Talk:Deception: Betraying the Peace Process

Comments
Okay - tricky one this....some notes. Not really my forte but I'll give it a go....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * " PA systematically promoted an ethos of hatred...." is pretty emotive. I think I'd reword to something like "...concludes that the PA systematically used tactics such as glorifying terrorism and (-something about anti-israeli sentiment - ) to undermine the peace process and a two-state solution. " - it is better to let the facts speak for themselves


 * Need to add details of time - when was the book published and what year was the analysis over?


 * Any details of review by arab- or palestine-sympathetic reviewers who challenge or criticise the book for factual inaccuracy?
 * I'll see to incorporating your suggestions. As to critical reviews, I have not found any, though this might be a question of time. ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The prose seems ok to me at first glance, but I admit I am possibly not the best at judging POV. I'll have a think and another look later. Interesting book.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the prose is fine. The article structure is also logical. The main problem, in my view, is that the subject of the article is a propaganda-book. As such, people sympathetic to PMW's anti-Palestinian cause will write about it, while those who are not will ignore it. That makes it very difficult to write a balanced and WP:NPOV compliant article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case, generally a variety of views are published where warranted. Have a look at The Case for Israel which recieved a lot of critical reception. ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But The Case for Israel was published by a major publisher, Wiley. This book appears to be published by PMW themself, making it a lot easier to ignore it.
 * On another note, the NY Times article seems to be quite balanced. I think the article can be made more WP:NPOVish if more content is taken from that source instead of the various op-eds. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.Btw you made good work on 3D test..--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And yes, I might give it a shot. I just though Ankh might want to do it himself. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I have re-examined the NYT article and it seems that much of the article is addressing the wider issue of media monitoring, and belong to an article like Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, e.g "the subject of incitement and media monitoring has become as contentious as some of the messages...", and not this book per se. Could you clarify which points that directly relate to this book, you would like included?
 * I have added to the article that critics of Marcus note that he lives in the West Bank though this too seems like individual criticism rather than criticism directed at the book he co-authored? ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is about the book but it also gives context. We should follow its example and give the reader the necessary context, as you did with when you explained that Marcus is a settler (although attribution is not required as the NYT article counts as WP:RS for statement of fact).
 * As for other parts from the NYT article suitable for inclusion:
 * "Some of the examples publicized by the Israeli monitoring group are old ones that have been repeated over the years, and some of its interpretations are arguable." (attributed to NYT, as it's more like an opinion rather than a fact).
 * The comment by Ghassan Khatib (attributed to him)
 * "That While Palestinian Media Watch acknowledges that there is less blatant incitement than in the past, with fewer direct calls for violence" (using own words, sourced to NYT but without attribution as it is a statement of fact and the NYT article is WP:RS). --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)