Talk:From Time Immemorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	From Time Immemorial is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Salient Basic Point 2 Older Stuff 3 note to Leumi 4 "Preeminent scholar" 5 NPOV 6 Headline text 7 AaronSW's version 8 Some Neocon and pro-Israeli circles? 9 Why the new version 10 what Peters actually claims 11 the origins of the book 12 Porath political worldview 13 Finkelstein Political world view 14 Daniel Pipes' quote 15 Major Rewrite Needed 16 Book is a fraud 17 NPOV tag 18 Selective quoting 19 Paul blair section 20 This is just POV-Pushing! 21 Assessments order 22 Article the Equivalent of Holocaust Denial for palestinians 23 Reverts 24 Fair use rationale for Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg 25 Barnes & Noble reviews

[edit] Salient Basic Point

Peters was Hired by an ARAB Foundation to Come up with a History.

A history, if with any bias, that would be towards her sponsors. Alas, she found the Truth.

So now we see so many trying to Disrcedit her as if she was Theodore Herzl's daughter because her heavily footnoted book is Devastating to the Arab side.

thx, unmarc@yahoo.com

[edit] Older Stuff

The review by Paul Blair is the most level-headed. Unfortunately the scans of original documents are all broken links. They didn't used to be. --Zero 12:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First: The New York Review of Books is about as mainstream as literary criticism gets, so saying that From Time Immemorial is discredited in "some circles" obfuscates the true status of the book. Second: Even Alan Dershowitz, staunch defender of Israel, doesn't consider the book reliable (see note 31 to chapter 2 of The Case for Israel). Okay? --MIRV 23:08, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(In note 31 to chapter 2 of The Case for Israel, Dershowitz acknowledges that Peter's data has been challenged and he adds that he has "not relied on them in any way". This is very different to MIRV's above claim that Dershowitz "doesn't consider the book reliable".) --EBN 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.30.108 (talk)

How's this? "As a result of this and other critiques, the book is considered discredited in some publications, including the New York Review of books, although it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles.". Let the reader decide for themself the validity of the source. Giving it to them is enough, in order to avoid what is in this case ambigous labels.Leumi 23:19, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The New York Review of Books is mainstream literary opinion in the U.S.; it is not just "some publication", and giving it such a label is obfuscation: it implies that it is just one voice among many, when it is in fact the main literary opinionmaker. Perhaps ". . .mainstream opinion, as exemplified by The New York Review of Books. . ."? --MIRV 23:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Though the next paragraph addresses the NYRB review, so I think that would be redundant. --MIRV 23:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Exemplified? By no means. With respect that is a highly partisan manner of describing things. Furthermore terms such as "mainstream" are highly ambigious and highly subject to opinions. How about this? "As a result of this and other critiques, the book is considered discredited in the opinion of a good deal of popular publications, including The New York Review of Books". Terms such as mainstream and largely present a biased viewpoint of a highly controversial matter still under debate. This compromise shows that the opinion that it is discredited is held by many popular publications but does not use language that would imply Wikipedia endorses any particular perspective.Leumi 23:36, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The NYRB is to literary criticism what the New York Times is to reporting: the most reliable source around. Period. It's not just a "popular publication"; it is the indicator of mainstream opinion. Furthermore, yet, and moreover, Yehoshua Porath is one of the foremost authorities on the field -- history of the Palestinians -- that From Time Immemorial addresses, and he ripped the book to itty-bitty shreds. Neutrality doesn't mean obfuscation of the general consensus; we don't have to, and should not have to, imply that the beliefs in the existence and non-existence of the reptiloids are equally valid. --MIRV 23:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This may be a controversial matter but it is no longer under debate. The book was unmasked as a fraud. There is no ongoing discussion about it -- except perhaps here.-- Viajero 23:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore: The opinion, as I said, was Porath's -- the NYRB doesn't, as far as I can tell, have an official position on the books reviewed in its pages. Porath is one of the top scholars in the field of Palestinian studies, and he is in no way pro-Palestinian, yet even he thinks the book to be arrant nonsense. The debate over the book's validity has been closed, as far as I can tell, for nearly as long as I've been alive. --MIRV 00:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The fact is that there are still substantial circles who believe the book accurate, as the article itself states. Furthermore, generalizations such as "it is the indicator of mainstream opinion", "the most reliable source around" and other such things lack anything to back them up. In addition, phrases such as "the pre-eminent scholar in the field of palestinian history" don't have anything to back them up and state as fact what is obviously an opinion.

I've moved the following text here for the moment, so we can come to an agreement on it:

As a result of this and other critiques, including that of the pre-eminent scholar in the field of Palestinian history, the book is considered discredited in mainstream opinion, although it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles.

I suggest something alongst the lines "As a result of this and other critiques the book is considered discredited in many aspects of public opinion, including publications such as The New York Review of Books largely considered to be authorative voices in literary criticism, although it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles." Once again, we can't include labels without proof to back them up. This version includes the view of the NYRB in many aspects of public opinion, yet does not include aforementioned unproved labels and ambigous weasel words.Leumi 00:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's attribute the opinions to their source: Yehoshua Porath, who wrote the review, not the NYRB, which published it. Let's also note that he's a conservative Zionist Israeli, Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, editor of a proudly pro-Zionist journal, who has written extensively and authoritatively on the topic of Palestinian history, and is often cited by Zionists as support for their views -- yet he dismisses the book out of hand. (Furthermore, "many people believe it" is not an indicator of its reliability in any way; many people believe in the Reptiloids, to judge from David Icke's extensive fan club, but. . . .) --MIRV 01:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First, the page that you provided that you provided on Porath is distinctly anti-Zionist, and the information present there carries a heavy bias and inaccuracy. Furthermore, while Porath may be pro-Zionist his views are not conservative. A more accurate description would be a left wing pro-Zionist figure. Suggestion:

As a result of this and other critiques the book is considered discredited by some varying aspects of public opinion, including liberal, pro-Zionist Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath, although it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles.

Also, while the page is protected, would it not make sense to remove the controversial paragraph till some agreement is made on it?Leumi 01:34, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no concensus that it is controversial. -- Viajero 01:40, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought "journal with a distinctly pro-Zionism slant" meant "journal that is slanted in favor of Zionism". My mistake, I guess. Second: Outside of conservative circles, the book is a non-issue. Nobody has seriously debated it, as far as I can tell, since the NYRB exchange in the mid-80s. Even Alan Dershowitz says it's unreliable. And "some varying aspects of public opinion" is weaselry: conservatives, and only conservatives, take the book seriously. --MIRV 01:42, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I agree, equating "conservatives" with "people who still think FTI is credible" is in itself specious. None of us can say with any certainty whether there are also many conservatives who believe the book has been discredited and/or liberals who don't. I think it would be most accurate to simply state that there is a sizeable portion of the general public that believe in its credibility, despite being discredited during the peer-reviewal process--EthanAY 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, as I stated above, the link you provide is a highly biased one, and it's information should not be taken at face value. As I stated before, while Porath is pro-Zionist in principle, he is not conservative, and furthermore the field of those who are "pro-Zionist" is a wide and varying one, containing liberals, conservatives, moderates, independents and others. Simply stating pro-Zionist and immediately equating that with conservative is misleading and inaccurate. Furthermore, some of the books critics, while pointing out that some mistakes have been made in it's citations and the like, agree that it's thesis is accurate. By grouping all criticism of the book into disagreeing with it's thesis, an inaccurate picture of it is presented.Leumi 01:54, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First: Sorry, you're right, that link is bad. Azure's homepage has better information about the publication. The point remains, though: Porath is a Zionist with ample credentials in the field of Palestinian history. Second: When did I equate "conservative" with "Zionist"? Please don't misquote me -- I thought Porath was a conservative Zionist, but perhaps I was mistaken; Chomsky called him a conservative, but coming from Chomsky, I suppose that means what I would call "centrist" to "center-left". Please provide something to back up your assessment of Porath as "liberal". --MIRV 02:04, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

some of the books critics, while pointing out that some mistakes have been made in it's citations and the like, agree that it's thesis is accurate. Yes Leumi, we acknowledge that in the article; as you may have fogotten, we quote Pipes to that effect several paragraphs down. -- Viajero 02:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Porath's reputation in Israel today is of being quite right-wing. However his opinion on this book is similar to that of the majority of Israeli historians. They regard it as amateurish propaganda. According to Porath "In Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganga weapon." --Zero 02:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My suggestion: Why not just leave out the sentence "As a result of this and other critiques, including that of the pre-eminent scholar in the field of Palestinian history, the book is considered discredited in mainstream opinion, although it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles." (or its other incarnations) entirely? I'd be happy just to see a slightly wider range of opinion quoted, then readers can judge for themselves. I'll contribute an important negative one from NYT Nov 28, 1985, but at least one more positive opinion should be added as well.

I think that she's cooked the statistics. I think the right-wingers in Israel have an interest in cooking the statistics. The scholarship is phony and tendentious. I do not believe that she has read the Arabic sources that she quotes.
--Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, professor of religion at Dartmouth College and vice-president of the World Jewish Congress.

Hertzberg is certainly considered mainstream by a great many in the US Jewish community (except by those to his right, and those to his left ;-). --Zero 02:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Though I consider Porath's opinion to be the most reliable, it being the best-studied and researched of any I've heard, I certainly wouldn't object to presenting a wider range of opinion on the book. This sounds fair. --MIRV 02:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...a couple of thoughts. In the first place, are there any actual, you know, scholars of the Middle East who find Peters to be reliable (no, Daniel Pipes doesn't count)? Second, should there really be an entire article for this book? Shouldn't the article be under Joan Peters? john 03:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I could hit the libraries tomorrow and see if any books on the Palestinian question published since 1984 cite her -- but considering that even Alan Dershowitz, as I've said before, considers FTI an unreliable source, I very much doubt that I'll have any luck. It's a good question, though, and thanks for bringing it up -- citation by others is a good way to establish the scholarly reputation of a book. --MIRV 03:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did a full-text search in a lot of academic journals, including some of the leading M.E. journals like "Israel Studies" and "The Middle East Journal". Usually the electronic archive does not extend back to 1984 when Peters' book was published, so some early citations could be missed. I found extremely little. Israel Studies ignores TFI completely. MEJ had a review of a book of Finkelstein in 1997 which is critical of some of Finkelstein's work but on the matter of Peters says "Finkelstein destroys Peters' already discredited thesis". Middle Eastern Studies has one mention (1999 article) to her main thesis as "long since fallen into disuse in serious Israeli historiography". Middle East Policy (1999 review of another book) refers to Peters' "tendentious (and largely fraudulent) book" (but I'm not sure if MEP is a refereed journal). The only positive citation I found was in Mediterranean Quarterly (2003) where someone copied a quotation from "Mojli Amin" from FTI. Porath claims that Mojli Amin is someone nobody ever heard of and the source of the quotation is a forged pamphlet.
--
The thing to remember here is that Peters is not a historian and did not produce anything of interest to historians. All the various government reports, diplomatic dispatches, etc, that she cites had been well studied already. It is pretty unlikely that someone like Peters could discover anything new in the same files that had been worked over by the professionals.
--Zero 05:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The link to a positive review by some guy with a geocities site should be removed. There is no reason to think that Martin Kramer has any particular insight into this book. john 06:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know -- Martin Kramer is one of Daniel Pipes' academic cronies, involved in Campus Watch and suchlike. He's a scholar of the Middle East, even if he does have a Geocities website. --MIRV 17:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would be useful to create articles for these lesser-known people, then the interested reader could follow the trail of who is saying what about who. A factual article about Kramer would help WP editors of related articles figure out how much to trust his material. Stan 17:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, he does seem to have the creds - PhD from Princeton, and so forth. I withdraw my complaint. john 20:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Look, first I don't see why you automatically disqualify Pipes as "counting", to use your words. He has more than sufficient credentials and though controversial should certainly be included if Finkelstein is, as he is by no means less respected in mainstream opinion as him. Furthermore, Dershowitz falls more under the category of someone who notes some errors in the citations of the book, yet agrees with it's thesis, as an analyzing of both books will show. Indeed, that agreement of the thesis was one of the reasons Dershowitz was accused of plaigarism.Leumi 00:14, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pipes has an axe to grind. My understanding is also that his PhD is not actually in Middle Eastern history, although I imagine I could be proven wrong. And according to his own biography he cannot read Hebrew, and cannot speak either Hebrew or Arabic... john 00:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With respect, in politics, and especially in the middle east, absolutely everybody has "an axe to grind". He has a degree in Medieval Islamic History, I believe, which relates to the middle east. I suppose one could make an arguement that it has less of a relationship to the modern middle east, however it shows sufficient interest in the region to imply further research into current affairs, especially considering other creditiontials of his. I do see how one could interpret it otherwise though. He's been nominated to a federal thinktank of late, which counts for a substantial something, I believe. Leumi 00:41, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody has an axe to grind. But Pipes more than most. I mean, while he has the degree, he's not really a scholarly writer. He's a polemicist and an editorialist. And not speaking Arabic is really pretty weak, for someone who pretends to be an expert on the modern Arab world. As far as being nominated by President Bush for whatever it was, that counts for precisely nothing as far as his academic standing, I should think. john 00:44, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In your eyes, perhaps (and I'm not a fan of Bush either, trust me) but it does mean he carries mainstream opinion, whatever we think of the President's views or the intelligence of the said mainstream. Furthermore, I don't really see why not speaking the language disqualifies one for a knowledge on the political situation as to how it relates to us. If you look at the sheer lack of people who speak Arabic in general, or the amount of critics of Israel who don't speak Hebrew, or critics of Vietnam who don't speak Vietnamese, well the point is that speaking the language is by no means a requirement to understanding the political situation in today's world, where almost every major press release or public document is translated into more than several languages. Leumi 00:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This book claims to be a work of history, so the real question is, do any serious scholars in this area find Peters to be a good source? Does anyone besides Pipes cite the book as a reliable scholarly work? Zero has turned up just about nothing in academic journals; I have a list of books at McGill's libraries that relate to the Palestinian question, which I am willing to check for references to From Time Immemorial if I can find my damn library card. Leumi, why don't you find some book or journal -- something academic, free from overt political intent -- that cites Peters without qualification (e.g. "The book is not considered reliable" or somesuch)? That would help establish the case in its favor, if there is any such case. (And not speaking Arabic would, I think, disqualify anyone who claims to be a serious student of Middle Eastern history -- as I've found in my admittedly amateurish forays into the area, most of the written record from the Arab conquest on is in untranslated Arabic.)

Furthermore: Pipes does not "carry" mainstream opinion. There are many who disagree, publicly and loudly, with what he says. --MIRV 00:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, Pipes supposedly reads Arabic. It says on his official bio on his website that he speaks French and reads Arabic and German. So I suppose we could imagine that he reads enough Arabic to do historical research of whatever sort he's supposed to do, although my experience with grad students being able to "read" foreign languages (e.g. my ability to "read" German) leads me to suspect that his abilities would be rather limited (otherwise, wouldn't he claim to speak it?). But, I mean, of course not speaking Arabic doesn't disqualify you from having an opinion on Middle Eastern politics. It mostly certainly disqualifies you from being a serious scholar of Arab history or politics. john 01:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But to put things in perspective, no one here is actually qualified to pass judgment on Pipes' competence or lack thereof. One is on dangerous ground trying to edit content on the basis of personal opinion about which professional scholars are more worthy of being used as an authority. The only people who can judge whether Pipes is a "serious scholar" are his peers - quote them, not yourself. Stan 17:31, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, A JSTOR search suggests that Pipes does seem to get reviewed regularly in political science journals. So I suppose he qualifies as an expert, unfortunately. john 17:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To get back to the question of scholarly opinion of Peters's book, I note John Ruedy's absolutely scathing review in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, which concludes: "If From Time Immemorial had not been promoted by the publisher as a landmark of scholarship that had produced truly revolutionary findings, it should not have been reviewed in a scholarly journal. From Time Immemorial is not a serious book. My fear is that many readers for years to come will not understand that." Robert Olson in AHR also gives an extremely negative review. Bill Farrell's review in the Journal of Palestine Studies is also extremely negative. These are pretty much all of the actual scholarly journal reviews of Ms. Peters's book, beyond some stuff from Edward Said in the Journal of Palestine Studies, which one ought to take with more than a grain of salt. There certainly aren't any positive reviews... john 18:33, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, uh, why aren't you mentioning these reviewers in the article? That's exactly where WP can add value not found elsewhere, by linking book, author, content, and reviews all together. There is certainly room to mention five reviews, and it's not POV to mention all of them, even if four are negative - that is simply reporting the objective data that is available. Stan 00:55, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I too would like to see those views mentioned in the article, but the page is protected right now. Once it's unprotected, we should definitely make these opinions known; as everyone but Leumi has been saying, this book is simply not taken seriously by scholars of the Middle East -- besides Daniel Pipes, of course, but as I think we all understand, he's not an unbiased source. --MIRV 08:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] note to Leumi

Leumi,

Apropos of the discussion above, I would like to make the following observations. For the sake of argument -- and correct me if you think I am wrong -- you represent a conservative Jewish, pro-Israel point of view (I am sure we can all be pigeonholed as such; this is just an exercise). Now from my point of view as, let's say, protestant, liberal, anti-militarist, I am more than happy to have you go through every article in Wikipedia on the Middle East to ensure that your perspective, however one labels it, is included. To me, this would increase the credibility of the project.

However, my impression now is that what you are doing is not simply ensuring that WP includes your POV but in fact reflects it. Here, in this article, you are trying to weaken our formulation that "mainstream opinion regards the book as discredited," and hence we get involved in the tortuous kinds of discussions above in trying to resolve these kinds of things. Truth is, you are never going to be convinced by our arguments and we will not be convinced by yours. Why don't we simply accept that? As Ed Poor reminded us last week, we don't have to solve these controversies, only describe them. But right now we are trying to solve this one. How about dedicating yourself solely to ensuring that your POV is heard in each of these articles, as one voice among many? If an article such as this one offers Daniel Pipes as a supporting POV, isn't this enough for you?

We really need to reach some kind of general agreement on this, otherwise we are going to remain mired in these endless discussions and edit wars in all of these articles. Even though you don't agree with our formulation, even if you think it is incorrect, please accept it, otherwise we will never be able to move forward. Jimbo has said in the past that for a controversial topic no one will ever be completely happy with an article; the best we can hope for is that no one has any major objections. Can we accept this modest goal as a starting point? Can you accept an article that is less than ideal?

--Viajero 13:31, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Preeminent scholar"

Re: this sentence in the article: "As a result of many critiques, including that of the pre-eminent scholar in the field of Palestinian history, the book is considered discredited in mainstream opinion, though it is still respected and referred to in conservative circles." So who is this "preeminent scholar"? Someone should either identify that person or remove this sentence. --Lowellian 23:32, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

It's the Israeli scholar who wrote the NYRB review. He is named at some point in the article, I believe. john 07:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So is it Porath or not? If it is, the sentence should be re-worded to make this more clear. Jayjg 16:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero, it's much clearer now. Jayjg 22:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have marked this article NPOV. The book in question is in use as a text book, has won an award and is recommended by such prominent leaders as Binyamin Netanyahu. The most vocal detractors of the book are individuals like Chomsky who is widely regarded as raving loonie and the so called "new historians" who are a bunch of rather nauseating pseudo-intellectuals who make a living by writing deliberately outrageous revisionist history. Their criticism of the book only serves to bolster positive attitudes towards it amongst more sober thinking people. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted a NPOV article on the book replacing the radical left ranting and hodge podge quotations from POV articles appearing in the external links. And BTW NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to bizarre conspiracy theories. Kuratowski's Ghost 04:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost's version is absurd. The book is pretty clearly nonsense, and Porath, for instance, is clearly not a Chomskyite. Aaronsw's version seems equally bad. I'm reverting to the previous version of the article, from November 28. john k 06:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look I'm trying to provide a rational article that explains the controversy surrounding the book while at the some time being truthful about its status viz. that it is still highly respected and in use and that no one has ever refuted its central thesis, indeed what it was saying was not even new information and moreover has been said again in many other books. A lot of the criticism of the book is politically motivated nonsense like Finkelstein and Chomsky's bizarre claims and such views should not be viewed as absolute truth, I mean come on, Peters exists and it is fact that Finkelsteins criticisms failed peer review. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok I'm bored with this, someone with a clue please rewrite the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not highly respected, its central thesis has been refuted several times. As far as I am aware, every serious scholar finds its central thesis to be garbage, and its use of evidence to be questionable at best. You can keep living in your fantasy world, but don't be surprised when other people call you on it. john k 16:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The central thesis of the book is pretty much accepted history, the only thing the book did was explicitly point it to mass readership. There are many books and articles saying the exact same things about the origin of the Palestinian Arabs. Neither Porath or anyone else has seriously challenged the central thesis of the book. The people who gave the book positive reviews stick by those reviews. It is pretty clear that the article is deliberately POV and aimed at discrediting the book and author by presenting vocal but nevertheless fringe opinions while ignoring the mainstream view of it. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notice also that the primary references for the current version of the article are still Chomsky and Finkelstein neither of whom are highly regarded by the mainstream to say the least. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not a great article, but KG's version is far worse. Nobody with any knowledge of the professional literature could honestly claim that Peters' thesis is accepted history. Actually (and I speak as someone who has studied this in detail and is familiar with the academic literature) she is pointedly ignored. This includes the scholars who praised her book -- none of them except maybe Pipes have cited Peters as a source in their own writings. The only mentions one can find are dismissive.

What about Pasko, Basch, Winston, Farah? Kuratowski's Ghost 04:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

None of them are scholars at all, let alone scholars in the appropriate specialty. Pasko is "AN INDEPENDENT ANALYST AND CONSULTANT. HE HAS A MASTER'S DEGREE" (copy-paste from his home page, sorry about caps). Basch is an "architect and city planner"(!) who is an "expert on Shakespeare" (actually he is a hidden-messages-in-Shakespeare crackpot). Winston is an "analyst and commentator". Farah is a well-known propagandist. All of them write for right-wing publications or web sites and never wrote serious history to the best of my knowledge. Real historians like Porath or McCarthy would eat them for breakfast. --Zero 10:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basch isn't a "hidden messages crackpot", he promotes the idea that Shakespear was an Hebraist and possibly of Jewish extraction which isn't really a new idea. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nah, he's a crackpot who looks for messages hidden in the text. [1] --Zero 07:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote on this once before (see "I did a full-text search..." above). Another example of the academic attitude to Peters can be found in J. McCarthy, The Population of Palestine (McCarthy is a specialist in Ottoman demography) who dismisses Peters' work as worthless. --Zero 01:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You won't find academics citing it as an academic reference because it isn't an academic paper its a book for the layman. My own research on the subject for assignments back in 80's came to essentially the same conclusions as Peters and this was before her book was published and before I had heard of her. My fellow students came to basically the same conclusions in their research. Following the publication of the book and the subsequent reactions, the book was put on the recommended reading list for the course I did. On the other hand I have yet to meet someone who takes people like Chomsky and Finkelstein seriously as opposed to merely reading their work for amusement at how whacky they are. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky is irrelevant (and I would delete him from the intro). Finkelstein wrote the longest and most extensive critique of Peters and for the most part he is right. I know this because I checked most of what he wrote against the primary sources. Porath is the pre-eminent Israeli historian of the Palestinians. When he wrote that Peters' book was dismissed as rubbish by his Israeli colleagues, he was writing the truth. McCarthy is one of the two or three most respected demographers of the Ottoman empire. He wrote "myriad methodological and factual errors make Peters' work demographically worthless". He was right. Finally, to address your point, the academic literature does not agree with Peters; it is not just a matter of not citing it. Peters' ideas are regarded as trash by the specialists. --Zero 10:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This boils down to personal disagreement about interpretation of the same data most of which is of minor importance to the central thesis of the book. And prima-donnaist statements like "dismissed as rubbish" isn't valid form academic criticism. Are you trying to tell me that you and also Porath believe that the Palestinian Arabs are all descended from 7th century Arabs who sat quietly in the land for thousands of years without any population movement or worse that they are really Canaanites and Philistines who suddenly emerged from the woodwork? I don't know a single serious historian who would believe such nonsense. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you check peoples reviews on Amazon you see that overall more people hold positive views than negative, it is not just a case of virtually no one except a small group of neo-conservatives holding it in high regard. The main detractors of the book are not held in high regard by conservatives and conservatives are not an irrelevant minority. This review from Amazon reflects what a lot of conservatives feel:

This is a rather tame book about the Arab war against Israel ... Most of what is in the book is well-known history and would be unremarkable were it not for some incredible fabrications in books by people such as Shahak, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe, Hirst, and Said. Probably the contamination of the international information supply with these ad hoc antizionist untruths is a more serious aspect of the Arab war against Israel than the actual terror and aggression. For that reason, a book such as this one is a good place to start to try to learn something about the problem.

The book says that the Palestinians largely came after the First World War. To say that is rubbish is not the same thing as to say that they all had been there since the 7th Century. And Amazon reviews are an amazingly horrible way to gauge a book. For one thing, they are biased towards positive reviews, because people who read a non-fiction book polemic (particularly one which is generally seen to have been discredited) very likely already agree with its conclusions. john k 18:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many "Palestinians" did come only under the British, the debate is over exact numbers and is complicated by the question of how many people who were not ethnic Arabs later considered themselves to be Arab. There is a difference between arguing precise figures and saying the whole idea of Arabs arriving under the British is rubbish. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question here is whether an economically or demographically signficant number of Palestinians were recent immigrants. There is no debate about that amongst the specialists. They have established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of immigration was smaller than that. It is only fanatics and propagandists like Joan Peters who claim otherwise. --Zero 07:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Define significant. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10% of the natural increase (births over deaths) would be significant. --Zero 13:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look. For the purposes of the encyclopedia article, whether the book is widely accepted or not is irrelevant. The article doesn't say it is nor should it. NPOV means we deal in verifiable facts, not in things which are subjective or disputed (even if we feel the disputes are silly). If there is a specific statement in the article you disagree with, let us know. If you have additional facts you'd like to add to the article, please do so. But the whole point of NPOV is that there's no need to argue over conclusions, since we don't take positions on them. AaronSw 23:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been several days without specifics. I'm removing the NPOV tag. If anyone has specific complaints, please try to bring them up here or fix them in the page before throwing the label back on. (Note that fixing a specific complaint does not mean reverting whole chunks of the page...) AaronSw 15:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put back the NPOV, just because people are too busy to undo the insistent Anti-Zionist drivel in the article (which the Anti-Semites Anti-Zionists will just revert anyway) doesn't mean that there is agreement. If one does a bit of research on Joan Peters one will find mention of the smear campaign against her and it is pretty clear that this article is just another part of that campaign. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

KG: Unfortunately the reality of the situation does not happen to correspond with your opinions on these matters. Peter's book has in fact been proven to be fraudulant on numerous occasions. I suggest you consider the objective facts.

Barring any complaints I am removing the NPOV tag as it was. --68.57.8.167 06:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reality of the situation is that the book is still recommended by prominant political commentators as well as highly regarded politicians like Binyamin Netanyahu. While detractors will call the book fraudulent, defenders will say that the critiques of the book are fraudulent (Edward Said being a good example of an exposed fraud). Speak to defenders abour Porath and you hear that he "massages" and "corrects" his data to produce his conclusions. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The facts of the matter are as follows:

the book in question is endorsed by many of the worlds most prominant historians such as Barbara Tuchman, regarded by many as one of the prime historians of all time

the book is endorsed by the new york times, and the author was a white house consultant on the middle east

she has 120 pages of notes with included works cited, as well as a works cited list, and describes in detail how to get to her sources.(and there are quotes and sources backing up her opinion on almost every page.)

FURTHERMORE, THOSE WHO HAVE NOT READ A BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETY SHOULD NOT POST ON IT

---

[edit] Headline text

[edit] AaronSW's version

Regarding AaronSW's version there were some obvious POV problems with is. For example, as pointed out by John Kenney, the opening paragraph had a ridiculous conspiracy theory slant to it (e.g. "apparently written by Joan Peters (although Noam Chomsky suggests "probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency or something like that")). If you want to include Chomsky's unsubstantiated and rather farfetched claim, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't belong in the intro. As well, it quotes "Understanding Power" in a way that is contrary to NPOV, uses highly POV phrases (e.g. "Conservatives, apparently ignoring Finkelstein's work", "It also continues to receive accolades from some conservatives, although they do not appear to have responded in substance to Finkelstein's charges." etc.). Finally, the "biography" AaronSW created a the Joan Peters article is not a biography at all, but rather a silly smear job; none of her career or life is described, and most of it consists of an insult from Norman Finkelstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg about AaronSW's version, while adding that K's Ghost's additions are just as bad. We can do without both. --Zero 00:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it really funny that by not taking a position on a matter of controversy (the definition of NPOV) I'm being POV! (I refer, of course, to the author of the book.) As I've said before, I, as much as anyone, would like that line out of the article's intro, but I don't see how to do it while being fair.

I don't see how quoting something can be contrary to NPOV nor do I see what's POV about those phrases, which seem to be accurate and undisputed. Finally, I did not describe Peters's career because, as far as I can tell, outside this book she does not seem to have much of one (which may explain, in part, Chomsky's claim).

Wikipedia works through a process of addition, not deletion. If you think a fact is wrong, correct it. If you think an article is slanted, add your side. But just deleting someone's work is rude and inappropriate. I've tried my best to incorporate the changes made by everyone, I think I should be accorded the same respect in return. AaronSw 04:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Peters wrote the book, Chomsky has not provided any reasonable evidence that she didn't, and no-one else seems to hold this view. If Michael Moore were to say George W. Bush is a bastard, NPOV does not demand we say "His father was allegedly George Bush Sr., though Michael Moore claims he is a bastard." As for Peters not having much of a career, the link from the article states Ms. Peters served as White House Adviser on American Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the Carter Administration. She has lectured at the U.S. State Department and at foreign policy institutions in the U.S. and abroad. Ms. Peters has addressed many thousands of community events, as well as colleges and universities around the U.S. as well as in England, Canada and Israel. She has appeared on more than two hundred radio and television discussion or talk shows and has participated in numerous symposia here and abroad about the Arab-Jewish relations and related subjects. Ms. Peters has conducted many fact-finding missions to Israel, Syria, Egypt, and other areas. She produced a series of CBS News documentaries about the wars in the Middle East and has acted as a foreign affairs commentator on Public Television. She has contributed to Harper's, Commentary, The New Republic, The New Leader, and other periodicals. Ms. Peters currently ís an advisor, trustee and Executive Committee member of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy based in New York." Yet none of that managed to make its way into the article you wrote; instead it mostly consists of an insult by Norman Finkelstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe Peters wasn't the primary author of the book apart from the bits she lifted out of earlier books. Chomsky's remark does not belong in the article. As to Peters' background, since Peters has her own article this article is not the place for either an extensive recitation or an abrupt dismissal either. (Actually I would want to verify some of the claims on her web page, but that's another issue.) --Zero 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be about the book not Peters; I was merely responding to Aaronsw's claim that she didn't have a career. And I haven't entered the information from the website into the Peters biography Aaronsw created because I didn't have time to verify the statements there from another source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well we're back to the Chomskyite version sans initial conspiracy quote. As the article admits in a round about way, Finkelstein's critique failed peer review and was eventually only published in a leftwing rag. The reality is that when something isn't accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal it is because it has been reviewed by experts and found wanting, not because of a conspiracy against the author.

Which peer-reviewed journal was Peters' "research" published in? Which articles in a peer-reviewed journal cited Peters approvingly? --Zero 11:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None because it was never intended to be an academic work, but a book for the layman. Criticizing a work for the layman for not conforming to the style and standards of academic journals is dumb. Finkelstein on the other hand submitted his work for publication in peer reviewed journals. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then we have the Makrizi nonsense, Peters actually quotes from a book about Makrizi written in the 20th century (1930s?) The elipses comment refers to a section of a quote not even relevant to the point being made, so one can argue its sloppy style but nothing sinister - critiques of Peters tend to focus on this sort of sloppiness which is typical of most books written for the layman but always ignored except when it comes to the smear campaign against Peters. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I agree this is not a good example of Peters' deceptions. It is merely unprofessional carelessness. I'll replace it by a better example. (I have many at hand but Wikipedia rules say that I have to quote from published sources rather than my own work.) --Zero 11:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some Neocon and pro-Israeli circles?

The current version of the articles implies that the book is only highly regarded by a small minority yet this is clearly not the case. Porath is also extremely left wing in his views and his comments appear mostly on pro-Palestinian sites. I attempted to write a more balanced view but of course it was reverted in seconds. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even the quote by Daniel Pipes (the rightwinger) is very critical of the book. Cite your source to show that Porath is "extremely left wing." OneGuy 01:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Porath is a member of the ultra-leftwing minority political party Meretz which has a strong pro-Palestinian bias. Pipes is critical more of the style of the book than of its central thesis. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROFL!! KG, you are a real gem. Porath is a well-known right-winger. For example, here he is called a "hard-nosed academic critic of Oslo and the peace process". Yeah, sounds just like one of those pinko Meretzniks! --Zero 22:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well surprise surprise, shows what you know :P Porath stood for Knesset as a member of Meretz and was also involved in Peace Now. Yes he is highly critical of Oslo but is still left wing. Oslo didn't produce results, everyone left and right is critical of it. Not sure if he has any involvement with these movements at present, they both had a lot of disillusioned members who left Kuratowski's Ghost 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Porath was in Meretz once but he had a very public conversion to the right and has been a spokesperson of the right-wing ever since. Of course, from where you are standing most people on earth are extreme leftists. --Zero 10:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the website calling him "leftist" also claims that he voted for Netanyahu in 1996 election. Some kind of "leftist" to vote for Netanyahu OneGuy 22:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Netanyahu is essentially left of centre, he supports the current Gaza expulsion plan for example, something that no true rightwinger would do. The problem with guys like you is that you consider anyone who is even slightly peeved by terrorists to be right wing :P Kuratowski's Ghost 00:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The people who consider Porath to be right wing are the types who considered Arafat to be "moderate" Kuratowski's Ghost 11:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the new version

With many thanks to jayjg, I have removed the Chomsky quote (although, for the record, Finkelstein has made similar comments, two people does seem to qualify as small). And while I have not verified Kuratowksi's Ghost's comments about the Makrizi incident, I have removed the quote from the London Review of Books about it. In response to John Kenney, I have removed some of the later references to Finkelstein.

John would like to know why my version is better than the "consensus version". First, it is more accurate: it describes Finkelstein's work, Chomsky mailing it to the British reviewers, and the subsequent negative British reviews. It appears the negative British reviews were the cause of Porath's review so omitting them gives a distorted view of what happened. (Indeed, it appears Finkelstein's worked followed Porath's, rather than the other way around.) Second, it is more detailed, featuring quotes showing how the mainstream supported the book as well as outside quotes from Porath stating his views more frankly.

You've removed most of the obvious POV and bias, I'll give you that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The version still reads like POV diatribe. Take this paragraph:

Finkelstein continued trying to publicize his research, to little avail; the book continued to receive positive reviews. However, according to Chomsky, things became quite difficult for Finkelstein at Princeton: his professors "wouldn't make appointments with him, they wouldn't read his papers, he basically had to quit the program." Chomsky also says that professors called Finkelstein saying things like "Look, call off your crusade; you drop this and we'll take care of you, we'll make sure you get a job" but Finkelstein refused.

"Finkelstein continued trying to publicize his research, to little avail." This claim is presented as a fact. The whole paragraph has nothing to do with the book and is taken from Chomsky's "The Fate of an Honest Intellectual."

Next paragraph:

When it was announced the book was to be published in Britain, Chomsky sent copies of Finkelstein's work to the relevant scholars in the country. It was then heavily used in British reviews of the book, which was widely considered to be academically worthless

All these claims about how British reviewers used something Chomsky sent them, and that the book was "widely considered to be academically worthless" are taken from Chomsky's essay/speech, but are presented here as facts. Next there are two quotes and the link goes to Chomsky's essay, not to the original source. Why only these quotes? Was there no one in Britain who said anything positive about the book?

Next, you have After the negative British reviews, the American community retracted some of their support for the book. Again, the claim is taken from Chomsky and presented here as a fact. OneGuy 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the less obvious bias was the fact that Chomsky's article was quoted as "gospel". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current article is still not neutral. It still claims that the books is "widely seen as having been discredited". The book is only regarded as being discredited by the political left. The fact that it is still highly recommended by prominant right wing political commentators and politicians and continues to receive positive reviews from readers shows that it is not considered discredited by the right. Defenders of the book are also not a minority as the article tries to falsely impy by the use of "some neoconservative or pro-Israeli circles". The claim that it is widely discredited in fact clashes with the point made in the quote from Pipes at the end of the article: "She supports this argument with an array of demographic statistics and contemporary accounts, the bulk of which have not been questioned by any reviewer, including Professor Porath." Give equal weight at the beginning of the Assessments to both the leftwing claim that it is discredited and the rightwing defense that it has not and I'll be satisfied. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like those sentences either and rewote them. Thank you for the phrase "prominent right wing political commentators and politicians". You are wrong about the circles who regard it as discredited. Pipes is also wrong in what he writes, as Peters' main thesis about the first half of the 20th century has been examined and dismissed by a long line of experts, starting with British statisticians who had full access to the data (there is a whole section on it in the 1931 census report, which Peters somehow forgot to mention). A recent example is the demographer Justin McCarthy, who investigated it only to find that it was "demographically worthless". The simple fact is that Peters wrote a fraudulent book and got caught. --Zero 14:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what Peters actually claims

The article is wrong with regard to what Joan Peters claims. Specifically, Joan Peters still claims to this day that non-native persons represented a majority of arab refugees in 1948.

Quoting the woman herself:

"so in other words these people all came from other places...Most of them came from other places within two years before israel's statehood."

This is from June 24, 2004 on the Tovia Singer show on Israeli radio. Audio of which (at least for the moment), is available on the internet for those who want to hear for themselves.

In the same program, Peters goes further and claims that the arab population in 1920 were not a native population and that the british authorities erred in treating them as such rather than jews who she claimed were the exclusive native population.

Another interesting exchange was:

Singer - "the whole palestinian thing is a myth thats designed for the purpose of what?"

Joan Peters - "well they were switched (in 1973) from the word refugees to palestinian people excluded from plots of land lived in from time immemorial in israel um that was the [sic] the purpose of it was to get the western, westerners the jews off the territory".

She did not disagree with the host's claim that the "whole palestinian thing" is a myth.

[edit] the origins of the book

Aside from the conspiracy theories of Chomsky, the events around the creation and publication of this book were strange. Joan Peters involvement with the middle east started with CBS sending her to the middle east to oversee a series of documentaries after the 1973 war. Her knowledge and involvement with the subject before that time is a blank slate. She doesn't appear to have been interested in history or the middle east before that time.

She then next appears in 1976 in commentary magazine with the article "an exchange of populations". The article itself is proof that she didn't, as often is claimed, change her mind during her "research". One of the roots for part of the book always seemed to be another article published in commentary in 1976 called "palestine before the zionists".

Then "from time immemorial" shows up years later in the 1980s. After its publication, Peters contributions on the subject are almost non-existant. Some of the speculation about the authorship of the book comes from concern that the book in some ways came out of nowhere from an author with no past or future. There was also a great deal of confusion about why Peters herself didn't defend her work and methodology in print. Others (like Pipes) had to do it for her. Most authors when subjected to the criticism that she was subjected to would have written another book to either better make the case or defend their methods. But she did nothing.

She has defended her work in interviews, and in addition students repeatedly come to the same conclusions as she did in her book in standard class assignments, the book didn't really say anything new despite all the fuss about it. She made the mistake of being as sloppy in her references as any other popular writer, other writers like Avneri were more careful and thus come to the same conclusions without being lambasted. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

--That this book is an unadulterated hoax written by a pseudo-intellectual ideologue, apparently escaped your notice. The book is a hoax because the evidence (sources, citations, etc.) is fabricated. (If you are shaking your head right now, go find the book and check the sources, I dare you.) I am not saying that the claim is necessarily, categorically false but that is not the point. When one writes a scholarly work one must investigate and back up one's claims with evidence, especially for so counter-intuitive a claim. The likelihood that this is true is like the claim that Idaho doesn't exist. I can't prove to you that it does. But take my word for it: I've been there. My guess is, if you really went into it you could find people who were alive then (or whose parents were alive then)and I am sure they would be more than happy to enlighten you. Sadly, I suspect, Joan Peter's didn't look very hard for them. 11.16.06

→I never heard of this book before yesterday. Normally I would just buy and read it, but I can't so I came to WP to learn more about the book. What a colossal waste of time! I think the assessments are actually fairly balanced - when I do get a chance to read the book, I will be more critical of the information and will, perhaps, go to the cited sources for anything I find particularly questionable.

→The problem with the article is that it provides almost no information about the book! For example, I read about the book last night in an old Mona Charon column. Obviously what I read must be taken with a grain of salt given the source but the article stated that Peters had a pro-Palestinian bias and embarked on the research leading to this book intending to write something in support of their claims, or at least find historical evidence that backed them up. Supposedly the book was the result of her finding evidence contrary to what she believed when she started.

→I am not a scholar. I am just one of those "regular" people someone referred to on this page, coming here to learn more about the book. The article reads like it was taken directly from the jacket flaps, providing no detail to help one understand why there is such radical difference of opinion. The various comments on this page were not much more enlightening - first to declare it a complete fraud, as one writer did, without any citations(isn't one of the first rules of objective reading to throw out most absolute statements, especially unsupported ones?) then a comparison to the Elders of Zion, which I understand was a modern-era treatise that claimed to be of long historical standing? Does the book claim that the territory was unpopulated until late in the 19th century? It's difficult for me to believe when I know that Jews were there as early as the mid-19th century - ok, I don't KNOW but I believe there were small Jewish settlements scattered around the area. And, as I understand, many of the Arab tribes were nomadic before the 20th century so even if they weren't there, at some particular spot and some specific time, it would not be evidence that they weren't there.

→Finally, as a newer member with only one prior edit (I was there so I knew my facts were correct and the posted ones were not), isn't it better for WP for a discussion of a book, and its various edits and the discussions about the edits, shouldn't they be about the book and not about the various ideologies of the critics/supporters of the book? I know I would have found this whole exercise to be even more valuable had the discussion surrounding the facts been more like my previous paragraph - debating the historical record, its accuracy, its use in the book? Maybe I just came to the wrong place to learn more about it. Ironic, isn't it?Me713 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porath political worldview

Porath was a leftist back than.He was part of Merez party extreme left on Israeli politcal compass.And word prominent is defiantly a pov.--Shrike 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Shrike, when it comes to scholars, it should (!) be more important whether he is prominent than whether he is a 'leftist'. You see, a good scholar is supposed to speak based on his empirical evidence, and not based on political conviction. That is really what all the critizism of Peters is about: that she fails to do this. When you insist on labeling porath as a 'leftist' scholar in stead of a 'prominent' scholar, you imply that his critizizm of Peters' lack of scholarship is based on his political views. That might be the case, but if that is what you want to write, you have to make the case more convincingly, and not just revert the adjectives. The comprimise without adjectives is ok by me, by the way. Pertn 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finkelstein Political world view

I know that Finkelstein is normally asscosiated with the political left. However, if he is to be labeled 'leftist' in this article, he MUST be described as such in the Norman_Finkelstein article. And there it should also be backed by sources. I propose that the proponents of the 'leftist' label makes the necessary edits on that page, or else he should not be a 'leftist' in this article. Pertn 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If he is also an academic historian engaged in peer-reviewed scholarly research. If he is going to have an epithet, shouldn't it include something as to his professional research *credentials* on the matter? --EthanAY 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "leftist". Though he probably is, I would like to see it sourced or at least mentioned in the main article about him. pertn 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes' quote

To parse the quote a bit: He first states that Peters' argument is, by way of methodology, NOT credible. Then he states that no one has "refuted" her argument. However the onus lies first on the person making the argument to prove its credibility rather than on others to refute an as-of-yet unproven argument. He is saying that, even though the argumentation isn't worthy of credibility, the argument itself should be treated as credible by those who disagree with it. The onus still lies on Peters to prove her conclusions (if she still believes them) or to abandon them (or for someone else to take them up). Pipes is contradicting himself by asserting that no one should have to do any real scholarly work in order to be taken seriously as a scholar, and he is advocating the destruction of academic responsibility and integrity.

So my question is this: How does his quote, as it stands, contribute to the article? --EthanAY 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was astonished when, minutes ago at the NYRB site, I read Pipes's claim that the book's critics must disprove her thesis. All they need to do is show the she has failed to prove her thesis -- which is what Porath and numerous critics did. If Pipes had a shred of intellectual honesty he would admit this. But he doesn't, and he didn't. Sadly, Porath's response (at NYRB) fails to expose this whopper of intellectual dishonesty, or indeed even mention it. IMHO if the quote is to remain in the article, some version of this critique of Pipes's "reasoning" should be there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharlane (talk • contribs) 08:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite Needed

EthanAY is right, but there is a larger and more general problem with this page. In its attempts at balance it has become misleading and even inaccurate; no one who hears of the controversy over the book and turns to Wikipedia for background will emerge much wiser. Peters' book is controversial for ideological reasons but also for its scholarship and methodology; in its present form this article obscures the distinction. The statement that "responses to the book have been deeply divided and it continues to receive both positive responses as well as harsh criticism" is accurate only with regard to the book's general argument and political slant. On the question of Peters' scholarship, there is a very strong consensus - which to a remarkable extent transcends ideology. About the kindest thing said about her scholarship is that it's flimsy, and there are major figures on all sides of the political spectrum who dismiss it as simply fraudulent.

IMNHO this is garbage. The book was never supposed to be an academic treatise and so going on about poor scholarship and ranting about it being fraudulent or being dismissed as an academic reference is a straw man argument. Its shoddy but no worse than many other books for popular reading and at the end of it all her central thesis remains intact as Pipes' commentary correctly points out. The main difference between this book and others is that it was chosen as scapegoat by the left who felt Peter's had betrayed their cause. Nothing in the book was new and other authors say the same things yet they do not receive the criticism that is levelled at Peters. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The book is not a fiction. It attempts to make an argument about the way we should view historical reality. Therefore the matter of scholarship applies. When the book fails to connect an ideological argument to documented historical reality via rigorous scholarship and methodology, how exactly does "the argument remain intact?" This article is about Peters' book, not the abstracted argument it makes (which is certainly worthy of its own article). As such, the book is criticized on its own merit, not on whether it somehow piggybacks on more successful attempts to make a similar argument. Although this could certainly be a small section of the article to provide some context. If more methodologically rigorous attempts do exist, I believe it would be relevant to briefly mention them here.EthanAY 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We could take almost any book by Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Noam Chomsky or Edward Said, and say of it that "responses have been deeply divided" and that it "continues to receive both positive responses as well as harsh criticism." From Time Immemorial, however, is not simply another in a long line of politically tendentious books about the Middle East, which is what an unassuming reader of the present article would conclude.

• Yawn* yes it is, well its certainly a better book that Said's fabrications. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything relevant or useful to add to the discussion? EthanAY 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that is distorted by the present article is the chronology of the Peters controversy. It's inaccurate to say that "the book was controversial from the time of its publication"; the book was widely praised and even celebrated at the time of its publication. And it's highly misleading to support this erroneous statement by citing the NY Review of Books article - which was published almost two years after Peters' book. I know there has been some controversy here as well as in the Wiki article on Norman Finkelstein regarding this, but we can supply some chronology without accepting and endorsing the Chomsky-Finkelstein-Said narrative (that Finkelstein's critique, initially dismissed by American editors, was instrumental in the book's eventual scholarly rejection). We can write something like:

"Though From Time Immemorial drew highly favorable reviews upon its publication in the U.S., there was scattered dissent. Martin Kramer, a staunchly pro-Israel conservative academic, maintained that the book's main premise was 'probably right,' but complained that 'sometimes the empirical pickings are slim,' and that Peters' methodology 'ruins arguments that would be utterly irrefutable were they presented with a higher regard for factual precision.' Meanwhile Norman Finkelstein (now a prominent leftist critic of Israel, then a graduate student at Princeton) wrote an extensive critique of the book dismissing it as a 'threadbare hoax.' There are differing accounts of how influential the Finkelstein critique was in the eventual consensus regarding the book's failings. Chomsky recounts having sent Finkelstein's manuscript to British scholars and reviewers, and suggests that it was instrumental in their almost unanimous rejection of Peters' book. In any case, the British reception marked a turning point in Peters' reputation, and the controversy over her work subsequently appeared in the U.S., where it had been little in evidence before. The New York Times, having published a very positive review of the book upon its publication, revisited it in November 1985, quoting Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, then vice-president of the staunchly Zionist World Jewish Congress, saying of Peters that 'I think she's cooked the statistics.' The Times article also quoted Yehoshua Porath, the Israeli scholar and a political centrist, describing the book as 'sheer forgery.' Porath went on to write an influential and extremely dismissive review of the book for the New York Review of Books, after which supporters of her general argument have tended to distance themselves from her methods. The neo-conservative Daniel Pipes perhaps best exemplifies the trend; having praised FTI without reservation in an early review, Pipes responded to the Yorath piece with a letter to the New York Review, reaffirming his support but in far more tepid terms, while conceding that Peters' 'scholarly abilities are open to question,' that there are numerous 'technical, historical and literary' faults in From Time Immemorial, which 'stands out as an appallingly crafted book.' While scholarly opinion regarding Peters ranges from wary to contemptuous, FTI has gone into several printings, is highly ranked on Amazon, and retains to this day a solid popular following."

I'll wait a few days for others to respond with input, and then go ahead and change the article accordingly. --G-Dett 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost, it is beside the point what you or I or other wiki-editors think about Peters, that she was a hero or a scapegoat or a charlatan or whatever. My proposed edit makes a distinction between the controversy over her general thesis, which follows predictably on partisan lines, and the controversy over her scholarship and methodology, which does not. If you know of a prominent scholar who to this day upholds the soundness of Peters' scholarship, then let's get that into this article, along with the other necessary changes. And if you know of a published writer arguing what you argue, that the book was never meant to be read as scholarship but rather as a piece of 'pop' history for the layman, and that its slapdash tendentious methodology therefore doesn't detract or whatever it is you're saying, then let's quote that person too. At the end of the day, this article needs to be is a chronologically accurate history of the book's critical reception.

If more serious objections or suggestions than KG's don't appear in the next day or so, I'll go ahead and do the appropriate rewrites. --G-Dett 23:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, going on about Peters' scholarship is a straw man argument - Peters is not and never was and never pretended to be a "scholar", she's a journalist. The attack on Peters and the book are based largely on this straw man argument about bad scholarship. The same nonsense argument can be applied to scores of books written by non-academics but this was only done with Peters because of political axes to grind. A good rewrite of the article should point out this straw man nature of the attack on the book. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The things Peters was charged with (correctly or not) were things forbidden to journalists as well as to scholars, such as distorting sources. --Zero^talk 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And the claims of deliberate distortion (as opposed to typical non-academic research sloppiness) remain nothing more than spiteful accusations. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

KG, w/all respect your reasoning here verges on absurd. The distinction between journalists and scholars in your mind is that the former get to use statistics, primary sources and other evidence sloppily, whereas the latter do not. This is nonsense. The actual difference is that using statistics, primary sources and other evidence in order to make new arguments is a scholarly task. Rendering unfolding events with intrepidness as well as anecdotal and impressionistic immediacy, on the other hand, is a journalistic task. You might be right that Peters’ training was as a journalist. But when she turned her attention to sifting through British mandate records, Ottoman censuses, and other primary historical materials in order to posit a new argument and shift consensus opinion, she was doing scholarly work. Just as the scholar Juan Cole is doing journalistic work when he blogs each day on "Informed Comment." What is relevant is the category of the work being evaluated, not the resume of the writer. Journalism is evaluated according to the standards of journalism, scholarship according to the standards of scholarship. Whoever undertakes to do work in one of these categories can expect to have their work evaluated according to the relevant criteria; no one gets to be sloppy.--G-Dett 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

KG, if you know of a published source describing the Peters controversy as an example of a "straw man" argument, then we'll cite it in the article. I don't know of any. In the meantime, you might look up straw man and see if this is really what you mean. --G-Dett 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The typical attack misrepresents the book as something to which academic research standards should apply and then points out where her research is sloppy and not of academic quality - this is certainly an example of a straw man argument, to quote the current article: "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". Peters never presented the book as an academic treatise, it was always a layman's book so such criticisms are deliberately misleading. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuratowski's Ghost, the thing in Wikipedia is to cite published analyses, not create new ones. Is there a published piece accusing Peters' critics of straw man arguments?

Well neither I nor anyone else ever put a new analysis in the article nor used the term "straw man" in the article, so what are you going on about? This is a talk page, I was stating an opinion. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As based on Wiki methods, not one of us can add something unless it is secondary research. So you "straw man" comment will remain ONLY a comment until you can cite it. As for "accusations of deliberate distortion"--I would agree that "deliberate" is a bit much. More clearly, the accusations are the same as those leveled against the Bush Administration in order to create a reason to go to war with Iraq: They created their end position first, and then selected and even fabricated evidence to support that end argument. In other words, the ideology determined what evidence and type of evidence to look for. This is the opposite of how inductive scholarship works, where the evidence in the end determines the ideology. Criticisms of Peters' work basically state that she is guilty of fitting the evidence to a prefabricated ideology. As evidence, they cite her relative lack of methodological rigor vs her near-hysterical pushing of interpretation. Now, whether all this is "deliberate"--that is an entirely different matter. It is entirely possible that JP thought she was being scholarly through it all. The circumstantial evidence points to the contrary, but since we can't know, I don't think we should speculate or include rhetoric that implies speculation on whether the distortions were "deliberate."EthanAY 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should brush up on your WikiEthics then--just a friendly suggestion.EthanAY 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I proposed a rewrite, you wrote, "A good rewrite of the article should point out this straw man nature of the attack on the book." I'm glad we are now agreed.--G-Dett 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the term, a straw man argument misrepresents an opponent's position, not their credentials. I have never heard the term used to describe inflating an opponent's credentials in order to hold them to a standard they can't meet.

You are in any case quite mistaken if you think that Peters' book was packaged, marketed and distributed as mere journalism and not scholarship. Take a look at the back cover on Amazon[2]. The jacket blurbs are all from scholars, historians, professors and so on (with the exception of Nobel laureate Saul Bellow). They praise her not for a good read, or for her journalistic skills, or for deftly synthesizing previous material, or anything of the sort. Rather, they praise her for groundbreaking primary research, for "provid[ing] necessary demographic and historic perspectives which have been inexplicably ignored until now," for striking a "heavy blow against the broad consensus," and so on. Her work was praised by scholars as scholarship, as a scholarly debunking of "false history." The book became a bestseller, yes, but it doesn't then follow that it was written as a "layman's book" with no scholarly pretensions. Your assumption along these lines is totally unfounded.

There is a variation of the straw man fallacy (described on wikipedia) that might possibly apply to criticism of Peters: "Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated."

Perhaps Peters' thesis has somewhere been advanced by a reputable scholar. This would be interesting and worth noting if true. --G-Dett 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to note if the converse is true--if no [known] scholar to this date has taken up the argument and tried to advance it into the realm of scholarly reputability. KG, if you can find rigorous scholarship to support the same fundamental (or similar) argument as JP's book, then feel free to work it into a section entitled something like "Other versions of the same argument." I think that would be a great way for you to contribute constructively to this article.EthanAY 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book is a fraud

I object to the line that evidence is "Scanty at Best" to support Finkelsteins accusations of fraud. Most academics agree today that it is a fraud. The only people who don't are extremist apologists for Israel like Alan Dershowitz. Ommiting infromation, such as the capitlaism magazine article, that proves this point is my opinion intellectually dishonest. This not an issue of POV, it is simply a matter of fact that most serious scholars consider the book to be a fraud. annoynmous 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This article is a basket case, both the unacceptable version before Amoruso's edits and the equally unacceptable version of Amoruso. It was better a year ago than now. --Zero^talk 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is POV-pushing. I haven't read the book myself and only know it by it's reputation, but is seems to me that the last few edits are made by someone with an agenda. I will not revert it myself, but I will support a tag, or rather, a change. pertn 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing is to discuss what the book is about and not to give undue weight to certain assessments (while maintaining WP:NPOV in the assessment), as it previously was. Also not using any pov definition for people with wikipedia articles that people can click and read who they are for themselves. Amoruso 16:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

....so let's say, for instance, an article about the protocols of the elders of zion should focus on the contents of the book rather than the fact that everyone with any knowledge about the topic claims it is a fraud? I know the comparison is a bit extreme, but is that the point you are making? You can not write an article about this book where the critizism of the bias and its other shortcomings do not have a very prominent place. pertn 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticizm is one thing, but the additions contained vast amount of POV and OR. Your example exactly proves why it's important to make a distiniction. This book is not a fraud. Amoruso 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the additions are well sourced as per WP:REF, they should stay. If the balance of commentary on the book is negative (and even Pipes has some complaints about it), then so be it. The idea that "this book is not a fraud" is just your own POV. —Ashley Y 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Anyway, the additions are not even sourced. Amoruso 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you can find sources (again, as per WP:REF) that argue that the book is not a fraud, put those in too. —Ashley Y 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is saying that it's a fraud etc etc without sources which is what the new additions were. Amoruso 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever is done to the article, it should start from the version that is actually fairly neutral and sourced, rather than the one filled with unsourced POV and original research. Any version that contains the unsourced claim "This is one of the most controversial books on Middle East history" should be reverted on sight. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, rather than deleting the extensive quotation from Saunders and references to reviewers in the Times and Observer, on the grounds that we don't have sources (which we don't, of course), why don't you dig around to see if you can uncover them, and include them in a balanced and fair way? Or do you prefer to leave that for "the other side" to do? —Ashley Y 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you assume I hadn't? In fact, I searched in Google, and couldn't find any of that stuff; even if I had, it wouldn't deal with the rest of the unsourced original research. Now, since you bring it up, can you provide some examples of your own writing for "the other side"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did point out the lack of citations [3] [4], and have chosen not to participate in the revert war between the two versions (beyond restoring Pipes' quote in full, which has stuck). I think your reversion might have more chance of sticking if you actually mention at the time that you tried to find the sources, but couldn't. It shows effort towards NPOV and is generally polite and helpful. —Ashley Y 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You should simple assume I have done so, as that is generally polite, helpful, and policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: blind reverts tend to suggest a lack of effort. It's not helpful to rely on everyone else to assume you did, in fact, make an attempt to look up some sources, especially when you fail to find one that was there. —Ashley Y 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, unlike you, I never blindly revert. Please keep this in mind in the future, in terms of both my behavior, and your own. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The assurance that you "never blindly revert" is rather less helpful than evidence of effort. Really, it will help more of your edits stick, when you do make the effort, and perhaps cause you less complaint when you don't and you get reverted. —Ashley Y 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, how hard did you look? The Saunders quote "As I wrote in my review... leave prudence and responsibility behind" can be found here, a reference listed in the article. I assume you don't object if I restore that particular quote? —Ashley Y 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the phrase "passages of furious argumentative overkill" in Google, which I thought would be unique enough, and got exactly one hit, from this article. I then looked up "furious argumentative overkill", and got two hits, one from this article, and one from a blog quoting this article. I've done the searches again just now, and gotten identical results. Feel free to insert anything that is encyclopedic and properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective quoting

The selective quoting of Pipes' opinion cannot be defended. I've restored the full quote. It still needs a citation, though. —Ashley Y 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul blair section

Removed it, as I don't think he's known. If we add him let's add Gary Rosenblatt's review too which is in the external links as well. Article already represents more of those that object than those who agree, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why this must be the case. Amoruso 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep both. —Ashley Y 02:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is just POV-Pushing!

There has now been done a series of edits, obviously with the sole purpose to promote your own point of view. I'm not sure who has done what, but it seems amuroso and ashley has been key figures here. Do you not have anything better to do? Couldn't you try to contribute to articles where your emotions weren't that strong? Edits like these hurts the wikipedia-project 10 times more than the benifit is to your great cause (which obviously is to make this book seem like somethig that is taken serious). I will propose a complete roll-back to before this series of edits. Your last additions to "assesments" where you add Farah and Kramer, both notorious right-wingers, is just pathetic. If this is not improved I guess we will just have to jump back a month or so. The article was better then. pertn 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What's you're saying is in fact your own WP:POV. Notorious right winger is a very cute definition by you, but is not relevant to the article. I suppose a notorious guy who thinks Israel is the root of all evil and who questions the holocaust is a better NPOV to include ? These are all assessments, the reader can decide. I think it's more neutral than before atleast. Amoruso 09:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't notice a part of the discussion above. I still maintain that I am sceptical of your edits, but I was a bit too triggerhappy! Sorry mate. I can't really see what you mean by my own POV, here? I have not read the book. But I know of the sources you are quoting. To me it seems very selective.pertn 09:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the book is not the greatest piece of scholary book since it wasn't intended as such , but what it says is basically true, and there have been no one AFAIK to actually refute the basic demographics. See Martin Kramer's article - nobody adequately answered this raising of the gloves except to attack the actual structure of the book and not its content (except on the fringes). I don't think the book is not taken seriously, have you read it incidentally ? Because if this is what the article conveyed, it was part of the problem IMO, it was unbalanced.... as to the sources, I think you'll find very few neutral observers will comment on the book since they wouldn't care too much and the book is one-sided obviously (doesn't mean it's wrong though). Amoruso 09:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

" I suppose a notorious guy who thinks Israel is the root of all evil and who questions the holocaust is a better NPOV to include ?" Is this supposed to be Finkelstein? If you think that he "questions the holocaust", then I would expect you would like a book like this. If you are not referring to him, and are speaking in more general terms, then I agree with you. It is a heck of a problem finding neutral sources writing about this, and whoever neutral who does, will certainly be labeled right wing or left wing by someone. Wikipedia is actually one of the few possible neutral sources people can go to, but as it is now I am afraid that there are too many people out there willing to sacrifice this to gain a more prominent place for their own POV. I am NOT in a position to claim that you are one of them. (though I almost did). I do think, in this case, that the key aspect of an article about this book, should be that it is controversial because of its political usage and because of its sloppy facts. It is not an important book were it not for these to factors. (and it seems you agree with me here). pertn 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

btw there is a LONG list of positive reviews accessed from the new york times from the time of the publication. Amoruso 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments order

Should be sorted chronologically? —Ashley Y 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article the Equivalent of Holocaust Denial for palestinians

I don't understand why anyone is trying to revive credibility in a disgusting piece of propoganda like this. Pertn, I'm at a loss as too why your apologizing to Amoruso for anything. Every bit of criticism you made in your first paragragh was right on and need not be apologized for. Amoruso I don't understand, do you seriously believe that arab's only started coming to Palestine after the first jewish immigrants started coming there in the late 19th century. Leave the issue of this books accuracy aside, name me one serious historian who believes that today. In my opinion they way people like Amoruso and Kuratowski's Ghost have conducted themselves on this article is utterly disgusting. Imagine if someone wrote that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was actually a true document. Thats essentially what this book is, the palestinian version of the Elders of Zion. You'd probably, very rightly, get mad and call that person a disgusting anti-semitic nazi. Well imagine how a palestinian feels when he hears that someone is trying to say that his homeland isn't really his and that therefore the violent and very genocidal ethnic cleansing of his people was therefore justified. He would feel that his basic humanity was being denied and that the person who said that was rascist, Anti-Islam, Anti-Arab bigot who only looked at him as dirty sand-nigger. You want to know why there are so many arabs who embrace Holocuast denial and anti-semitism, it's beacause of books like this and he people who promte them. They feel that Israelies only see them annoying pests who need to be swept away when there historical culture is denied them in this manner. Now I know you'll pretend to be shocked and outraged at the notion that your anything like a Holocaust denier, but I think you should look at how similar your arguments are to people who make claims like that. You'll say that your only looking at facts and that your own personal bias doesn't come into it, I bet thats exactly what people like David Irving tell themselves. I'll bet people like Irving tell themselves that it isn't there secret hatred of Jews that make them say what they say, it's just the facts. I'll except that we all have biases and that in many ways true objective truth can never be grasped, but I think most serious people can agree that David Irving is a crank in regards to the Holcaust. In fact I suspect that if anybody dared try on wikipedia to say that Irving was misunderstood they be booted out faster than you can spit. However, when comes to the palestinians the standards change because it's socially excepatable to bash arabs and muslims. Amoruso I'm asking you to stop engaging in Holocaust denial and recognize the humanity of the plastinians. I don't believe, and I don't think many plastinians believe, that Israel should be destroyed. They just want there own state and the right to dignity and self-determination. However, this book says they don't have any right to any of palestine and therefore all Israelie attempts to ethnically cleanse them are therefore justified. I know I have been harsh, but I feel I need to be tough in my argument. In my opinion Amuroso the argument you are making is straight up rascist. I don't beleive that you are specifically rascist, but that your blind devotion to Israel is taking you down the road of a rascist argument. Please, recognize the palestinians humanity and lets debate the real issues annoynmous 17:36, 1 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. Amoruso 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So your not even going to try and have a reasoned debate, your just going to hide behind official wikipedia policy. This is extremely childish. You didn't even bother to answer my main point of naming one serious historian who believes that there were no arabs in palestine before the jews started immigrating there in the late 19th century. If peters thesis is the authoratative piece of scholarship you say it is than why do most serious historians not mention her if her thesis was so earth shaking. Benny morris, the premier Israelie historian, who is very pro-Israel doesn't say that there were no palestinians until the late 19th century. Unless there are any serious historians who agree with this viewpoint then the issue of validity of Peters thesis pretty much answers itself. Name me one unbiased source that agrees with peters, not right-wing nuts like martin kramer, and maybe we'd have somethin to talk about. The reason why you can't do that is because most serious histroians regard her thesis as absurd. I ask again, taking Peters out of the equation, do you seriously believe this line of thought. If you do I hate to tell that the majority of serious scholarship is against you. annoynmous 18:35, 1 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was having difficulty reading what you said because of the lack of spaces. Wikipedia guidelines are important in wikipedia, and calling Martin Kramer a right wing nut seems to be a WP:POV position. Since the sources cited are all WP:V and there are wikilinks to everyone, I'm not sure why you wish the article to show only your own WP:POV. I realise you may feel strongly about the issue, but the book doesn't concern with a genocide of a people. It concerns with demographic stats concerning immigration to Palestine. There's pretty much a consencus that the region was largely depopulated and there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to the actual stats shown by Peters either. Amoruso 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"There's pretty much a consencus [sic] that the region was largely depopulated," says Amoruso, to which I say: Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Just because pro-Israeli bullshit POV pushers can master wikipeida acronyms and write in complete sentences doesn't mean they should be treated with any more respect than less articulate bullshit POV pushers. No serious historians believe that Palestine was a "land without people" in the 19th century, or that Peters' book is anything better than propagandistic garbage. john k 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You can call is bullshit but it won't change the truth. Despite arab propoganda, the works of all travellers in the region at the time speak for themselves. Amoruso 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus among who, extreme right wing historians with something to prove. This is a flat out lie. Most historians accept that the area was predomintely arab and muslim and that there was a large cultural heritage there. How can you honestly make an argument like this with a straight face. This lie served for a while in the first 30 years of Israels history, but it has now been thoroughly disproven. Most of the new school of Israelie historians agree that the consensus history that existed for so long was completely false. This what I meant with the Elders of Zion comparison, taking something that has been thoroughly disproven and passing it off as if it were still true. I'm sorry Kramer is a right winger. I'll accept that Finkelsten is a left-winger, but trying to pass Kramer off as a neutral source is intellectually dishonest. Please stop hiding behind official policy, it really pisses me off when people do that, and lets just talk like adults. annoynmous 18:56, 1 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

There's no netural source like you say. There are credentials and Martin Kramer is veyr respected and a WP:RS. You keep saying that it's been thoroughly disproven, but it's not. I'm sorry it doesn't conform with your point of view but we can only bring sources and link to them. New school historians you call is actually a group of 3 controversial historians which their work has also been attacked. Not really understanding what your argument is rather than "let's just say in the article what I think"... Cheers. Amoruso 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So now the wide historical consensus is as you say "Arab Propoganda". You've not shown one serious historian agrees with this. Also the new school consists of more than 3 people and includes such notables as Benny Morris. Morris is very pro-Israel and even he doesn't ascribe to this theory. Kramer is an right-wing hostorian and he may be respectful in some circles, but not in the legitimate academic world. I think your resonse to John K disqualifies you from serious discussion. If you had any evidence for this you'd cite it in the article. Obviously you've been reading Peters book way too much, because had you accurately reviewed the criticisms of the book you would have known that Peters frequently uses Ellipses to omit information from certain quotes that were incovinient to her thesis. I say again, besides Kramer name me one serious historian who honestly believes this absurd theory. Otherwise, all this chatter is nothing more than extreme zionist propoganda. (If you can use the deragatory "Arab Propoganda" slur I can use this one). John K I encourage you to further respond to to Amoruso and not take this nonsense lying down. annoynmous 19:45, 2 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

New contains exactly three people, you can read it at the relevant new historian articles. I don't feel the need to repeat myself. Please note you also violated the WP:3RR , you should self revert or face block. Amoruso 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely childish. I try to have a discussion and you hide behind official wikipedia policy, something I'm sorry to say not that uncommon at wikipedia. Morris and the others are extremely reputable historians and as far I know there conclusions have not been seriously challenged by any significant sources. You still have not sighted one reputable historian. It is my belief that are using this article to spread discredited Zionist propoganda. I really don't take kindly to being threatened. If anyone you should be blocked for spreading unbstantiated claims it's you, sense you and Kuratowskis Ghost added the line that Finkelsteins claims that the book was a hoax were "Scanty at Best". I'm making an appeal to all the sensible wikipedians out there to respond to the bulling tactics that are being displayed here. John K I invite you again to join me for back-up. annoynmous 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

66.227.137.56, could you please edit the article rather than revert it? If there's something you think is missing, add it. If there's something you think is inappropriate, remove it and it only. And so on. —Ashley Y 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashley I want to ask you the same question I asked Amoruso, do you really believe that Palestine was virtually depopulated in the late 19th century and that arab immigrants only started coming there after the jewish immigrants. If you don't I'll stop reverting the page and let your most recent version stand and then later make my own edits and then we can go on discussing this like reasonable adults. However, I personally think anyone who thinks that there were no arabs in palestine before the first jewish immigrants came there, such as Amoruso, should be banned from further editing this piece. The reason I made the comparison to Holocaust denial is because for many palestinians this argument that the jews came and made the desert bloom is about as rascist and bigoted an argument as you could ever make. The argument is a flat out lie and has no reputable source to back it up. If we can agree on this point then we can move forward and the mad revert war can end. I sincerely hope we can come to an understanding. annoynmous 22:04, 2 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: I do not believe that Palestine was virtually depopulated in the late 19th century. I do not believe that Arab immigrants only started coming there after the Jewish immigrants. —Ashley Y 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep my promise and if you want to revert the page back to your most recent version I will make no further attempts to further revert it. I will make some of my own edits later in the day, now I'm tired and want to go to bed. I look forward to having more enlightened discussions with you on this article and hope we can come to a reasonable consensus on this issue. I knew there were reasonable people at wikipedia annoynmous 22:21, 2 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg

Image:Timeimmemorial.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnes & Noble reviews

Reviews in the LA Times, the New York Times, and the National Review would all be notable and appropriate for the page. The trouble is, we don't have them. All we have is quotes from those reviews that Barnes & Noble have made (or else copied from the book-cover) for the purpose of selling books. They are not reliable summaries of the reviews.

To be included, someone would need to find the original reviews, and then read them and summarise them fairly. The dates of the reviews is also important. —Ashley Y 05:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) →