Jump to content

Talk:The Case for Peace

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

'noted' -> Felix Frankfurter

[edit]

I went ahead and added some things that it looked like were missing for the page.. On 'noted': It would be better to replace this with something Dershowitz is objectively noted for. I'm sure it would be very easy to find something from his article. We can't just call him noted though. --75.46.88.60 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say he is prominent in Harvard and has taken on some prominent cases. Wikipedia just needs examples, so an example of either of those would be great. Or say someone he is noted by. The problem is that he can't be noted for no reason. --75.46.88.60 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I grabbed 'Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School' from the Dershowitz article and am using that to describe him. It's slightly more descriptive and it is objective. --75.46.88.60 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

The information previously in the lead was not qualifying where the information was coming from, so I went ahead and added this. It seems pretty clear now that it should belong in the criticism section. If you want to mention it in the lead, it should be done in a quick sentence which identifies where the information is coming from. --YoYoDa1 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it might be better to directly quote the people who are criticising the book. If you are looking to describe what the book says without all of these necessary qualifications, it might be better to find online excerpts of the book and quote directly. --YoYoDa1 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I added all of the qualifcations, I feel that the information now suffers some readability issues, but I don't find it as my responsiblity to fix. I think the best way to improve this would be to reduce your paraphrasing and rely on quotes as I previously suggested. --YoYoDa1 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Mirror article

[edit]

You (BlessSins) want to insert this quote:

because of this quote from the Montreal Mirror article:

The problem is that you are trying to quote a second-hand source (an op-ed, no less) as a first hand source. If you're quoting a second hand source (especially one which doesn't claim to contain objective fact), it needs to be clear that you are giving someone's opinion, and we should also work to establish a background on the person. We should also try to quote the person more than paraphrase them so there is less of a chance that we mince their words. So, a better quote might look something like this:

We also can't put every criticism of the book in the lead to the article (since it eliminates the point of a lead), so I thought it was logical to put this in a criticism section.

If you are unhappy with placing something like the third quote in the criticism section, there are other options. It would be perfectly fine to summarize the Hays quote (or shorten what you use) and insert this (as an attributed criticism) in the lead. If you don't want to have to attribute your criticism, then it would be better to quote from the book itself. You could do this by either having the book or looking for excerpts online. Then you could write something like "On page so-and-so of Dershowitz's book, he writes..." and then the comment that you wish to mention. I hope this helps. --YoYoDa1 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that it would be perfectly fine to add a sentence about the content of the book in the lead if you were quoting directly from the book and not from an op-ed. This article could also use some form of general section about the objective contents of the book. I've included links to help with this below. --YoYoDa1 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the Montreal Mirror article twice now. It is hardly, if at all, a book review, and it does not take stance on the book. Matthew Hayes deals with Dershowitz, the reception of the book, some of its positions (which he does not endorse or criticize), and other controversies. --Shamir1 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read it before, I was just taking what people inserted in the article at face value. I've inserted the material as a quote because of the mixed nature of the piece and the varying interpretations of it. --YoYoDa1 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chasing peace, Montreal Mirror, November 24, 2005.
[edit]

Search inside the book, from Amazon: [1] --YoYoDa1 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Publisher's site with sample content: [2] --YoYoDa1 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is now on the main page. The second link seemed to not have anything more than the Amazon one, so I opted for Amazon instead. --YoYoDa1 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

The Publishers Weekly review is not notable for the lead. It gets its space in the criticism part where it belongs. What makes the book special is not that it was reviewed by a Publishers Weekly columnist, but that it was read and approved by a U.S. president who very famously tried his hardest to achieve peaceful negotiations. The part about footnotes has nothing to do with the content of the book, this is not about the reader's well-being.

WP:LS reads: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." Thus, if the criticism section is a reasonable part of the article, it needs to be mentioned (in one form or another). I don't like the current wording that is being used to do so, but it is hard to summarise the criticism in any one way. Feel free to take a stab at it. --YoYoDa1 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore, the Segevny review was incorrectly placed in the criticism section for what I hope is not a malicious attempt for one's own agenda. I will assume good faith and assume that the editor had something going on that I just do not understand. It was then placed as "mixed". I have read it twice now. It is not mixed. After paragraphs and paragraphs of talking about how the author is correct and analytical and etc., the reviewer writes "The biggest flaw of this otherwise even-handed work..." That does not make a review "mixed." A review is not always, and is not usually, black and white. And even in his short criticism of Dershowitz he makes sure to say the work is "otherwise evenhanded" and that even the section he has a problem with is "understandable." He then concludes that "despite these shortcomings, The Case for Israel can only be considered a success." That is without a doubt a positive review and cannot be categorized as anything else. --Shamir1 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the book has generated criticism is notable, the Publishers Weekly remark is an example of the criticism that has been generated. The footnotes of the book do have to do with the book. The Segevny review has been placed in three different places by three different people, so you may feel that it is completely positive but if others feel differently then it clearly does not belong under 'positive'. 'Mixed' reflects the fact that there are positive and negative comments in the review, as well as the fact that there is disagreement among editors. It's good that you hope something isn't malicious and will assume good faith, but this sounds like sarcasm (this comment wasn't directed at me).
I'm going to update the lead to show that the book has recieved positive and negative reviews. I'll move the Segevny review to the talk page until a consensus can be established. I'm also going to restore things you didn't comment on, such as the external links I added to excerpts of the book. Please try to just change what you disagree with in the future. And if you still aren't happy with what I'm placing in the lead, then please put forth an alternative so we can find something that makes us both happy. --75.46.88.60 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're having any other problems with the article, try to list them here so we can discuss it. Try to suggest an alternative which might make everyone happy. --YoYoDa1 03:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable and taken note of, but not in the intro and I already explained why. Footnotes? Come on now. I said the CONTENT of the book. And come on, footnotes? Is that the review you want to see? It does not get any space, what is worthy of space got it.
As for the Segevny ordeal it was 1) added and originally cherry-picked by editors who edited incorrectly, and 2) there is no Wikipedia rule that says because 3 editors did this or that then it must be mixed. No. I told you why already. I gave you material from the source and all you can tell me is just because some people put it here or there it is mixed. It is not and is proven as such with common sense.
It is not mixed and explained why. In a nutshell, but I encourage you to read what I wrote again because it looks like you need to: No mixed review would conclude saying the book "can only be considered a success." In other words, it can only be considered a positive review. Common sense.
Saying that a book has received positive and negative reviews is a given, that is not what a lead says. What makes the book particularly special is that the world's most powerful man (of the time) who in addition is very well-known for his effort of inviting men in and out, trips, arranged negotiations and whatnot to achieve peace, read the book and praises it. That is the point. It does not make sense to say in the lead "Publishers Weekly says it is...", because that is just like saying "This book is available on Amazon."
And as for the 3 people put it in this many categories thing, let me touch you something: People are human and can make mistakes. Further it seems that (of the information you keep re-adding), you have made mistakes. 1) Some of them are not reviews but more like news sources or do not take a stance. 2) You keep adding the Matthew Abraham statement. I have read it, Abraham does not write a review of the book. He is talking about the Corrie incident (she was not Jewish which you also kept), not the book, the incident. But lastly, the Dershowitz quote he uses is NOT EVEN FROM THIS BOOK. Please edit responsibly. Thanks. --Shamir1 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrago material

[edit]

Here is the material: University of Michigan student and managing editor of the The Michigan Israel Observer, Yevgeny Shrago, says the author "has devoted a great deal of time, thought and analysis to the situation. In these thirteen chapters he approaches the problem evenhandedly. Dershowitz censures Israel when he feels it is necessary and seeks solutions, regardless of who is to blame. Each chapter opens with a series of quotations from notable figures involved in the Middle East peace process, and Dershowitz presents hard data to support his conclusions. He does not, however, shy away from a criticism of the leadership."[1] However, Shrago later writes:

Shrago further comments "everything that he writes is important knowledge to have, but a book attempting to foster understanding is not the place to learn it."

I agree that the piece is mostly positive; the point is that Wikipedia can't classify a piece as praise or criticism when it contains both, especially when editors are arguing about where it goes. So let's come up with a solution here before we re-insert the material on the talk page. --YoYoDa1 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't like the word "mixed" commentary. I can't think of any other good word to use and the only option I see would be to put it in both sections. However, I don't really see this as a good solution either. What can you suggest? --YoYoDa1 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shrago's statement does not have to be 100% good-only to be considered positive. I encourage you to check up on www.rottentomatoes.com for movie reviews. They provide a rating because a review which they label as "fresh" or "rotten". For many of the fresh ratings, the reviewer may say something (if you click the excerpt to see the full review) that the film may have been slow here or there, or that this scene was out place, etc., but still, the rating is considered fresh. It is not just mostly positive, it is overwhelmingly positive. He clearly states at the end that despite those "shortcomings" as you have mentioned above, it "can only be considered a success." Nothing less, and thus it can only be considered a positive review. --Shamir1 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you offer me an alternative and provide reasoning that supports it? He clearly acknowledges that there are shortcomings, but if he states that he has a positive review then it can go under the positive section. So place it under the positive section but expand the quote? (Along with his comment that 'despite these shortcomings') --YoYoDa1 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a completely different note: Do you find the opinion of University of Michigan student notable? I was just looking at this. --YoYoDa1 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about it, but what propmpted me to leave it is the fact that an editor (what appears purposefully) took statements out of his work and put it in the Criticisms section when it was clearly praise. So if he thinks it should be in, well, fine, but it should be in the right place. I already provided reasoning above and the statement does not need any expansion for such details. Those are minor and is not nearly as long as his 100% complimenting paragraphs. The fact that he says at the end (once again) that it "can only be considered a success" does not make that short part enough for us to note. Lasting note: it is undisputed that his review is outright very positive. --Shamir1 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less what I had been doing with the sources, just trying to clean them up. I've counted the negative content and it is about 3-4 (out of 11) paragraphs (I can list the content I speak of on request). If Shrago classifies his review as positive, then I agree that it can and should be listed here as positive. However, I also think that his work should be cited represenatively. That would mean for every two sentences of praise there would be a sentence of "shortcoming". So it just needs a sentence or two describing the shortcomings he sees. And it would be perfectly fine to elaborate that despite the shortcomings he sees, he still feels that the book is a positive review along with any other qualifications that he makes. But the article isn't 100% complimentary paragraphs (and if it is, then why does it matter which quote we use?) --YoYoDa1 15:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a clip of the review. If one wants to read the whole review they can. Every detail is not needed. --Shamir1 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it should be represenative of the document itself. --YoYoDa1 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dershowitz Strikes Back, Michigan Israel Observer

Reversions

[edit]

Everyone is reverting material which isn't even debated. Try to make indivual edit and hit the 'show changes' button to review what your edit is changing before you hit 'save page'. Thanks --YoYoDa1 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your edits and keep telling you why they are not valid. The Montreal Mirror article is not a book review and is not even close. By saying: This is what Dershowitz believes, is not criticism. The article does not praise or criticize him or the book. It is more like a news article of the situation. I have explained this earlier.
(Sidetrack note: Corrie was 1 of 10 foreign citizens killed by Israel during the intifada. The number of foreign citizens killed by Palestinians in that time is 53, more than five times the amount, and none of them deliberately put themselves in harm's way.) The other one is not a book review either. It deals with the Corrie incident, and he writes and criticizes Dershowitz's stand on it. However, he does not get it from THIS book. I told you this already. The quotes he uses is NOT from this book, nor is it a review of any. --Shamir1 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even concerned with the Montreal Mirror article, nor am I really concerned with the 'Corrie' incident (I have only been trying to edit the wording of these to try to please everyone). I'm talking about the external links section, which merely contains links to excerpts of the book (one is posted on Dershowitz's own site). My whole point is that these two issues are separate (external links and everything else). So if everyone could stop removing the external links in their reversions (unless you can tell me what a problem with them is of course), I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks --YoYoDa1 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So once again, it'd be cool if everyone could make their changes indivually instead of all at once. Then we can figure out where the actual disagreements are and work through them. --YoYoDa1 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not notable enough to say that a book has simply got some criticism. That is a natural part of publishing a book. You can read WP:Notability and WP:Point. It is more than notable to say that the U.S. president has read and supports the book as his own plans to help make peace, not just another PW review. It is not just to say some people like it and some people dont. You can also see The Case for Democracy. The criticism is already written and has its own section, that is suffice.
As for the review which keeps being made longer, it should reflect the content of this book. Saying that it may be hard to read because of footnotes is something one can read when they click the full review. The main argument is stated. --Shamir1 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LS specifically says that the lead should be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." I understand that you don't feel either of the particular criticisms are notable enough to mention in the lead, and I agree with you. I am putting them there to provide an overview of the article.
The criticism is stating its main point, I just think that someone who isn't a frequent reader of this material should be provided more context (the Middle East is a contentious topic, Dershowitz frequently presents a 'vigorous' case). I also find the footnote statement particularly relevant since it is directly related to the content of the book and especially when we consider Dershowitz's role as an academic.
Finally, the non-debated material I am talking about is the external links. Please just try to be mindful of what you are editing if you don't have a problem with it. Thanks, --YoYoDa1 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vigorous... part I can see, but not the footnotes. The fact that the reader's eyes may be tired with footnotes does not reflect the content of this book and there are better things to have written. It is better just a bit shorter though more concise, rather than a bit longer with a remark that is out of place and does not material. Again the vigorous part I can see.
The book has not generated enough of a degree of controversy to specifically note in the lead that it has criticism as well. The lead does not say that the book has not received any criticism. Every book has criticism and people can see on the article that this one has it as well. On a larger scale, you can also see Harry Potter. The "books have gained immense popularity and commercial success worldwide, spawning films, video games, and a wealth of other items." Of course it has received criticism, and you can see it below. --Shamir1 01:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was hoping to put up some links to excerpts from the book (via Dershowitz and his publisher) as well as some reviews from the New York Times and the Boston Globe. I've been forced to re-insert this material too many times though, so I'm going to rate limit myself. If anyone has any problems with the material I am suggesting, it'd be great if you could tell me now so it doesn't get inserted and deleted many more time. Thanks, --YoYoDa1 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were going to look something like this:
    ===Book excerpts===
    *Amazon Online Reader: The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved
    *A Case Study in Hate and Intimidation - Chapter 16 of The Case For Peace PDF Format
    ===Book reviews===
    *The Case For Peace: New York Times Book Review
    *The Case For Peace: Boston Globe Book Review
Comments? --YoYoDa1 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new cat?

[edit]

Can we make a new category called "Books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? There are a number of books that are specifically about this long running (and over-analyzed) conflict and such a category would lead to a better organization of articles. --70.48.240.104 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we mention the year the book was published (as books in this topic area can get dated if they are about recommendations on the future) although this book is still quite recent. Additionally, it may be useful to split off the overview of the content of the book into its own section (the first section following the lead) and simply the lead to be more summary style. --70.48.240.104 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Case_for_Peace&oldid=1210671960"