Talk:Joan Peters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title: Removal

message: 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)
replies: text: Cool Kuratowski's Ghost 09:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Peters's Book is Discredited

message: 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 .  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! Zerotalk 23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citing only Norman Finkelstein in the openning section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Check your email.  Zerotalk 02:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding opinions about the book - not here 

message: "She is currently an advisor for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. "  – How do we know that the "Joan Peters" listed there with no information is this one? Zerotalk 08:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 
* A corporate booking agent 
* The National Committee on American Foreign Policy page, which list the name "Joan Peters" but offers no further details.  Dlv999 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: She is also reported here as such : . Pluto2012 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Following '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Total bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing NJBA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation does not match text 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023