Talk:Tom Segev

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
thread_title:  Start of major cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I think there needs to be a criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What the books are about 

message: Until some weeks ago, this was how the article looked like. Then  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:
: Similarly, The New York Times Book Review wrote: "If you plan to read only one book on the 1967 war, this is not it. It is too narrowly focused. ... It does not tell the whole story of the war, barely focusing on Arab activity."[8]
Let us look at the paragraphs they come from:
: This book follows on those earlier endeavors. But unlike his book on the British mandate, “One Palestine Complete,” “1967” lacks a certain sweep. It does not tell the whole story of the war, barely focusing on Arab activity. He leaves that to the many other histories of the war, simply taking note of the Syria-based Palestinian terrorist attacks and the bellicosity coming from Egypt. What interests Mr. Segev is Israel: its moods, debates, generation gaps and anxieties.
Then after two other paragraphs:
: You need not agree with Mr. Segev’s conclusions on how things could have been done differently to benefit from his research and narrative. If you plan to read only one book on the 1967 war, this is not it. It is too narrowly focused. At the same time Mr. Segev makes a compelling and fresh case that the war was at least partly a result of a delicate and vulnerable moment in Israeli history, and his exploration of that moment is — while too long — persuasive and engaging.
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)
thread_title:  Reviews of his books not balanced