Talk:Joan Peters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)