Talk:Exodus (Uris novel)

message: Shouldn't there be some kind of plot section? Most other important books have one with a  tag. E=MC^2 T@lk 17:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Much Editing Needed

message: There is at least one other novel called "Exodus": the one by Julie Bertagna, so the title of this article "Exodus (novel)" is not very good.  – b_jonas 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: PatGallacher, in February 2005 you introduced a paragraph consisting entirely of unsourced original research, and filled with weasel words (e.g. "many claim", "some claim"). Since then various editors have tried to delete it, and you have been returning it with generally meaningless or disingenuous edit summaries, e.g. "rv deletion of legitimate comment" "rv - seems reasonable comments". You know that this passage violates policy; why did you insert it, and why do you keep reverting it back when it is quite reasonably deleted? Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you grant that argument you could delete some other significant points in this article. PatGallacher 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's unprofessional, but it's actually fairly accurate. What wording do you suggest? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced original research criticism 

message: I hate to say it, but the characters section could use a lot of cleaning up.  For instance, one of the lines in Ari's section is like so. 
He may be at least partially based on Yitzhak Rabin. He is probably based partially on Yigal Allon, and his brother possibly on Menachem Begin, but more on Avraham Stern. Actually Ari Ben Canaan is based upon Moshe Dayan.
Someone really needs to clarify this.  It sounds like a 4th grader wrote it.  I'm in 8th grade, and I could do better in my sleep.  I just don't have the time. LonelyPker 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section 

message: I think that a spoiler warning should be added or some sentences taken out of the article, such as the one that reveals Karen's fate at the end of the book. LK 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Uh, yeah, this thing is an awful mess and looks to be fallout from last year's edit war. "complaints about the book are from those who can't tell the difference between a historical novel and a true footnoted history?" Not exactly neutral and totally un-encyclopedic. This book has been extensively reviewed and discussed, and I'm sure we can find legitimate, sourced criticisms and responses to criticism. ("Exodus as a Zionist Melodrama" in "Further Reading" looks like a promising start.) Right now, the section practically says, "this is a great book and anyone who criticizes it is ignorant and biased if not outright anti-semitic!!1one!" <eleland/talkedits> 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some cited properly articulated criticism is needed to balance the article. Donama (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed again.  I came to this page just to find some basic information on how this novel is regarded, and I got the "rebuttal" that appears here.  If legitimate arguments for and against the novel exist in published journals, let them be cited here.  For now, since it makes no citations, up goes Template:Unreferencedsection.  Michael Patrick (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms / reception section 

message: :Image:Exodusuris.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Exodusuris.jpg

message: Is this the animator Art Stevens?  If so, he should be linked. Kdammers (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art Stevens 

message: Providing the book where this claim is supposedly made does not equal to providing a source—should we be expected to read the entire book to verify the claim? Moreover, this is a WP:REDFLAG claim that requires more than just a little-known book by a little-known author, although I might reconsider my position if the specific page and the direct quote from the book is provided. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between exceptional and implausible though. WP:REDFLAG refers to unlikely claims, not utterly impossible ones. However, again, this is not my main concern. Instead, the main concern is that no real citation was provided, and this is very difficult to verify. I'll be satisfied if a specific citation and a direct quote from the source was provided. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added a quote and a page number.Steve3742 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about commissioning 

message: I find it amazing to read in the present version (Sept. 22, 20101) of the this article that "According to one undocumented, and indeed incorrect source, in the early 1950s Uris was hired by an American public relations firm to go to Israel and "soak up the atmosphere and create a novel about it" when not only the source is documented, but also correct. Furthermore I do note that in Jack Shaheen's Reel Bad Arabs, Olive Branch Press 2001, , one can also read that "[i]n the 1950s, when Americans were largely apathetic about Israel, the eminent public relations consultant Edward Gottlieb was called on 'to create a more sympathetic attitude' toward the newly established state. And so, he sent Leon Uris to Israel to write a novel, which became the bestseller Exodus... Exodus introduced filmgoers to the Arab-Israel conflict, and peopled it with heroic Israelis and sleazy, brutal Arabs, some of whom link up with ex-Nazis. The movie's only 'good Arab' becomes a dead Arab." It is quite interesting, and no less disturbing, to note that the Shaheen reference has totally disappeared from this article, and that Art Stevens' account is now simply referred to as "undocumented, and indeed incorrect source."
Hadan 12:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at the article's history shows that the section in question was first marked POV by an IP editor with no argument provided, and subsequently edited by two others (which the above user is referring to), again without reason, and then finally removed altogether. There's no issue with the original paragraphs themselves and valid references were used, so I've reinstated them. It's reasonable to assume that at least a couple of the aforementioned edits were made with the intention of concealing or suppressing criticism of the book. G E Enn (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfuscation, Negation & Willful Falsification

message: Are such extreme negative commentary, regarding the historical inaccuracies and anti-Palestinian racism, notable enough for a mention in the lead? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a novel.To maintain WP:NPOV, you would have to include positive commentary.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk  02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely negative reviews from e.g. Fisk and Finkelstein 

message: The article has been the subject of a PoV pushing attack since 10 Aug 2014 or earlier. Because of placement of attack citations throughout the article, I was unable to label a section.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk  16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A tag was added per guidelines as being a potential "troll magnet." A balanced and neutral book review section is required which does not focus entirely on negative criticism. --Light show (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

text: An ANI discussion has been opened and comments can be added there. --Light show (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As the edits regarding reception and criticism stand today, they appear to be balanced and primed for further/future additions both in favor and in criticism of this novel.  I think all of us who spent time editing this article wish you had simply complied with the organic process in place rather than hijacking/sabotaging it for your own purposes. It didn't do anything positive/constructive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and ANI discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exodus (Uris novel). 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://web.archive.org/web/20131023214355/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/549/op9.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/549/op9.htm
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) 09:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Part of a substantial copyediting I did involved moving praise and criticism from the lede down to sections on the book's disputed origins and "Criticism". Onceinawhile (talk), on the grounds of "reinstating balance removed from the lede", re-inserted some of that into the lede, copying material that remains in the lower sections. This seems unneccesary and improper; the fact that the article has a subsection titled "Criticism" seems more than adequate indication that there is criticism. This is obviously a hot topic for partisans on either side of the question of racism, which might make the discussion of the literary merits of the work loom larger than they ought within WP. The kind of popular critical praise  – as opposed to, for example, mention of literary awards – discussed doesn't seem particularly appropriate for the lede, either. But I bring this here rather than reverting into a potential edit war. Any thoughts? Czrisher (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply thought it was improper to remove all negativity from the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the article. I do appreciate your copyedits though. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Much Criticism Is Proper for the Lede? 

message: In the section on the origins of this work, there is a claim (with the number of citations) claiming that Leon Uris was commissioned by Edward Gottlieb to write a work of propaganda to get Americans to support Israel, and that the results was the novel Exodus.  However, a source that I read on this (which had a lengthy list of references) went over this claim in detail and thoroughly debunked it.  This is a link to that source: https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/exodus_conspiracy.pdf 
I cannot edit this article since I have not completed the required number of edits, so I'm asking someone else to read this source I attached a link to, and to add a note about this to the relevant section of this article with this source as the reference for that.
Thanks. Mateo Tembo (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Gottlieb