![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The standards of this article should be raised.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How the hell would someone think you can cite the blurb on the book jacket?! Here's another flaw: somebody wrote, "Segev is usually criticized by Zionists as too pro-Palestinians and by Palestinians as too pro-Zionist", citing Salon.com. Whoever wrote that is a real moron: the Salon article was an interview with the subject (this information not mentioned in the footnote), the person being cited was the subject himself (!), and Segev wasn't even referring to in general, but rather to reaction to one of his books. Hurmata ( talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that authors who are not favorable to Israel or who are "new historians" never have a criticism section, but authors who are do. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "favourable to Israel"? I suppose you mean to a view of Israel-- Periergeia ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
I find it extremely strange that whereas in other languages one can see the actual thesis of the book 1967, you couldn't see that here but a criticism of the book and a link to an author and to a book with that author's thesis. So I added a little bit of what other Wikipedias already have. -- Periergeia ( talk) 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Until some weeks ago, this was how the article looked like. Then Precision123 added more negative reviews. While a section called "Criticism" could invite just that and not a balanced view, it is not an excuse to not include praise (which is not hard to find about Tom Segev) by changing the title (as I have now done, like it is on Benny Morris and other articles), make a section for that or include it somewhere else - even more so when it can be found in the same review you took the part that was negative. Ethan Bronner's review in the New York Times was shown here as:
Let us look at the paragraphs they come from:
Then after two other paragraphs:
Interestingly, it does not explain why Segev focused on Israel. "It does not tell the whole story of the war, barely focusing on Arab activity" is included but not for example "What interests Mr. Segev is Israel: its moods, debates, generation gaps and anxieties". Now look at the next part. The second paragraph here above only includes "If you plan to read only one book on the 1967 war, this is not it. It is too narrowly focused". Even if we ignore that you only added negative reviews you could find, it is still a significant WP:CHERRYPICKING when you only included a certain part from an article you were using.
I have added the other parts from Bronner's review. I also removed some descriptions that are your own and could highlight a certain view.
One of the first reviews that I see on Google is 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East by L. Carl Brown in the Foreign Affars. He writes "The author of One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate has written another masterful history... Although the actions, and inactions, of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the United States, and others are duly recorded, Segev sticks essentially to the Israeli side of the story, providing a dramatic day-by-day narrative of individual Israelis, the public, and the politicians responding to the crisis set off when Nasser sent troops into the Sinai and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran". There is much other praise that can be found and should be included per WP:WEIGHT. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The standards of this article should be raised.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How the hell would someone think you can cite the blurb on the book jacket?! Here's another flaw: somebody wrote, "Segev is usually criticized by Zionists as too pro-Palestinians and by Palestinians as too pro-Zionist", citing Salon.com. Whoever wrote that is a real moron: the Salon article was an interview with the subject (this information not mentioned in the footnote), the person being cited was the subject himself (!), and Segev wasn't even referring to in general, but rather to reaction to one of his books. Hurmata ( talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that authors who are not favorable to Israel or who are "new historians" never have a criticism section, but authors who are do. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "favourable to Israel"? I suppose you mean to a view of Israel-- Periergeia ( talk) 15:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
I find it extremely strange that whereas in other languages one can see the actual thesis of the book 1967, you couldn't see that here but a criticism of the book and a link to an author and to a book with that author's thesis. So I added a little bit of what other Wikipedias already have. -- Periergeia ( talk) 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Until some weeks ago, this was how the article looked like. Then Precision123 added more negative reviews. While a section called "Criticism" could invite just that and not a balanced view, it is not an excuse to not include praise (which is not hard to find about Tom Segev) by changing the title (as I have now done, like it is on Benny Morris and other articles), make a section for that or include it somewhere else - even more so when it can be found in the same review you took the part that was negative. Ethan Bronner's review in the New York Times was shown here as:
Let us look at the paragraphs they come from:
Then after two other paragraphs:
Interestingly, it does not explain why Segev focused on Israel. "It does not tell the whole story of the war, barely focusing on Arab activity" is included but not for example "What interests Mr. Segev is Israel: its moods, debates, generation gaps and anxieties". Now look at the next part. The second paragraph here above only includes "If you plan to read only one book on the 1967 war, this is not it. It is too narrowly focused". Even if we ignore that you only added negative reviews you could find, it is still a significant WP:CHERRYPICKING when you only included a certain part from an article you were using.
I have added the other parts from Bronner's review. I also removed some descriptions that are your own and could highlight a certain view.
One of the first reviews that I see on Google is 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East by L. Carl Brown in the Foreign Affars. He writes "The author of One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate has written another masterful history... Although the actions, and inactions, of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the United States, and others are duly recorded, Segev sticks essentially to the Israeli side of the story, providing a dramatic day-by-day narrative of individual Israelis, the public, and the politicians responding to the crisis set off when Nasser sent troops into the Sinai and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran". There is much other praise that can be found and should be included per WP:WEIGHT. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)