Jump to content

Talk:From Time Immemorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on From Time Immemorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Pipes, two years later

[edit]

The cited item begins with his explanation for the two time periods. That might be of interest to readers of this article. Even more of interest is to flesh out the LETTER quote with the sentence that follows it. Pi314m (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Details to Finkelstein's views seem to crowd the lead; part of it I'm moving to where it hopefully fits better. Pi314m (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of clarity in third paragraph?

[edit]

The text says the book was criticized "including by historians that were politically conservative or supportive of Israel". Does this include historians who lean "conservative" on the conflict? If not (and it only means overall conservative or supportive of Israel's existence in some fashion), the phrasing is potentially misleading. If it does, it could stand to have some examples, as the two given are Ian Gilmour (arguably conservative, but from his page it seems he's more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel) and Yehoshua Porath (who has shifted on the political spectrum over the years, but at the time of the statement was apparently fairly far to the left of Israeli politics). 2604:2000:DFC0:15:F1DF:64AA:76A7:E5D9 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein not a "reputable scholar", Noam Chomsky, Edward Said all have deep hatred for Zionism and Israel

[edit]

Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said all have two things in common, a history of lying about Israel and a deep hatred for Israel & Zionism. Finklestein is not a "reputable scholar" either. His articles frequently appear on white supremacist websites like "Veterans Today" and he was deported from Israel as well as banned for 10 years. Having those three listed as "reputable scholars" regarding the history of Israel is a joke . Chomsky was a close friend of Finklestein, also a linguist, not a scholar of Middle East history.

"To summarize the background of Finkelstein's work, he is considered to be a Holocaust revisionist who overemphasizes poorly-conceived Israeli policies while dismissing Arab repression of Jews in the Middle East. He glosses over the fact that Israel allows political participation of Muslims in voting and government, while many Arab Muslim governments reject any notion of allowing Jews to partake in the states' political processes." "In essence, sponsoring scholars who distort history and contemporary political affairs is not an issue of academic freedom but an issue of academic integrity."

https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/10948/unethical-sponsorship-on-sponsorship-of-norman

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/qa-norman-finkelstein 136.26.178.95 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no, you'll have to find better sources and a more moderate view. This is POV. Andre🚐 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Joan Peters wrote the book?

[edit]

"Noam Chomsky has publicly declared his skepticism that Joan Peters even wrote the book, speculating that it might have been authored by some intelligence agency. That may be true, but I would have guessed that any “intelligence” agency would have written a better book." here 91.54.31.187 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia

[edit]

Even if someone had no idea what the subject of this article was, its absurdity is glaring. A standout line reads, "Peters' claims in the book have been refuted by reputable scholars." Yes, that's an actual quote.

Forget the subject for a minute. The scholars who endorsed Peters' thesis includes Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, Bernard Lewis, Alan Dershowitz, and Daniel Pipes. But apparently, their view is irrelevant in the face of such Israel-hating "luminaries" as Finklestein and Chomsky. I remember reading this book as a teenager and being blown away by the scholarship and footnotes. It is not like you can find a counter narrative anywhere else that matches this level of scholarship, making it all the more bizarre that this article is so hell-bent on undermining her work. (Actually, its not so bizarre. If Peter's thesis is correct, it destroys the politically fashionable view that Israel is the occupier. So yeah, her book has to be "wrong").

Every time one of those Wikipedia pop-ups asks for a donation, I think of this garbage article and say, "Nope, not this time." 200.12.168.33 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]