This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
And now you've added a hatnote. So you understand an other article exists. Simply by recency, there is no primary topic. Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I guess I wasn't really counting a paraphrase of the Bible as an original "book" in my mind but that's probably wrong. I have no objection to moving the page back. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've adjusted the portion of the review section regarding the Szalai review in the NYT. Szalai was questioning Coates mentioning neither Oct 7 attacks nor the subsequent Israeli bombardment of the Gaza strip. The article here only mentioned the non-mention of the Oct 7 attacks, which puts what appears to be a more pro-Israel spin on the original largely positive review. I've added the bare minimum needed context for now, but I think the section might need to be further adjusted to not mislead readers into thinking critical reception (at least Szalai's) is more negative or pro-Israel than in reality. Cheers! 217.105.32.210 (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
editing to add—the section regarding the CBS Morning interview is framed as a review, with Dokoupil's stances being presented without Coates responses, which obscures the nature of the segment as an intervie of Coates; it is not clear what makes this interview-debate-review noteworthy in a "Reception" section, or what would make solely Dokoupil's questions noteworthy and not Coates's answers. this also needs adjustment, any ideas? 217.105.32.210 (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comments could be moved to a publication section in relation to the book's promotion. However, a reception section need not only contain professional reviewers' opinions. Influential voices are generally considered worthy of inclusion to represent how a book was received. Οἶδα (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning this. I'm paywalled so I can't read the review, but I also noticed Book Marks characterized Szalai's review as a "rave", which suggests it may be misleading for us to use a snippet that makes the review sound negative. 217.105, or anyone else reading with NYT access, do you want to edit to provide a more representative summary? Graue (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to not put much faith into Book Marks and other ill-suited literary aggregation. I added an archive link (http://archive.today/2024.09.29-124459/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/books/review/ta-nehisi-coates-the-message.html) so readers like yourself can access it without being paywalled. Anyway, I read the review and that specific criticism sounded most direct and concrete to me so I added it. I didn't mention in my initial reply here, but Szalai's review is hardly even a review. It is more of an author feature with a bit of summary and context. I would love to hear your evaluation of the review because I honestly cannot find anything which suggests this is a "rave" review in any of its 12 paragraphs. Only the 10th and penultimate paragraph seem to add any critiques, albeit in only soft and passive terms. Οἶδα (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]