider that the reaction from the Democratic Party, in which the entire statements are included. As someone who has looked at various newspapers, I have seen very many reviews. I saw many negative but felt that either the author or the newspaper was not notable enough; that is something I think we all agree with (as it sounds like what you mentioned above as well). This does not include the National Review, which has published about 3 reviews that I plan on summarizing some time soon. --Shamir1 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shamir1: .V. and I responded earlier to your "that is the way it is" argument -- do you have a specific disagreement with our responses? Also, are you then saying that you would be OK with my doubling the size of the positive reactions section, so long as the sources are reliable -- a feat that would be time-consuming but easy enough to accomplish? And if so, then what is the political difference between doing that and just cutting the "negative" section in half? "We" have found plenty of positive text to enter, but we haven't entered it, and as a result the article has become imbalanced. Are you disagreeing that there is a lot of positive reaction to quote? Mainly, I am not seeing how you have countered .V.'s argument above that, given the very large number of sources available on both sides, we should get the most "high-profile critiques" and present them, letting the reader be influenced by the arguments, not the lengths of the sections. .V., please correct me if I am misrepresenting you. Organ123 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"political difference"? What kind of criteria is that? ... Can you point to any evidence that someone (NYScholar???) has been selectively adding negative responses to Carter to this article? This article is irredeemably a quote farm, so I have no objection to your adding whatever RS you want (NYS will disagree)--let's see how deep into Podunk you have to go to achieve wordcount equality. But I will not agree to your pruning the apparently organic growth of the critical reaction section arbitrarily. I see no reason to believe it does not reflect a reality that you just don't happen to like. Andyvphil 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andyvphil: I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to me and to what I might be thinking. Please stick to expressing your own thoughts and stop commenting on me and other users. See WP:NPA. My only concerns are with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV as well as other Wikipedia policies. I can speak for myself. Focus on content that will actuallly be improving the article not on other contributors to it. [Addressed to anyone it applies to:] Please stop linking to me as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [Clarified in brackets. --NYScholar 20:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
NYS: Didn't link to you. Or express any opinion on what you might be thinking. Did deny that it is likely that you'd been unduly filling this article with anti-Carter quotes. You object to that observation? Tough. Andyvphil 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links that (an)other user(s) placed in referring to me throughout their earlier comments; see the editing history. It is clear enough. --NYScholar 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not concerned at the moment with how the "negative" section got so large; I am only concerned with the fact that it is so large, large beyond what it deserves to be as compared to the "positive" section. NYScholar has not weighed in on this discussion, so I don't think speculating on his/her views or actions is relevant or appropriate here either.
  • It sounds like Andyvphil would be OK with expanding the positive section, but appears to disagree that there is ample positive reaction available. Andyvphil thinks one may have to go "deep into Podunk" to find roughly 3,000 words of praise for Carter's book. I think that is an incorrect notion, and Andyvphil overlooks the controversial nature of the work. This is a book that sparked tremendous debate; of course there was a lot of critical reaction, but many others stood in Carter's defense. I personally don't think that supporters are a "significant minority"; in fact, I think that critics of Carter's book are a "significant minority", just a powerful one; but either way, Jimmy Wales says, "If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides." (emphasis added.) This article takes sides.
  • Finally: again, this article should not be an unabridged directory listing of quotations, so if I double the size of the positive section, the article will be better balanced, but too long. Why not just take the strongest arguments from each side and let the reader make his/her own decisions? Organ123 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Due to a certain editor's continued expansion of the "negative" section during this discussion, the difference is now 5684 words to 2265 words. It is now over 2.5 times the length of the "positive" section. Incidentally, the editor who says that the section "is what it is" is primarily the one who keeps expanding the "negative" section. Organ123 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of NYScholar ... at the top of this discussion page I see the following warning message: "In the past, in the archive talk pages of the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, several editors have expressed concern that this kind of structure leads to increasing adding on of examples; notice that there are already a lot of them; there is a sort of balance if one considers that the first two book reviews do contain negative comments on the book. It is not advisable to continue tacking on commentary upon commentary (tit for tat, e.g.); one needs to evaluate the sources' value (credibility, reliability, notability, representativeness, etc.) and now to scrutinize what is included with an eye for neutral presentation and conciseness." I do not see the current page heeding the concern of the "several editors" NYScholar mentions, namely, concerns about "neutral presentation and conciseness." The "negative" section is ballooning due to one energetic editor's efforts, but this has led the "negative" section to outweigh the positive in an unnatural and "inorganic" (to borrow Andyvphil's terminolgy) way. To make this article the most useful to its readers, it should express in a concise way the most notable arguments without elaborating on the comments of every reliable source we can find. Organ123 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop quoting me out of context: the full comment that I posted actually refers to the discussions in the archived talk pages: Here's the passage, in context (referring to a version of the article that existed on 13 January 2007, not this version):

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

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

--NYScholar 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I was quoting NYScholar out of context ... I hope NYScholar realizes that I did not do so intentionally, and that I only quoted him/her once (except for the quote coming up in this sentence), so I already have "stopped quoting" him/her out of context. In any case, the language NYScholar used works, in my view, nicely to support my argument in this context. This kind of structure does appear to lead to increasing adding on of examples; there are currently a lot of them; and it is not advisable to keep tacking on commentary upon commentary. We must instead scrutinize the article with an eye for neutral presentation and conciseness. Yes, these are NYScholar's words, apparently taken from a different context, but they make sense here in this context. Anyway, next time I'll just paraphrase without citing NYScholar. Organ123 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[I meant to address my comment to everyone. I did not refer to any specific user, [and I have no quarrel with Organ123] (as the comments [appeared to me the last time I looked] to be unsigned)]. Please add your signature and original timedate stamp (UTC) with use of the four tildes. (Re: the use of links to my name; I have removed them. See the editing history of this talk page.) --NYScholar 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
Now I'm just confused ... are you talking to me? My comments were signed but NYScholar removed my signature during one or more of his/her edits. It's not important though. I'm more interested in the balance of this article. Organ123 19:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry--I became confused too. Please use colons not asterisks throughout for threading. I think that what happened is that I was trying to correct some of the threading problems throuhgout and changing some asterisks to colons so the comments could be followed more easily. I do see now where the signature is (was). I myself really was not regarding my reply to anyone in particular; it was just a reply to the matter of being quoted out of context (to whomever had done that). That is why I provided the full quotation of the earlier comment that I had made with the explanation in brackets and emphasized that I was referring to discussion that still is in the archived talk pages. Please see the archived talk pages for the contexts of my comments about the previous discussion there. Relative newcomers to this article do need to consult earlier talk pages to see previous contentious debates that have occurred relating to this article. [See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which is linked in the header, top of this page.] For guidelines re: editing content disuptes, please see: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to a now-achived comment on a much-earlier version of this article being a so-called "quotefarm", I created the Wikiquotes article: I don't know how many recent users commenting on this article have consulted that; it's linked in both the article on the book and the article on the commentary on the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest doing that. It is a significant part of both of these interrelated and cross-linked articles. See the archives of both articles for the editing history and the splitting of a once far too-long article on the book into two cross-linked articles to be less unwieldy. They share one bibliography. (See the links.) --NYScholar 08:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the "Brief Summary" section of this article states: "Critical response to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid has been mixed." It does not say anywhere in the summary paragraph that critical reaction has been mostly negative, with just a bit of positive. Yet the current balance does not follow the message laid out in the introduction. Organ123 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this article is an irremediable quote farm... Certainly you can find 3,000 words praising Carter. Just find a 3,000 word article and insert it. But if that's the best you can do then the reasonable conclusion will be that your concerns are unfounded, and you can expect your contribution will trimmed substantially... I don't take guidance on reality from NYScholar's ... but I recognize his influence on this article and I find the idea that he's presided over the creation of an anti-Carter screed totally risible. If you want to offset Shamir1, let's see what you come up with. If you suffer more losses than he when/if the ankle biters are cleared out don't complain about disparate impact. Andyvphil 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and it shouldn't be treated as such. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one proposing to delete criticism until it is reduced to an artificial equality with praise. However, if you want to try to write a briefer, thematic, treatment of the issues raised about Carter's book, with pro and con about each, I suggest you do so, but insert it directly in the PPNA article, with a link to this article for the fuller treatment. Andyvphil 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't some artificial limit to articles, there would be complete chaos. I hardly believe the solution is to flood the article with quotes knowing that many would be trimmed down. That just seems disruptive to me. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with .V.. Andyvphil is suggesting that editors artificially expand the positive section, but that "when/if the ankle biters are cleared out" I shouldn't "complain". I do not think that is a good step towards consensus, or towards improving the article. Here's the situation as I see it: The article itself says "critical response to Palestine Peace Not Apartheid has been mixed," and it does not say that one side is a minority viewpoint (because, as we all agree, there is no way to tell in this case). The article should not be an unabridged directory listing of quotations. WP:NPOV states that articles should represent "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." So in conclusion, we should implement .V.'s initial proposal and "get the most high-profile critique both positive and negative and present the same amount." Organ123 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself, and I'm telling you again you will not get consensus for trimming the negative reaction to fit. Why don't you address my suggestion: there is no reason the the PPNA article should be free of commentary...but it is. You have a blank slate there to choose the most important points and provide brief, equal, positive and negative responses to each. So do it. Let's see what your proposal might look like. Andyvphil 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "Commentary on PPNA" article, so it would make sense for the commentary to go here. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely appropriate for a summary of this article's content to be in PPNA. See WP:Content forking#Article spinouts - .22Summary style.22 articles. Let's see what you can come up with in the thematic point-counterpoint form. Andyvphil 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that instead of the current sections the article should have been divided in two sections distinguishing "positive aspects highlighted by sources" and "negative aspects highlighted by sources". Many people, such as me, thinks that to emphasize the fact that the Palestinian state must be a real state is positive but that the metaphore used by Carter si rather unfortunate because to analize a unique and complex subject is nothing worst that to compare with another unique and complex subject. The current structure of sections favourish the visibility of both israel bashers and israel defenders geting rid of the many, many people who have mixed opinions. I know this structure is imposible but would be better than the current.

Regarding the size of the current sections, I do not think is so relevant since the nature and quality of the comments will influence more the reader than the actual size. However the truth is that this book has had amongst the people wishing a fair peace in Middle East a bad reception since do not add anything and starts a useless debate about words. So the article reflects a rather better opinion about the book that the perception I have about how was received by the mainstream of diplomacy and political journalism (ruling out propagandist from both sides who probably started desecrating or enhancing the book without reading it). But this is only my perception so is completely subjective.--Igor21 09:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the criticism section is too long, has a lot of redundancy, and quotes from a number of partisan sources whose predigested views are of little interest or value. I think quite frankly it would make its point better with a bit of editing. But yes I do agree that the article is somewhat unbalanced (it's a 60/40 split if you count the Carter response), and would be better off (in terms of clarity as well) with a modest reduction in the crit section. Gatoclass 14:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

[edit]

For the full editing history of this article, one has to go to the current and archived talk pages in Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (see espec. the administrator's permanent saved discussion of the reasons for splitting the too-long article on the book into an article on the book and an article on the commentary on the book: Talk:Palestine Peace Not Apartheid#Requested move. --NYScholar 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I have not been tacking on additional negative comments in that section. All along, I have been trying to follow both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in this and other Wikipedia articles. The archived talk pages and the editing history make my intentions clear. Occasionally, when alerted to problems with this article, I try to correct them (typographical errors in sources, lack of sources, etc.) (Otherwise, I have not been editing it recently. I was out of the country in part of April and not using a computer then at all.) To some others involved in editing this article: please try to recognize that your own personal biases may be interfering with adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and try to overcome them. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

6000 words of negative commentary

[edit]

Why is there so much? (5959 words actually)When I cut and pasted the negative commentary section into microsoft works, it took up nine pages. The positive section amounts to 2656 words if i remember, ( 5 pages), and this is way too much. Each section should be about 2 pages or less. Lets be practical people. Common seriously, this is ludicrous. Reading this article is seriously WORSE than reading the cardholders credit card agreement fine print booklet you receive when you get your statement. If you don't believe me try it. Read your credit card fine print agreement, and then read this article. Which is preferable? I think the credit card fine print is much more interesting. Anonymous69.108.67.7 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi on Palestine (from Gandhi wiki article)

[edit]

Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-444976~Carter_defends_his_book_s_criticism_of_Israeli_policy.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-459065~Carter_explains__apartheid__reference_in_letter_to_U_S__Jews.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commentary_on_Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid&oldid=1274314083"