Talk:Joan Peters

Removal

This is ridiculous. The page and its history was removed merely on the base of 'objections', disregarding the impeccable scholarship of Norman Finkelstein.

Finkelstein's findings, as well as the British articles are referenced in respected Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling, and Joel Midgals 'The Palestinian People' (Introduction xxvii).

Next time, I would suggest a little research, before such an outrageous step is taken. The Observer article, as well as the Times Literary Supplment review are all available, and if you haven't found them, that only points towards the laziness of the research, not towards their non-existence. And if you are indeed claiming they don't exist, maybe you should take up the issue with Baruch Kimmerling.

Finkelstein published his findings in a leftwing political magazine, it failed acceptance by peer reviewed academic journals. Of course leftwing radicals who consider his research to be "impeccable" dismiss this as Zionist conspiracy, *yawn*. Amongst conservatives (i.e. people who aren't rabid anti-Zionists) it is Finkelstein not Peters who is not mentioned in polite company. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zionism has nothing with conservatism to do, on the contrary, zionism is a form of national socialism. Amongst conservatives and liberals, it is Finkelstein who is mentioned in polite company. Joan Peters in only mentioned in that sort of company mentioning David Irving. No serious academic today would dare cite Joan Peters. Even a Nakba revisionist like Alan Dershowitz does not (or: he denies it). -- Palestinian Guy 12:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Form of national socialism"? A bit cheeky considering how chummy the Mufti and Hitler were together! 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of Article

Since this article is supposed to be about Joan Peters, it should contain information on her. As it was it was simply a shorter version of the already existing article on her book "From Time Immemorial". Thus I removed the content on the book itself and replaced with biographical info on Joan Peters herself. Since little info is available on the net I used what little was available on her. For those wishing to only discuss her book please add to the article From Time Immemorial and not this one. --Cab88 07:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool Kuratowski's Ghost 09:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lots of wrong information

The material presented includes false and very misleading statements.

- Joan Peters was never a producer of TV news documentaries. She worked in the middle east for CBS, but at no time was she a producer for CBS. She was a low-level reporter sent in at the time of the 1973 war with no previous experience in the middle east.

- She has never been a foreign affiars commentator for PBS. She has appeared on PBS programming, but that is not the same thing as a claim she was a PBS commentator.

- She has never been, to quote, a "white house adviser" in any administration. She never had a position in the white house itself. She was a low-level subject expert who gave lectures mostly to state department officials, but she was never at the level of a policy adviser within the white house.

- She has only written the one book. The page originally left the impression that she had written more than one.

- She is not an expert on the middle east. She called herself an expert on Israeli-Palestinian issues only (though now thoroughly discredited).

We prefer information from her agency to unsourced criticism from anonymous editors. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To say here that this book is simply controversial is not enough -- note must be made, on THIS page as well, of the book's illegitimacy. Kuratowski's Ghost seems to be stubbornly opposed to any mention that this book has been widely *discredited* by numerous serious scholars from all parts of the political spectrum, despite that saying so is a statement of *fact* and hardly a pov. He clearly seems to have a generalized bias against leftist scholars, so presumably he will accept a *sourced* critique from Capitalism Magazine, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism, "Zionist conspiracy" thought, etc.

Her book is heavily nitpicked sure, but saying "discredited" is disinformation, other books that have not been deemed controversial present the same info that her book does. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll end this edit skirmish now, not b/c I concede the point, but for 2 unrelated reasons: First, I'm reasonably satisfied with the related site re Peters's book (and the discussion therein), which should sufficiently convince most rational people that the book is indeed an outright fraud. (FYI: I'm personally conservative, am not a Muslim or Arab, and have no personal stake in Middle East issues.) Secondly, KG (or should I call you Colin), it's abundantly clear from your other discussion postings that you're motivated more by an extremist right-wing, rabidly pro-Israel ideology than you are by objectivity and verifiable facts, at least with regards to the Israel-Palestine issue. Thankfully there are enough other contributors who are a bit more concerned with facts rather than frauds, and who rely on genuine scholars rather than pseudo-experts or right-wing sociopaths to support their claims.

The fact remains that (a) you will find the same info in books that leftist style anti-Semites have failed to discredit, (b) the book is still promoted by respected individuals like Netanyahu and appears on lists of recommended reading, (c) as Daniel Pipes review of the book clearly points out, critics have failed to overturn the central thesis of the book. Any rational individual will clearly recognize the the obvious slander and defamation aimed at trying to quell this book that is so harmful to the tired old disinformation used by pro-Palestinian propagandists. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty evident that Kuratowski's Ghost is biased against Palestinians. He refuses to consider the New York Times article by Anthony Lewis. He refuses to look at what reputed Israeli Historians (e.g. Prof. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh) had to say about the book. He completely ignores the fact that the book was completely trashed in the UK at the time. The book is no longer cited by any serious historian anywhere. The word "discredited" is an appropriate word when referring to this book. The only people he could cite in defense of his argument are: 1. Daniel Pipes - An extremist right wing writer who is well known for his Islamophobia. 2. Netanyahu - An Israeli right-wing Likudnik politician.

"the book was completely trashed in the UK at the time" Mainly because Chomsky, by his own admission, contacted several UK colleagues and urged them to go out and purchase copies to write negative reviews. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So it was all a huge conspiracy apparently. Very strange that you should suggest that a single Jewish individual is apparently so powerful as to control the entire narrative on their own.2601:140:8900:2070:2587:FC68:B5DE:F25D (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Peters's Book is Discredited

Yehoshua Ben-Arieh condemned the Peters book for discrediting the "Zionist cause". Leon Wieseltier called it a "shabby performance by an ignorant women". When the book was released in England it was really trashed by Albert Hourani the Oxford orientalist, Ian and David Gilmour from the London Review of Books, and Avishai Margalit of Hebrew University. Also see Anthony Lewis, "There Were No Indians," New York Times, January 13, 1986, p. A15. Just grabbing a basic history book "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" off my shelf I turned to the second chapter pg. 44 footnote 11, it says her claims were "rejected by scholars."

Read the articles in Captialism Magazine and Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 126-134

The scholarly consensus of those who are experts in the Pre-Israeli State history is very clear cut: they universally dismiss the work as worthless, except as a discredited propaganda piece, and fraud. No serious scholar in the field takes this work seriously. To suggest otherwise, is to get it wrong.76.14.42.200 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

-notably, she falsifies citations EG Chapter 2: "14. "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre . . . like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, at Cairo press conference, May 15, 1948, New York Times, May 16, 1948." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.164.64 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New text

The new text by user Hadan strays into original research and can't stand even though I personally agree with it. I just thought I'd note something funny I found at the far-right propaganda site eretzyisroel.org [1]. It is supposedly an interview with Peters about her background.

Q: What precipitated your interest in the history of the Middle East?

A: I was sent there by CBS for the 1973 Yom Kippur War to do a series of documentaries. I stayed for the war and its aftermath -- it became a very long process.

According to Ms Peters, CBS knew when the Yom Kippur War would happen even though the Mossad and Israeli military intelligence were taken by complete surprise! Zero^talk 23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing only Norman Finkelstein in the openning section

The opinion of Mr Finkelstein is as important as anybody else's opinion. Therefore citing him as if his view closes the subjuct is biased. WP:NPOV. Refering to his work, among others is more balanced. Bbeehvh (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As you see in this old version of your, the criticism by Finkelstein was much prominently placed. I have move the book issue to its own section to allow the the positive aspects of Peters' career to dominate the lede. All your so far edits seem to be one sided POV pushing. I this case you are pushing the POV too far. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

finkelstein

"Finkelstein accused Alan Dershowitz of plagiarising From Time Immemorial on the background of, amongst other things, identical misquotations of Mark Twain" --- this is bad writing (what does "on the background" mean?), also the source given does not indicate "identical misquotations". Peters quoted from a 1881 edition of Twain with one serious sin (joining two passages together as if they were continuous). Dershowitz copied the text including the same ellipses and the same sin, and also the same page numbers, from Peters, but cited a 1996 edition that has the text on different pages. (Details in Beyond Chutzpah p275.) I'm not sure this belongs here, as it is more about Dershowitz than Peters. The episode deserves mention but maybe a more generic statement without Twain would be better? Zero^talk 06:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The episode is covered in detail in the article about the book, and IMHO should not be covered in an article about Peters. Bbeehvh (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The book From Time Immemorial and the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair both have their own articles. They are highly notable. The inclusion of the short references here is thus fully justified. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of a short reference to Finkelstein is justified.

The inclusion of his uncivil words as if they are the last judgement is hardly justified. The inclusion of ONLY his words, as if there is no other side is highly biased.

Bbeehvh (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased presentation

The current presentation sugests that the argument has ended by proving the book is a fraud. This view is clearly biased. It is fair to cite whoever you wish that opposed the book, but the argument is clearly not at end. I added the last words of supporters to show just that.Bbeehvh 19:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, it is worth noting that the entire section is non-policy-compliant. What should be mentioned in the section is the following:

1. What From Time Immemorial is about
2. Praise and criticism that the book received by notable figures in notable publications
3. The Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

Currently the section lists some superfluous information, including criticism from a blog (Counterpunch). Feel free to rework the structure of the section, and I might help along the way. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the general consensus is that the book is garbage. This seems to be the case here. For example the New York times book review calls it ""sheer forgery," stating that "[i]n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon."" . In the NEW York review of Books her writing was called "highly tendentious use — or neglect — of the available source material'. But more crucial, he wrote, "is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements."" These are not fringe publications. Infact I don't know of two more respected book reviewing publications. And if anything they are known for being supportive of Israel over Palestine. It is simply the general consensus that her book is not a serious scholarly piece. Its unfortunate the article does not represent this well sourced fact. 97.91.187.111 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Finklestein proved the book was a fraud; you can call him anti-Israeli all you like but his evidence is irrefutable and backed up by peer review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.115.105 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The book itself is the source

I added to the article:

However, both migration from out of Palestine and migration from the mountainous areas of Palestine are in accord with Peters' thesis. Both support her conclusion that the population that inhabited the areas that later came under Israel's control was not indigineous to those areas, and that the fantastic grow in the Arab population of these areas could not have come from natural growth.

The source of this analysis is not my original research but comes from the book itself.

Shoplifter - had you read the book before you deleted my addition? Bbeehvh 06:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand what WP:OR entails, so I respectfully suggest that you look into the article on this issue. No matter what the book says, by using the book's claims to refute criticsm of the book is itself WP:OR since the author herself hasn't made such a refutation. You are conducting original research by rendering judgement on the content of the book as it relates to the criticism by Porath. As follows from the lede to WP:OR; "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (my emphasis). Shoplifter (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then, if a book claims A, and someone claims that A is wrong because of B, and clearly A and B are not mutualy exclusive - there is no way to point it out? Bbeehvh 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the question here isn't as clear cut. Porath claims that Peters's error lies in her overestimating the populational consequences of the coastal migration. She says in the book that population quadrupled; he says this isn't the case. She hasn't responded to his criticism. Therefore, it would be original research to juxtapose her claims as repudating his criticism, because the voice is now yours, not Peters's. Shoplifter (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What you now say on behalf of Porath is very different from what the article, as it stands now, is saying on his behalf. Perhaps what is needed is a clear explanation of Peters' thesis. Bbeehvh 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Porath argued that the available figures and sources do not indicate a "supposed quintupling" (as argued by Peters)[8] or "a substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine"[8] (as argued by Pipes). While Porath notes that "the Arab population of the coastal area of Palestine grew faster than it did in other areas,"[8] Porath argues this "[m]ore reasonably...confirms the very well-known fact that the coastal area attracted Arab villagers from the mountainous parts of Palestine who preferred the economic opportunities in the fast-growing areas of Jaffa and Haifa to the meager opportunities available in their villages"[8] rather than, as argued by Pipes, the European advancements brought by and "economic opportunity created by the Zionists."[8]"

My bad, I used the term "migration" too loosely. Porath says the increase was a consequence of Palestinians moving within their own country; Peters claims the population increase was due to migration. Notice however that Porath rejects the notion of migration from out of Palestine. If you are to make the claim that her thesis is in accord with his criticism (which it isn't, as far as I can tell), you would have to source this with citations from the book (see WP:V) . Her thesis is sufficiently described in the book's article, I think. If you want to extend the description in that article, you are free to do so, as long as you relate the claims of the book (with footnotes), and not your own views or interpretations of its content. Shoplifter (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the text about the book on this page is very dense and ill structured. Would you (and everyone else reading this, obviously) be opposed to removing it and focusing the discussion to the book's own article instead? Shoplifter (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are very right. I suggest that this article will only mention the book, as it is part of her biography, and will then refer the reader to the article about the book. Bbeehvh 05:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the text. I think it's sufficient to point to the main article since the book is already mentioned in the beginning. Shoplifter (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Now we can continue the discussion over there, and perhaps with the current atmosphere of cooperation we may come to an agreement. Bbeehvh 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding opinions about the book - not here

There is a room for your opinion about the book, and it is not here. We have a long article about the various views of the book. If you add the negative views here, someone will, of course, add the positive ones, and we have that article copied here. Bbeehvh 04:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted the edit. I would however be extremely interested in reading the JSTOR article that's linked to in full, as the assertion made by the editor contradicts what I know about the history of this book. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Check your email. Zero^talk 02:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen an example where there is no summary given for the main article. I am going to add a summary per standard practice. Dlv999 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research?

"She is currently an advisor for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. [2]" – How do we know that the "Joan Peters" listed there with no information is this one? Zero^talk 08:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, all of the sources in the lead seem pretty ropey:-

• Indiana Jewish Historical Society's self-published material about their own board members. [3]
• A corporate booking agent [4]
• The National Committee on American Foreign Policy page, which list the name "Joan Peters" but offers no further details. [5] Dlv999 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

She is also reported here as such : [6]. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Total bias

Following Nishidani's edit, shall I ask: Where in Norman Finkelstein's lead section is there criticism of him? There's none, so you did you say so, Nishidani? Also, could you please show me another example in the entire English Wikipedia where the lead section of an author is solely dedicated to information about criticism and attacks of his/her book? Followed by a bunch of links, which all but one attack that book? This info is POV-pushing of WP:UNDUE weight material. That book, From Time Immemorial, has its own article. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Try and read my edit-sumnmary. if you can't understand it, there are dictionaries on the net that provide assistance. You removed from the article a mass of material. I restored it suggesting your remark about the lead suggests that, even from your view, the material should not be erased, but moved down into a controversy section. POV pushers customarily cancel obliterate excise good material on a technical excuse when, since the aim here is to build an encyclopedia, the neutral constructive thing to do is to relocate it. The retention of information adequately sourced is not POV pushing. So by all means create a controversy section, and relocate it there. The fact that her (assuming she wrote it) book has its own page does not mean her bio must be cleansed of the controversy surrounding its success and nonsensical content. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your wrote that the content should be "retained", which means kept, so thanks but no dictionary is needed. Yet you have not provided any other example of such an attack on an author's lead section. Any experienced user would know that this is not how to "adequately" use sources, and that all of these external links are not related to her biography - that is pathetic. I will wait for another opinion on the matter here, and if nothings comes I will edit and add another section (in a way will hopefully satisfy the "other side", which is apparently not even sure she is the writer who needs to be criticized for that book). Shalom11111 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I again suggest that you peruse, read, parse, and construe what I wrote. If you still can't grasp the point I'll rephrase it:I have no objection to that material being placed in a section below the lead. It is to be retained and relocated. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting an edit that deleted all this harmful material is not "constructive" in any way. At the article's current form, these propaganda attacks against the book better off stay out, and perhaps added appropriately and in a smaller volume later. Again, I did say the content can be added to another section. Peruse what I wrote as well (by the way, since the word "peruse" means to read something in careful way, telling someone to peruse and read is a bit gratuitous. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that material is 'harmful'? That book is now, by universal scholarly assent, first in Israel and everywhere else, a travesty of coimplex facts, and it got the reviews it merited. That is relevant to her life. One simply makes a small synthesis of her book, with a main page direct to the book. as at the Finkelstein page, and relocates the critical material to that section. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing NJBA

A National Jewish Book Award is absent from the article, I suggest adding an Awards section with the following entry.

• 1995: National Jewish Book Award in the Israel category for From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine

Lemieuxn (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation does not match text

At the start of the page, it says that the book by Peters falsely claimed that modern Palestinians are not indigenous and cites a Haaretz obituary article to prove it. The article never says those words. This is a clear example of biases that should be taken care of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisgood12345 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

Change “a controversial book that wrongfully claimed that modern Palestinians were not indigenous to Palestine” to “a book that examines the lack of evidence as to Palestinian claims of being indigenous to Israel.” 2601:282:1E80:1680:78CF:B8BB:95C6:931C (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this a change that must be made. It is "wrongful" to state that the book wrongfully claims anything if the actual wikipedia page on the book itself shows that her reception of her book is quite mixed. 204.128.182.35 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)