Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict

message: Okay, took out the Daniel Pipes link. I think book reviews should only be included if they, you know, touch upon the book. Thesobrietysrule 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

message: The article states:  "In 2003, a 256-page paperback revised edition was published ()." Well, I have that edition, (same ISBN number), but the book is 287 pages (including index). Are there several versions of the book, or what? Huldra 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I also think we should have something about the content, say, what I have seen done with other books: a short summary of the content in each chapter. As the article is now, there is no more content there than you could get at abebooks.  Regards, Huldra 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest edition 

message: Ok, I´m starting in a small way to add content, first copied from :  Huldra 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a great idea to quote from the book at length. If you want to add more content to the page, perhaps a synopsis in your own words, with an occasional quote where appropriate, would be more useful. Gatoclass 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree, just added the above as basis for a draft, if you like (..and because I had it easely available ;-)). I´ll (hopefully) will add a synopsis, but that takes a bit more concentrated effort than I feel for just today... Regards, Huldra 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: p. xi: "the Zionist movement sought [..] to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. [...] the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigneous Arab population.  For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was understood from the outset that Palestine´s indigneous Arab population would not acquiesce in its dispossession. [...p.xii:] Basically the Zionist movement could choose between only two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled ´the way of South Africa´-´the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording over a large, exploited native majority´- or the ´way of the transfer´-´you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out.´ In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sight on `the way of transfer´. [..p. xvi:] The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, for the first time   ´unequivocally prohibited deportation´of civilians under occupation (Articles 49, 147). Accordingly, after the June war Israel moved to impose the second of its two options mentioned above -apartheid."
:I don't think it's a great idea to quote from the book at length. If you want to add more content to the page, perhaps a synopsis in your own words, with an occasional quote where appropriate, would be more useful. Gatoclass 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree, just added the above as basis for a draft, if you like (..and because I had it easely available ;-)). I´ll (hopefully) will add a synopsis, but that takes a bit more concentrated effort than I feel for just today... Regards, Huldra 19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Possible categorisations of this book include:
* Category:Books critical of Israel 
* Category:Books critical of Zionism 
either or both depending on content.
I personally interpret the categories as follows: 
*the first category as relating to criticisms of actions of the state of Israel 
*the second category as relating to criticisms of support for the existence of a Jewish homeland.
The book has been placed in "Category:Books critical of Zionism" and there are "see also" links between the two category pages.
How would the book best be categorised? Gregkaye (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories of criticism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130616095716/http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-1-85984-442-7/ to http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-1-85984-442-7/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029183123/http://normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=4 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Huldra He gave the book as reference to his phrase so he does say this about the book.--Shrike (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Shrike: not on the page you gave, he doesn't.  So please give the page where he actually reference the book!, Huldra (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://books.google.com/books?id=Fd4nDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false see ref 38 Shrike (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Shrike: yeah, but what page is ref 38 on?? (the content of ref 38 is not on page 147, ie he doesn't mention the book on p. 147). Also, to me it doesn't look as if it is Robert S. Wistrich who has written this (he was just the editor), instead it looks as if was a :de:Clemens Heni who is the author? (Don't worry: I won't  bring you to AE for falsification of sources over this....:/ )  Huldra (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Its actually  Wistrich  his article is from 135 to 148, the ref 38 that on page 147 is for page 142 (near the end of the page)--Shrike (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, my bad: Wistrich is the author, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wistrich on page 142 gives his opinion about what Finkelstein thinks and then references Finkelstein book generically (without any page reference).So this is good as someones opinion about Finkelstein but no good as a reference for the book itself; unless you can find the words "parasitic class" etc in Finkelstein book, then this material is POV only.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: What Finkelstein actually said~as opposed to wistrich opinion about what Finkelstein thinks [] ...if anything, it is transforming Israeli Jews into a parasitic class...Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No he base his opinion on the a book so its perfectly OK to Include . And its attributed to him per WP:RSOPINION so I see no problem here --Shrike (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: His opinion is about Finkelstein and not about the book. That's POV, not a book review. You can put it in the Finkelstein page instead.Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, when we are writing about the book "Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict" I had expected that we would quote proper reviews of the book...not just some throw away characteristics about its author: I cannot see that it belongs in this article, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is WP:RS about the book there is no policy based reason to not to include --Shrike (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope there is no RS "about the book" and you have two editors have given you policy based reason to exclude ie relevance (lack of it).Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Because you excluded important opinion about the book without any policy based reason --Shrike (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A policy based reason was given, lack of relevance therefore undue. If you wish to dispute this, please start an RFC, adding a neutrality tag after 2 editors disagreed with you is not the correct way to deal with a content dispute.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted this back in, as the source is an academic peer reviewed book - which is a step up from a book review. Published research findings belong here, and this is attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a review of the book, it is not even a discussion of the book, it is the author opinion of what Finkelstein believes (this can easily be seen because he mentions a phrase used by Finkelstein in his book as referencing all Jews when Finkelstein explicitly refers to Israeli Jews and in a different context) Arguing that this is a review of any sort of the actual book is simply specious.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its not review but Its source about the book and the author so its WP:DUE to include --Shrike (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it's "about the book", please quote from the text where he mentions the book(a stray reference without a page number in the notes doesn't count)Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what policy you base you request?The book is mentioned and given as a reference to the paragraph. That's enough-- Shrike (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned several times already, relevance...your source is irrelevant to the book it is a reference that is only good for it's opinion about Finkelstein and it belongs only in that article not in this one.Please revert the addition or I will.Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a peer reviewed secondary source on the topic - a WP:RS - not an opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole problem, it's not on the topic, its about Finkelstein not about the topic. The book isn't even mentioned in the main text.Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source covers the nature of Finkelstein's writing in this book.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. The page is simply a polemic against Deutscher, Steiner, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Rose and then on to Pappe, etc etc. By your logic, these 2 pages are relevant for any book written by these people. Rubbish. Wistrich expresses no opinion about the book, good or bad, only about Finkelstein himself.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huldra revert 

message: *No The sourced material is Wistrich discussing Finkelstein and others, not about the book, which is not even mentioned in the main text.Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add  to the bottom of the article. Uriahheep228 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --N8wilson 🔔 06:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022