Talk:The Message (Coates book)

Page move

@The Midnite Wolf: The Message (Bible) exists. The extra dab wasn't a mistake on my part. It was deliberate, like all of my edits. Wish you would have discussed this beforehand. Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yeah. I'll admit it's not as pleasing of a dab but the book has no subtitle so WP:BOOKDAB applies. Οἶδα (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

szalai review—missing context?

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]