Talk:A History of the Palestinian People

purporting to cover the History of the Palestinian People
- if we add "purporting to" on the contents of this book - we would have to do so for any other book covering Palestinian history from a different angle. The claim that there is no Palestinian people (and that they were part of Greater Syria / Levant / etc. - until the arbitrary British mandate lines were set, and that the political movements surrounding the Palestinians were set up by Arab nations in opposition to Israel) - is a long-standing claim by many sources. It might be wrong - but it isn't one without any merit, nor is it a unique claim to this particular author.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference of kind here: this book does not tell any history, and does not even make that argument about whether or not Palestinians constitute a people. It is a practical joke -- a book with empty pages, to correspond with the allegedly non-existent history in the title.  We should not mislead Wikipedia's readers by asserting as fact that this book is "covering the History of the Palestinian People from the dawn of humanity to present day", when it literally contains nothing but a single quote from Seinfeld.  I maintain that in this case, it is NPOV to assert that the book purports to cover the history etc., whereas it would indeed not be our place to assess how well actual history books (again, this isn't one -- it contains no history of any kind) cover their subjects.
 * I would like to hear whether you agree with this reasoning. If you do, let's add 'purporting to cover' back. If not, do offer counter-arguments, or we can seek a third opinion. Ijon (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a point as the author does not advance this arguement in the book (even not in a single page), but rather outside of the book. Had this arguement been raised even briefly in the book I would have contested your arguement, but as it is not I added purpoting back in.Icewhiz (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Ijon (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag
- please take another look regarding the tag you placed. While the book itself is an extremely POV pushing book (as are many books - but this one in particular is mainly about making a point) - I believe the coverage in the Wikipedia article is balanced (particularly after I added negative coverage in Arabic sources - the article began in enwiki, was translated to hewiki, grew a bit there following translation, and now I migrated some information back (+added more recent bits such as the Knesset speech)). The current text is roughly split half and half between positive and negative coverage. This isn't "only a joke" - this a point that pro-Jewish writers and politicians (including in a political speech holding up the book in the Knesset) are taking seriously. Conversely pro-Palestinians see this is a continuing Zionist ploy to erase or hide Palestinians, racist, and even going as far as saying "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing" - so both sides aren't taking this is a joke. I think the current article is quite balanced in its coverage of an extremely POV polarizing book.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I still think the article has some NPOV issues that warrant retention of the NPOV tag for now, though the recent additions have been an improvement. I am currently considering putting this article up for AFD, if I don't do that I will probably be doing some editing of the article myself to address the remaining NPOV issues. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article clearly meets WP:NBOOK(1) - significantly exceeding "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", besides passing on WP:GNG. AFDing this would have no merit. Regarding NPOV tags - please state specifically what the problem is (or work to improve whatever issues you see).Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:SUSTAINED. Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I am going to put this up for AFD, as it appears the book is no longer even for sale. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That would be relevant for WP:BLP1E. There is no requirement for sustained coverage in WP:NBOOK (and in fact, many books with Wiki articles would fail were sustained applied). That aside, this book is generating sustained coverage - it has received WP:SIGCOV from its publication which is continuing through this week - e.g. items on Kenesset speech with the book and the unrelated coverage in the Bosnian newspaper from 15 July - . Just because a book is perceived by some (or even many) to be racist and offensive is not a reason to delete - nor is such a personal perception a reasonable basis for editorial decisions (though said perception should be covered per WP:WEIGHT - which I think is done expansively in the current article). Calling SUSTAINED, on a newish book (with sustained coverage following the publication to present), amounts to a call for a mandatory waiting period for new book articles (e.g. X years following publication), which is not current policy for book articles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding for sale - the Hebrew is on sale . I believe the English version sold out its first printing run (and was on sale in various locations until this happened). I will note that per my understanding (from the Author's facebook page and other such coverage in blogs and less reliable sources (IIRC - there is a funding driving for this) - so this is not in the article (yet)) - there is an additional print run planned in English for a special "UNESCO edition". In any event - being on sale currently in not a criteria for book articles (or GNG in general) - WP:NOTCATALOG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (Seems there is some non-blog coverage for this - e.g. - but not at a level I'd put in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A book doesn't have to be on sale currently, but when major booksellers have deleted it from their websites only a week after it was first published, I think it's fair to say it has no lasting significance. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To the contrary - censorship/banning of a book only makes the book more significant, as per the controversy of such a move and the coverage it has received. This wasn't "spontaneously" removed - removal followed a fairly wide campaign by activists against sale on Amazon. (I'll note I'm not sure from what I see in the sources if Barnes and Noble (who started selling after the Amazon ban, probably the leftovers from the run - also at a brisk pace per the sources) removed this for sale for the same reason, or because they sold out the print run - so it really is one very major bookstore).Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Removing POV tag. Tag is supported by a single editor who has not offered an argument that addresses the article's POV; his arguments solely address notability.  Moreover, while the book is a sort of political polemic, the article has been expanded and as it now stands is neutrally phrased and offers a balanced summary of both positive and negative responses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Various comments
I was only aware today of this article. Apparently, it was decided that the book is notable, at least for now, since the stunt seems to have gotten coverage. Of course, this is one more step in the integration of Know Your Meme into Wikipedia, but what can one do. One can revisit the issue a few months from now.

In the meantime, I have a few comments: Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) There should not be any WP:COATRACK about claims about whether the Palestinian people existed or not. There is already an article about the History of the Palestinian people. This article is about the book and the reception to it.
 * 2) "Pro-Jewish" and "pro-Palestine" and weasel words which are meaningless. They should be excised.
 * 3) There cannot be any "review" of an empty book. Therefore, talking about "mixed reviews" is meaningless. The "reviews" are simply people who are using the occasion to comment on the implied theory behind the book ("there are no Palestinians"). Again, these matters should not be discussed here.
 * 4) The long and ignorant paragraph from Avi Lieberman in FrontPageMag, who has no qualifications in history (he is a lawyer), is to be removed. It is WP:COATRACK and silly. Quoting Newt Gingrich on Palestine is like quoting me on Justin Bieber. Yeah, Gingrich has a PhD in European history (his dissertation was on Belgium), but his pronouncements on a cable TV channel carry no weight whatsoever. It's rather sad that I have to say this at all.
 * 5) We can note that the stunt was praised in X, Y, Z venues, and criticized in A, B, C.
 * 6) We can give a short and neutral summary of the relevant history. As far as I can see, no reputable historian has commented on the stunt, which is like the dog that didn't bark.
 * 7) The "reaction" section is mostly sourced to blogs. Most of them are worthless and trivia. Amazon's banning, Voll's complaint, and Amazon's response should be noted. That's it.
 * Where do you see coatrack claims? All claims of existence/non-existence of Palestinians are sourced to critiques of the book in RS. The "point" of this book per the author was to assert the non-existence - which has led to either endorsements or counter-arguments.
 * Please suggest an alternative to pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian - the book was praised in the obvious places, and criticized in the obvious places - all per the partisan leaning of the sources in question. How would you term them?
 * Reviews - claiming that there can't be a review of an empty book is WP:OR - there were multiple reviews published - with book review in the title. It is not up to us to judge whether notable people used this book to coatrack. I'll note that if we excise these - we'll actually cut down the negative review section, as the positive endorsements mainly just embraced the message.
 * Lieberman's in-depth and long piece appeared also in the Jewish Voice. He's a long-running writer on middle east issues - I don't see any particular reason to excise his review - other than IDONTLIKE.
 * There's no reason not to summarize the critiques provided in X,Y,Z and A,B,C - it is what we do for other books.
 * There actually were a couple of serious academics who responded - for instance Steven Weitzman. I don't think it is up to us to summarize the relevant history - the current article stays away from this issue entirely - only summarizing what was written on the book. For instance in The Invention of the Jewish People (which Weitzman campared this book to) article - we don't have a short neutralish description of the history of the Jewish people - we describe the contents of the book (Sand's premise) and then reactions to the book.
 * What's the "reaction" section? You mean "Removal from sale"? Please point out which sources you think should be struck out.
 * Finally - claiming an item with pages, an ISBN, sold as a book, and described as a book - is anything but a book and treating it in a manner other than any other book is pure WP:OR. While it might be a personal opinion that this is a stunt - we should follow the sources - as we do in any other book which has received reviews. Articles on WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article follow a rather standard structure: you describe the book contents and writers, information on publication, and you provided a blanaced analysis of its reception. That's the accepted structure, articles on books don't generally go into the merits of the premise of the book but just note how others have reacted to the book.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not write this sort of thing, but I am very pissed off so I will. I just realized that it was nominated for DYK, so I am super angry. It is irrational to be angry at a troll (the author), so I will take a break from this article for a couple of weeks and then see if I am still angry. In the meantime, I'll make some specific comments, and then some general comments. Just think about what I am saying, no response is required; though you can respond if you want.

My position is that the article should cover the book as a stunt and the reaction to it, its banning by Amazon and so on. That is the "story" here.

Most of the "reviews" in the section are not "reviews".
 * The Jerusalem Post article is not a review, but coverage of the book's sales and the subsequent ban. This comes closest to a WP:RS, but whatever.
 * The "Hamodia" article is not a review. I have never heard of "Hamodia" before, but whatever.
 * Even Jewish Press source cited is not a review. It's talking about the book's sales and reaction. The only "review" from a blogger there. Considering that the outlet actively tried to promote the book (and boasts about it), one could talk about the wisdom of including it in the article, but whatever.
 * I don't consider Arutz Sheva to be RS for anything involving Palestinians, so I didn't read it. WP:RSN agrees with me.
 * I can't read the Channel 20 source, because it is in Hebrew, and I don't much care.
 * One statement is by a Knesset MP: that is not a "review" either.

Only the FrontPageMag source is a sort of "review". By a totally unqualified person, who has been given too much space in the Wikipedia article to spout his inanities.

A comment on the comparison with Sand's book and the corresponding Wikipedia article. Much of the commentary in the article on that book comes from historians, geneticists and so on. They are proper reviews of the evidence presented in the book, its thesis and so on. People agree or disagree with the thesis; this is as it should be. This procedure cannot be done with an empty book; people simply read whatever they want to read into it.

Finally, I hope you think about what you are doing. There are two coherent ways of treating the book:
 * 1) The book is not serious, and so it is trolling people. Should we be writing a "review" of a troll, like every other book?
 * 2) The book is indeed serious, as the author insists it is. So, the author is seriously arguing that there is absolutely no history of the Palestinian people: they don't exist. The people who lived there, who had parents and grandparents and land and livestock and houses, and those who lived and reproduced and worked with and fought against Jews and other Arabs and the British do not count. At all.

If you really want to look at why the Israeli right (or other parts of the spectrum, as evidenced by the Golda Meir quote) subscribe to some version of the thesis "there are no Palestinian people", why not simply do it? Perhaps some version of the thesis is even historically defensible. There is plenty of stuff written by actual historians, anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists and so on. You might even learn something if you read it. Why do you spend your time transcribing the verbal diarrhoea of ignoramuses into Wikipedia? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The question of whether the book's thesis has any merit is really immaterial to the structure of the article. I will note that the basic thesis of whether a Palestinian people as a separate people (from greater Syria) has some merit - based on history and linguistics - however the same may be said of many nearby people - eg Bulgarians and Macedonians (or Romania and Moldova) - where the origin of the split is more political in nature. Is the author a troll? Maybe. Not really relevant to how to write coverage of the book. I will note that his thesis is not that these people do not exist, but that they do not have a history separate from other Arabs jn this region of the Ottoman empire. This is still clearly hateful to many (as evidenced in the expansive negative reactions which are covered). However in terms ofarticle structure we should treat this as any book. We have plenty of articles on books considered hateful by some or even most on wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a personal note, what got me interested here was the Amazon ban (contrasted with other decisions by Amazon) the campign leading to the ban, and some of the negative reactions. Had this not occured, it probably would not have interested me so much (and I will note some of the coverage was similarly motivated) - though I was aware of the initialmcoverage buzz pre ban (but it did not motivate me to create an article). The AFD did cause me to invest more time in this article than I would have otherwise. However I do think coverage is balanced. If RSes exist treating this as just a stunt, they could be worked in as an additional angle, however many of the negatives took this book as dead serious - as did many of the positives. The correct thing to do is to follow the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should exist. But the book was only released two months ago. In my opinion, it was a little to premature to write an article about it. As Kingsindian alludes to "the integration of Know Your Meme into Wikipedia", the Wikipedia article itself becomes part of the publicity stunt. The book in itself is a clever political variant of John Cage's 4'33". I think Wikipedia should have a policy that you can't write articles about "borderline noteworthy" material younger than six months or so. ImTheIP (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comparing against other racist hoaxes
Is there any reason why this article should be written in a different tone versus our articles on other racist hoaxes? The The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an archetypal example of a racist hoax, and I don’t see a “support” section in there bringing together all the racist commentary available on the internet.

The way this article is currently written seems to normalize the unacceptable. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree that the idea the book is trying to portray in a humoristic manner is mistaken (just like is a mistake when pro-Palestinian activists try to deny Jewish connection and indigenuity to the land of Israel), comparing this with a forgery written by the czarist police that portrayed Jews as evil monsters whose objective was to rule over the entire world is nothing less than a banalization of antisemitism. Also it's not clear what is your complaint since the article on the Protocols mentions plenty of endorsements, from Henry Ford to the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:AD4E:0:0:9399:BB0D (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please can we not debate which is a worse form of racism – competitive victimhood is not healthy. It risks insulting people on either side – for example your comment (presumably accidentally) implied that anti-Palestinian racism is banal, as opposed to being a dehumanizing tool used to support the continued subjugation, dispossession and effective imprisonment of millions of innocent people.
 * To your question at the end, what the Protocols article doesn’t do is juxtapose “support” and “criticism”; this article does so, and it is structured as if this is a review of the next installment of Harry Potter. My proposal is to restructure the article to make it clear that supporters of this book are not mainstream commentators and are taking a racist position – just as it is clear to readers of the Protocols article that Henry Ford and the Nazis were antisemites. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are any "support" opinions for the Protocols forgery, you can add them to that article. As the above poster wrote, trying to compare a work of satire with a well known forgery attempting to promote a wild conspiracy theory as if it were fact makes me wonder about your competency to edit here. That this book is "racist" is an opinion, not a fact, and that opinion is well represented in the article. Its thesis, presented in a satirical format, is that the Palestinian people did not develop a national identity until a fairly recent date. It may be wrong, but much like The Invention of the Jewish People which it closely resembles (in position, not genre), it is not inherently racist. If it were, one would be at a loss to explain this Inf-in MD (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please try harder:
 * The anon poster above already pointed out that there were support opinions among anti-semites for the Protocols. Just as there are racist support opinions here. Yet they are presented differently, for no explainable reason
 * All claims are racism and anti-semitism are opinions. These are both obviously racist publications – amongst reasonable person this is a fact
 * Your comment invented a thesis for a blank book. And then extrapolated the fantasy to compare it to a carefully scholarly work by a Professor of History at Tel Aviv University. This book was literally blank, other than a quote implying Palestinians are dishonest people. Comments from the author make clear his thesis that the Palestinians do not exist as a people, even now.
 * And noone is at a loss to explain the cherry-picked comments of a poorly educated militant in 1977. What makes you consider him to be a scholar of Palestinian history – that reflects extremely poor judgement of what is a reliable source
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Simply re-asserting that this is an " obviously racist publication" is unlikely to convince anyone. It is an opinion, one that is well represented in the article. Your "poorly educated militant" was the leader of As-Sa'iqa, one of the founding factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization - you know, the officially recognized "sole representative of the Palestinian people”. If he states the Palestinians did not exist, you'd be hard pressed to call that position racsist.Inf-in MD (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you no idea what Ba'athism is?! As-Sa'iqa fought for pan-Arab unification – militants will say whatever suits their cause. Honestly I am struggling to remember a more absurd line of argument than this one. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As-Sa'iqa fought for pan-Arab unification, as did many other groups who espoused pan-Arabism - the view that the Arabs constitute a single nation and denies the unique identity of Jordanians, Palestinians etc.. They may be wrong historically and misguided politically, but that does not make them "racist", any more than Sand is a "racist" for believing the Jewish people are a late "invention". Inf-in MD (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That nationalisms are late inventions is the clear mainstream position. Nothing racist about that, whether we are talking about the Palestinian nation, the Arab nation, or the modern Jewish nation.
 * Stating that a people have no history at all, and that they are dishonest, is racist.
 * To change the subject, imagine for a moment pulling the same awful stunt called A history of Black people, with a comment about their honesty, and then all blank pages. If you don’t think that would be widely considered racist, then why don’t you publish it and find out. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 'The "same awful stunt" has been pulled off in blank books like What Every Man Thinks About Apart from Sex or Why Dogs are Better than Cats - it is called satire. The former is not a "sexist" or "misandrist" book, and the latter is not a "speciesist" book. You may believe the joke is in bad taste, but you can't label the book as 'racist" in Wikipedia's voice. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course that is sexist. Again, if it was What Every Woman Thinks About Apart from [something stereotypical], it would absolutely be widely considered sexist. Your unconscious biases are being revealed in this discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Of course it is " is not an argument, just a restatement of your personal opinion.. The author is a male, in case you didn't notice. And if it was What Every Woman Thinks About Apart from [something stereotypical] it would similarly absolutely be satire. Your biases are as clear, as is your lack of a sense of humor. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See Ethnic joke and Sexist joke. I recommend you think carefully about how exactly you came to be unaware that satire can be racist or sexist. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I don't support the premise of this "book", but saying there is no Palestinian people or they don't have a national history is not necessarily a racist position. It's not necessarily motivated by race animosity, but an incorrect understanding of peoplehood, in my opinion. And those who think it's racist should be represented in the article with proper sourcing and attribution, not as an undisputed fact like you pretend. Finally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue with several perspectives, mutual injustices and responsibilities for its perpetuation, not a matter of victims and oppresors like it was with the Jews of early 20th century Russia. Don't try to equate the two.
 * I suggest you try reading late 19th / early 20th century Russian history. Tsarist Russians considered that the conflict with the newly-nationalist Jewish communities was "a complex issue with several perspectives, mutual injustices and responsibilities for its perpetuation, not a matter of victims and oppressors". No oppressor group thinks they are the oppressor at the time – blaming the victims is normal course. Only the long arc of history makes it clear.
 * That you don’t see the racism in this book is frightening to me. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I didnt know Jews in Russia wanted to destroy that country (or even create a separate State within the empire), represented a demographic threat and had a long history of bombing buses and schools, firing rockets on Russian civilians and cutting babies' throats in their cribs. I simply thought their problem was that they were not persuaded to convert to Orthodox Christianity after countless pogroms and antisemitic laws. Thanks for your insights. I'm sure your manichaeist view will lead you far in life, specially when it comes to this 100-year old conflict. Probably Israel's enemies never tried your approach before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:AD4E:0:0:9399:BB0D (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You would have a different view if you took the time to do some reading. The Tsarists absolutely thought that the Jews in the Russian Empire "wanted to destroy that country (or even create a separate State within the empire), represented a demographic threat and [carried out terrible acts of violence]." Remember they blamed Jews for the Assassination of Alexander II of Russia (this triggered the first true pogroms), and to your point about babies in cribs, have you never heard of the Blood libel myth?
 * Please try to learn more, and I promise the hatred will dissipate and the understanding of the other will grow. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didnt know the Itamar massacre (followed by numerous Palestinian celebrations) was a libel. I thought it was factual, but whatever. I'm done.
 * Competitive victimhood will not get us anywhere. Understanding requires seeing the perspective of the other side, not repetition of your own. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment
I was led to this article from 's website and this is still in a ridiculous state. The ahistorical and racist idea that the Palestinians are devoid of history has been persistent in the Israeli right and even centre for a very long time - to the extent of being the norm in public discourse -, and we need a background section to cover the intellectual history of this idea. This book did not pop out of a vacuum. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, Channel20 is a far-right channel; if we are saying that it was positively reviewed in the venue, we must qualify the nature of the media. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, you cannot really "review" an empty book: the positive reviews are basically [placeholder; sources will be there, soon]. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Sic and wrong Bronze Age link
There's a sentence in the criticism section talking about palestinian history dating from the "Stone age, 4000 BCE". This is followed by a "(Sic)", with the "4000 BCE" linked to the bronze age article. I'm guessing this is an edgy way to argue that 4000 BCE belongs to the Bronze Age - except that the Bronze Age article itself does not support this, as the bronze age starts in 3300 BCE. On the contrary, the Stone Age ends around 4000 BCE Thus, because 4000 BCE is indeed the Stone Age, I believe the sic should be removed, and bronze age link removed as well. DommageCritique (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it, but I'd prefer to get rid of this crappy article altogether. Zerotalk 02:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I agree with you DommageCritique (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't you forget to remove the "bronze age" link from 4000 BCE (which is incorrect)? Or did someone put it back up? It looks like it is still there DommageCritique (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the source doesn't appear to give a date for the Bronze Age, this was some editor's misreport. It's gone now. Zerotalk 14:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)