Talk:Norman Finkelstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Added new labels=

Is there something wrong with freedom of speech? Is somthing wrong with being able to voice your opinion? PEople educated such as you must be able to put these together? By the way any one care looking up how the ADL was formed. It is a criminally openly one sided organization.



---

We forgot to add that Mr Finkelstein is called a 'self-hating Jew' as well (corrected). For sources see his webpage (mail section), there are Jewish leaders that name him so, so we could add who is saying that. Also it is important to add his email section for opinions and debate (added). I remember reading that he has shaken the hand of (now late) Hamas leader, will we add that he is associated with the terrorists, Al-Quaeda? And why not just reproduce the ADL backgrounder here in full (smartly, as copyright restrictions still apply)? Just email the ADL and they will be pleased to help.

And by the way, ADL recently lost in court specifically for defaming people (accused a pair in anti-Semitism, intimidated and forced them out of business), couple of millions were paid. I suggest adding this information where ADL's opinions are mentioned (specifically its "holocaust denial" claim, and Foxman's "self-hating Jew").

---

http://www.olokaustos.org/saggi/interviste/finkel-en4.htm Now, 81, there it is, in your Saint Finkelstein's own words, that people have accused him of Holocaust Denial. All we say, and all you keep deleting, is that he's been accused. That's it. It's been verified. It's accurate. Now stop this constant reverting. Leumi

Who has he been accused by? Just you? Who are these vague 'various groups' who have accused him of Holocaust Denial?
81, Finkelstein says himself that he has been accused in this, albeit in a very propagandaish manner by claiming all those who accuse him are part of the "Holocaust Industry". But he does state he has been accused. The mere fact that there is such controversy around him is even further proof. I didn't say the accusations were true, I just said they were relevant.
No, you did say these accusations are true - see Palestinian refugee revision history. I quote - "I will not allow you to turn this into ... a soapbox for a holocast denier". You have this agenda and deny it. Provide names of these various groups (plural). Surely, there must be dozens of such groups...
I did not say these accusations were true on the encyclopedia. My opinions on Mr. Finkelstein are my right, and you cannot infringe on that. There is a difference between myself saying something and putting it on the encyclopedia, which you should realize 81.

(sigh) 81, point your browser to this letter from the ADL, which explicitly calls Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier". Whatever the validity of the accusations, however ridiculous they are, they have been made, and made by an organization with some weight in the courts of public opinion. Is that enough? (And if you're going to keep up these edit wars, will you please log in?) --Mirv 22:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mirv, if you look at the edit history you will see that I was the one who said that the ADL were implicated in calling Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, a Holocaust Denier. This was deleted. Leumi's campaign to call him a Holocaust Denier can be seen in every article which mentions Finkelstein. Also, note her blatant lie - "I didn't say the accusations were true" above.
Number one, and for the final time 81, I am male. While that is not particularly relevant, it is an issue of personal preference that you get that right every once in a while. Number two, when I said that I didn't say they were true, I meant that I did not say on the article it was true. What I say off the article is a different story. I'm sorry you misunderstood, and even more sorry you're using it as ammunition in personal attacks. Third, at the time it was deleted because there was no proof, now there is (thankyou again Mirv) and it is back on. Fourth, if you added that in before, why are you now claiming that the accusations are of "dubious veracity" when you yourself as well as admitted they had been made a long time ago. With respect, that reeks of an agenda other than the encyclopediac responsibility of truth.
-Leumi

81, whether you like the accusations against Finkelstein or not, they do exist; they were made by an influential group with a noticeable public voice; they are not Leumi's, nor are they mine. May I suggest that you, for the sake of balance and neutrality, find and note Finkelstein's responses to the charges, rather than simply removing them from the article? Obviously he denies them -- as I've noted -- but more detail would be appropriate. --Mirv 23:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou for adding that he denied them, I had forgotten to that. Actually, I think I've already added Finkelstein's response in the link section, but thanks for bringing it up.Leumi

Oh joy, another edit war over who made the accusations. To stop this one before it gets rolling, I'll just point out that Friedman used an ADL letterhead and said, in the last paragraph, "[w]e would be very pleased to meet with you" and "[w]e look forward to the opportunity to discuss this matter" thus making it quite clear that he was speaking for the ADL. "The Anti-Defamation League accused . . . " -- rather than "David Friedman of the Anti-Defamation League accused. . ." -- is a more accurate statement. --Mirv 00:15, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

no mention of ADLs accusation on the ADLs comprehensive site
The ADL does not list every single document of its on it's site, just as other organizations do not. That they made the accusation has been proved 81.Leumi

This page is inaccuarate.

No it is not. You need to provide proof to make such claims 81. Leumi
If it is inaccurate, fix the inaccuracies -- but please check your facts and provide your references; don't arbitrarily change something that has been proven by careful research and argument. --Mirv

This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism

I'll say it again: If you have a problem with the article, fix it: name the inaccuracies, show how they're wrong, and change them so they're right. Simply accusing Leumi of vandalism is neither constructive nor helpful; please don't do it. --Mirv

I don't see any "vandalism", but there have been several un-necessary reversions by 168, 81 and Leumi. I'd rather we discussed changes in talk, instead of merely reverting. (Comments in the edit summary are plainly no longer sufficient.)
By the way, does anyone have a problem with any of /my/ edits? If so, I'm willing to bow out... --Uncle Ed 16:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Actually, I do have a big problem with you describing my edits of Norman Finkelstein as "un-necessary reversions." Look again at the history and the changes and summary explanations closely. I made exactly one reversion and I provided what I considered to be a very good justification for it, but I found 81's response to it compelling. I believe the only reason that my edit is the last in the history is that I struck a compromise that both I and 81 were content with.168... 16:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) (That comment went out of date quickly168... 17:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC))

I don't think I have been making too many "un-necessary revisions". The revisions I and 168.. made are essential parts of the back and forth process that creates an article, I felt. And I think calling 168...'s revisions unecessary is even less deserved, as he tends to be slightly more concise than I am about certain things. However, on the issues in the text and on most things, I think you've been perfectly reasonable and value your help here. Your mediation has helped things out a lot and I'd appreciate if you stick around. :) Leumi 17:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, read the ADL letter again. Notice what it says about Finkelstein -- it's in the second paragraph. To assert that the ADL said what it said "without providing evidence" is an egregious falsehood. By all means use more neutral language, but don't make up lies. --Mirv 14:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And Leumi, the same admonition goes for you. The ADL letter complained of inciting hatred and condoning -- not inciting -- violence against Israel. --Mirv 15:31, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps praise is a better word? After all, they did give a clear example of him praising it.Leumi 15:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've put in his own words -- he "honored" attacks against Israel. --Mirv 15:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous, he's very public and unashamed in his support for Hezbollah -- it's not "alleged". Read this letter, where he says, referring to a lecture he gave in Lebanon, "I did make a point of publicly honoring the heroic resistance of Hezbollah to foreign occupation." --Mirv 15:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and what does hezbollah have to do with holocaust denial? it's like saying all vegetarian are nazis because hitler was one

Two reasons, two charges: Holocaust denial because of The Holocaust Industry, the stuff about Israel because of Hezbollah. Is the rewrite clearer? --Mirv 15:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'Holocaust denial because of The Holocaust Industry is too ridiculous, even for parody

Nevertheless, that's what they said. It is evidence, however specious. Saying that the ADL provided no evidence is intentional misinformation. Encyclopedia articles should not contain misinformation. Am I making myself clear?

The readers may decide for themselves whether the evidence warrants the accusations; it is not our business to take sides on the matter, only to report what happened. --Mirv 16:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Saying that the ADL provided no evidence is NOT intentional misinformation that Fink is a Holo denier. Is is a fact which no source could contradict

If I'm reading your fragmented sentences correctly, you seem to have confused two issues here: the first is whether Finkelstein denies the Holocaust or not (he does not, and the article makes no claim that he does); the second is whether the Anti-Defamation League had any reason to think that Finkelstein denies the Holocaust -- which they said they did (read the letter again). Vague evidence is evidence; the reader should decide its validity, not you. --Mirv 16:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the ADl has provided evidence that Fink is Holo Denier. Saying that the moon is made of cheese because I feel hungry is not evidence that the moon is made of cheese.

I agree that the evidence that they spell out in the letter <—(this constitutes "providing evidence", doesn't it?) is shaky, but shouldn't we let the readers come to that conclusion on their own? Evidence does not cease to be evidence just because you don't think that it's good enough; it may be flimsy evidence, but others may not share your opinion. Don't force your POV on the article; let the words speak for themselves. If the evidence is as bad as you think it is, that will be clear to anyone. --Mirv 16:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I look forward to your article on cheddar deposits on the moon, extortion racket does not equal denial, therefore does not constitute evidence
I said it was bad evidence, didn't I? If I, in an article on France's secret lunar dairy mines, cited my own hunger as evidence proving their existence, then everyone would realize that the article was full of BS, right? If the ADL's evidence is as specious as you claim, everyone will realize it; but to unilaterally decide that the evidence is no good, and therefore should be discounted entirely, is forcing your views into the article. --Mirv 16:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Unilateral? But you agree it's not evidence. Descriptions of the smell of France's secret lunar dairy mines, and citing your own hunger as evidence, would not survive on the Moon article.
He did not agree it is not evidence, stop placing words in peoples mouth. He simply stated it was evidence that, in his opinion, is bad. However evidence was provided, and as such it is legitimate. Stop inserting your own POV.Leumi 21:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For crying out quietly, will you read what I actually write? I said that I think it's 'bad' evidence; I did not say it is not evidence. Please try to realize that your standards of evidence are not the only standards out there; some people, including the ADL, think that Finkelstein's arguments constitute "delegitimization", which is, in their opinion, equivalent to denial. My opinion about the Moon is meaningless; the official opinion of NASA -- which is to lunar studies what the ADL is to Jewish affairs: among the foremost authorities in the field -- would be worthy of mention, even if it seems nonsensical. --Mirv 17:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that in a sense the letter is not evidence, as I said on the "affair" talk page, that the ADL isn't using the provocative label of "Holocaust denier" consciously as a smear. Two questions one might ask are 1) Does their sincerity matter to whether we promulgate this extremely serious accusation that no one here seems to believe has a good basis? and 2) Should we perhaps just assume their sincerity, as we do with many accusations, in particular because sincerity is hard to prove or judge? I'm not sure of my own mind about either of these. But possibly relatedly, the first edit I made to the "affair" page is to change a sentence that called Finkelstein's accusation "plagiarism" to an accusation that "Finkelstein called 'plagiarism.'" That's because what Finkelstein would tell you that Dershowitz did--the actual motions he went through and the product that resulted--does not fit what the word "plagiarism" connotes to most people, and doesn't even count as plagiarism to some, for instance me. D has been accused of "plagiarism" in F-speak but in normal English it's hasty and tendentious to give the accusation that label. Likewise, I suspect the ADL is using ADL-speak when they call F a "Holocaust denier"--because I haven't seen anybody quoting F as denying the Holocaust. I'm just saying the same thing Leumi said earlier when he suggested they were using the word broadly. But what if I say I'm using "rapist" broadly or "child molestor" broadly when I refer to the neighbor who I say, by way of justification, that he steals my newspaper? I think it wouldn't be right for the paper to quote my accusation without pointing out that I had not specified any act of molestation or rape, only the newspaper theft. Otherwise, my neighbors name is raked through the mud while my reputation gets a boost for my demonstration of civic responsibility.So with this meditation I think I've answered my own questions at least to my own mind. I think we should give the ADL the benefit of the doubt but if we can't find them saying "he denied in this way" we should say they didn't explain their accusation. If you look at the way the letter is broken into paragraphs and moves from topic to topic, to me it offers no indication that the comments about the book are being offered as evidence for the label "Holocaust denier." Rather the letter suggests that it takes the fact as already having been established. Of course, there's such a thing in this world as bad writing. Maybe they structured their letter badly and weren't explicit enough about what they were offering as evidence for what. And maybe uses "Holocaust denier" in a broad way that made it seem obvious to them that their points about the book pertained to the label "Holocaust denier." Maybe they think everybody uses the term in this same broad way and so the structure of the letter is obvious to them too. Fine. Let's not doubt their sincerity. But then in this interpretation we must acknowledge that they are using the term broadly, just as I was using "rapist" broadly in my neighborhood hypothetical.168... 02:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Plaudits for your most reasonable analysis; it's a refreshing change from the incoherent rants replying to things I never wrote. I am convinced; how's this phrasing: "The ADL called him a well-known Holocaust denier, without providing specific reason beyond (what's already quoted)"; that should repeat what flimsy reason they gave and make it clear that the rest of the reasoning, whatever it is, is nebulous and undefined. --Mirv 03:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RE: "Holocaust denial because of The Holocaust Industry"

Even staunch Zionists such as Debbie Schlussel have criticised the 'holocaust industry'. Does this make her a holocaust-denier as well?--Conch Shell 13:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous one, you can't blank large swathes of the article just because you don't like them. Controversies surrounding Finkelstein's public activities are a part of his life whether you like them or not; you can't just decide that they're "non-biographical". Why don't you do some research and find out more about Finkelstein if you so badly want to improve this article? --Mirv 17:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also to anonymous User: Why did you remove Finkelstein's own words on Hezbollah. You removed the words " for what he calls, "having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers," which stated nothing more than a direct quote from Finkelstein. As stated above, you can't remove anything that you think will reflect badly on Finkelstein. It is a direct quote by him, and you haven't provided any justification for removing it.Leumi 23:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: Finkelstein on Hezbollah -- If nobody minds, we should go with the version from the letter from which I extracted the other pro-Hezbollah quotations, rather than the ADL's quotation of a speech/lecture that's not transcribed anywhere accessible; that'll avoid the problem of possible misquotation.

And anonymatron, please don't make major changes without an edit summary, and if you are going to keep up these edit wars, I reiterate my request that you log in. --Mirv 23:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your change makes sense Mirv. I certainly don't mind. Go ahead. Thanks.Leumi 23:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I love you class Dr. Finkelstein!! Farah Merchant

[edit] civility and labelling

I am not involved in this article (though I have opinions on it), but it unavoidably and annoyingly keeps coming up in Recent Changes. I am not commenting on it in any way, except to ask 195.xxx.... to cut out the "Irgun supporter" silliness, whether you agree with Leumi or not. Just for the sake of clarity, leumi is the Hebrew adjective for "national" (masculine gender). It means nothing else. There is even a large bank in Israel called Bank Leumi. Yes, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) used the term in their name. Calling him an Irgun supporter, however, is about as baseless as calling him a "bank supporter." Why not keep to the arguments at hand, which seem to be proceeding in a fairly civil manner, despite the differences. Danny 23:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

His edits on the Irgun page make it very clear that he's an Irgun supporter, and the name Leumi is not a coincidence
Thankyou Danny. I did point the bank analogy that out before, but I'm glad you mentioned it as it carries a good deal more weight from yourself. I appreciate you stepping in on that score, and agree that the debate seems to be going fairly civily, which is always good. Thankyou again.Leumi 23:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--

As Noam Chomsky once said "The Anti-Defamation League specializes in defamation". I dispute the claim in the article that the ADL fights anti-semitism, it seems especially curious that in the case of Mr. Finkelstein the person they would be calling anti-semitic is a Jew. Perhaps anti-Zionism would be a closer match? Anyhow, I have changed that the ADL fights anti-semitism, to the ADL says it fights anti-semitism, putting their claim that they do so is fine, but as a claim, not a fact. -- Lancemurdoch 06:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, can you explain exactly why you have a problem with this text:
a conservative, pro-Israel advocacy group which says it fights anti-Semitism
particularly the phrase "pro-Israel advocacy group"? The ADL itself makes it manifestly clear on its own web site that this is so. See: http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/ -- Viajero 10:43, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The problem that I have with that is it unduely emphasizes one part of the organization. This is the organization's mission statement:

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens. [1]

If you look at the amicus curiae briefs filed by the ADL [2], you may decide that the organization is not conservative at all but rather liberal. such as:

Shelley v. Kraemer (334 U.S. 1 (1948)): This case, a landmark in civil rights litigation, established the right of all citizens to own property regardless of race and thereby invalidated the racially restrictive covenants that had historically prevented non-white people from living in certain areas.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483 (1954)): This is the landmark civil rights case that resulted in the desegregation of public schools across the entire United States.
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)): This case addessed the validity of the "cumulative impact" or "aggregation" principle for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Commerce Clause, which forms the basis of much civil rights legislation. As a leading civil rights organization, ADL maintained that the rule provided an essential foundation for the basic civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court decided the controversy on other grounds and thereby left the "cumulative impact" principle intact.
Virginia v. Black (2002): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.

There are a number of others listed on the website that call into question the characterization of the ADL as "conservative". OneVoice 18:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points:
  • "Separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are traditional values that up until the 1970s were pretty non-sectarian, ie they transcended the distinction of conservative/liberal. Old fashioned conservatives like Eisenhower would never have supported school prayer, vouchers, that kind of thing. It was only with the rise of neoconservatism that fundamentalist religious values were reintroduced into the American political discourse. Don't forget the US Founding Fathers were no radicals; they were basically conservative but honored the "separation of church and state" as modern, enlightment values.
  • In its early years, the ADL was indeed a prominent civil rights group as the many amicus curiae briefs you refer to indicates. But from the 1960s, as Israel became an increasingly important strategic ally, and began particularly to actively target anti-zionism. It did a lot of spying on behalf of the FBI and CIA activities which I am sure you agree run counter to its image as a "progressive" civil rights organization:

In the 1960s. the FBI collaborated with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith to infiltrate and spy upon a wide variety of dissident American political organizations. The names of some 62,000 American political dissidents were held in the FBI’s files during that period. ... FBI guidelines were changed dramatically in the mid-1970s after widespread public outrage upon the discovery of the COINTELPRO operation—following the death of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who worked closely with the ADL. New protocols stipulated that the FBI was only permitted to deploy undercover operatives in churches and mosques or inside political organizations if investigators had first found “probable cause” that persons inside those groups may have committed a crime. After the institution of the guidelines restricting the FBI’s ability to spy on domestic political dissidents, however, the ADL rushed in to do the spying. The illicit fruits of the ADL’s intelligence ventures still ended up in the hands of the FBI, the BATF, the CIA, the IRS and other federal agencies with which the ADL maintained close contact. [3]

These kinds of activities were still going on the in 1990s:

The ADL claims to be the nation's leading defender against prejudice and bigotry but in this instance its targets were members of the African National Congress and its supporters, and apparently everyone, Arab and non-Arab, who had the temerity to criticize Israel. This included some who drove to Arab community events where the ADL's "fact-finder", Roy Bullock, and the cop, Tom Gerard, took turns writing down their license plate numbers, which Gerard turned into addresses thanks to his access to California motor vehicle records. Their spying efforts proved to be part of a much larger intelligence gathering operation that targeted some 12,000 individuals and more than 600 left-of-center organizations in northern California. [...] Last November the California Court of Appeals handed down a decision that paves the way for a major test later this year of the ADL's penchant for spying on its enemies. It was the most significant episode in a slow-moving class-action case filed in 1993 by 19 pro-Palestinian and anti-apartheid activists who claim to be victims of the ADL's snooping operations.[4]

  • Finally, although the ADL defends the separation of church and state in the US, it also supports Israel, a country which may have a secular government but is defined the religion of its citizens. Why do you think Elon is afraid of the demographic time bomb in the West Bank? Because it threatens Israel's character as a Jewish nation. Read Tony Judt's article in the NYRB from last November "Israel: The Alternative" [5] in which he asserts that in the coming years Israel can either be Jewish or a democracy -- but not both. A nation defined by the religion of its citizens is counter to all modern concepts of secular humanism. Israel is not a liberal project, although many Israelis may be liberals.
So, I am sure you will agree, the ADL may once have been liberal but is a now clearly a fundamentally conservative organization. -- Viajero 20:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While the founding fathers may have opposed vouchers, there is no evidence they would have opposed it on 'separation of church and state' grounds. Thats the whole basis of the modern political argument--what a meaningful separation of church and state entails. Conservatives say that the founding fathers did not mean an absolute and complete legal disassociation between activities of the state and activities of the church---especially in the case of things like vouchers that may go to religious schools or funds that may go to faith-based organizations, when the religious group is just one of a number of organizations recieving funding. I haven't read most of the other discussion in this article; but I just wanted to comment on the fact that you didn't quite seem to get this fundamental point in the modern political debate. Would Eisenhower have argued against vouchers because he thought government money has to be discriminatory against ending up in the hands of religious groups, like many people today will argue?Brianshapiro

[edit] Unintelligible sentence

Today, largely as a result of Finkelstein's analysis and criticism, Peters' book is controversial among scholars and largely disregarded. I do not understand this sentence. Something largely disregarded cannot be controversial at the same time. Could we make a decision whether it is taken seriously or not? Any "scholars" here? at0 09:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Peters book is widely discredited among scholars. I changed "controversial" to "discredited". I also changed the part about Finkelstein's denial that the Holocaust is "a unique event in history". The quoted section now reads: "a uniquely evil historical event". In Holocaust Industry Finkelstein argues against the tendency to view the Holocaust as the most evil event in human history. He suggests that other events - e.g. the slave trade and slavery, or various colonial encounters - have likewise caused incomprehensible suffering, and there's no tenable way to claim that one instance was "more evil" than another. He also points out the huge disparity between Holocaust reparations paid to the Jewish community and reparations paid to other communities for other instances of genocide or large-scale suffering (in the US, blacks and native Americans are prominent examples). sneaky 07:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've NPOVd the entire paragraph; it followed the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative, which was inventive but not particularly well supported by the facts. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Replaced "and in the view of Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, Finkelstein's charges were received initially with great hostility" with "Finkelstein's charges were initially viewed with skepticism". No need to "NPOV" this by attributing the observation to two interested people. It's a simple observation: the US media were initially uninterested in Finkelstein's critique because critical reaction to the book at the time was almost uniformly positive. As such, Finkelstein's charges were initially viewed with skepticism in the US. In its previous form, the sentence implied that while Finkelstein and Chomsky were saying, "People are being hostile to Finkelstein!", everyone else was saying, "No, please, we're not being hostile - we want to publish Finkelstein's critique!" That implication is false. sneaky 01:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a comment from John Kenney on the subject:
The stuff about Finkelstein singlehandedly exposing Peters seems highly dubious to me. This is the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative. But from looking at the JSTOR archives, what is striking is how a) the book got very little scholarly attention at all; and b) that the reviews are uniformly negative. While the fact that non-specialist mainstream reviewers in the US said good things about it should be noted, the idea that Finkelstein turned things around seems to be a major exaggeration. Of course, it's hard to find anything very conclusive, since nearly everyone writing about the book has such a heavy agenda. john k 03:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Finkelstein and Chomsky's narrative does not appear to square with the facts. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused. Do you think it's merely Chomsky's opinion that Finkelstein's critique was initially received with skepticism? In other words, do you think another interpretation is possible, namely, that Finkelstein's critique was received with open arms? Finkelstein's critique, or anything like it, was not published in any remotely mainstream publication in the US until after British reviewers had torn the Peters book apart, echoing Israeli reviewers, who almost universally characterized the book as a fraud, though perhaps a useful propaganda tool (as Yehoshua Porath commented; Porath reviewed the Peters book for the NY Review of Books). Mainstream journals simply refused to publish it - Finkelstein writes about this in Image and Reality, of which his critique of Peters constitutes chapter 2. I don't see how your post bears on this question. The article attributes the exposition of the Peters hoax "in part" to Finkelstein, not in full; that exhausts the relevance of the "john k" quote. Hey, it's a minor point of course, but I did already address it in my previous post here. sneaky 08:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jay has asked me to comment. Certainly Finkelstein should be noted as a critic of Peters, as this is a big part of Finkelstein's narrative. But I'm not sure about the idea that it was received with skepticism. What do you mean by "mainstream publication"? The mass media in the US certainly seems to have given a positive reception to the book. Part of the problem here may have to do with the way reviews are done in the US. Mainstream non-scholarly publications in the US generally invite broadly defined "Men (or Women) of Letters," or public intellectuals, or what have you, to review books, rather than actual experts in the field in question. Scholarly journals, on the other hand, usually take a while to review books. In Britain, as I understand it, things are different, and actual experts review books. So what's going on here isn't an American, or an American scholarly, bias towards nonsense like Peters. It's a bias towards nonsense like Peters from hackish "public intellectuals" like Barbara Tuchman and Lucy Dawidowicz, and so forth. American scholars didn't really get themselves involved until after Israeli and British scholars attacked it in mainstream reviews. Now, it seems to me that this is a problem, but it's a problem that says more about the way American scholarly or pseudo-scholarly books are reviewed than it does about American bias towards Israel. And I think that Finkelstein/Said/Chomsky's account of how the controversy worked itself out should be taken with a very large grain of salt. These people have an agenda to push. Why not simply say that "Finkelstein's charges initially aroused little attention"? This is undeniably true. john k 15:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments. I wasn't aware Said had weighed in on this one, but other than that, I agree with most of what you say. Certainly the Peters book was not initially received with skepticism in the U.S. - indeed, it was received with open arms - which partially explains why Finkelstein's critique was initially received with skepticism. But Jayjg inserted the "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky" clause to qualify the statement about the cool initial reception to Finkelstein's critique, not Peters's book. You and I agree that "Finkelstein's charges initially aroused little attention" is a simple statement of fact. In Jayjg's version, this was only a statement of fact "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky". My intention was to make clear that not merely in the opinion of two controversial scholars, but in fact, Finkelstein's critique was initially ignored in the U.S. So I like your proposed language, and I maintain that Jayjg's edit was inappropriate. sneaky 10:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
As John Kenney and others have pointed out, there is no evidence (except for claims from Finkelstein and Chomsky) that Finkelstein's views were met with "hostility" or "skepticism" or anything else. And yet you still insist on promoting this view in the article. There is a huge difference between someone's views being "ignored" and being "met with skepticism". "Skepticism" is the word you inserted into the article. It is edits like this which make claims without attribution that are "inappropriate", not edits that attempt to provide such attribution. If you are going to insist that his views were met with skepticism, then please attribute that view to someone, as I attempted to do. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could continue to argue. I will note that "arousing little attention" and "being ignored" are quite different things - the first implies no normative judgment, while the second does. But I will say no more than that, and just ask whether or not my formulation is generally acceptable. john k 16:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was using "ignored" as a short-form for "aroused little attention", but you're right, "aroused little attention" is better as it is non-normative. In general though, I believe we are in agreement that either claims of "skepticism" or "hostility" to Finkelstein's views should either me attributed, or (better), removed altogether; is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, the point is, the Peters book initially garnered almost nothing but praise in the US, and the mainstream press, including the same journals doling out the praise, rejected Finkelstein's critique and refused even to investigate his claims. Finkelstein writes about all of this in the postscript to chapter 2 in Image and Reality. Do you propose he's lying? Here's what he says: "By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had gone through eight printings (cloth) and received some two hundred notices, ranging from ecstasy to awe, in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a splendid series of columns in The Nation to exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, Atlantic, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax....Yet in early 1985, the disinformation effort began to unravel as Peters's book went into a British edition. The reviews in England were devastating. Oxford's great orientalist, Albert Hourani, denounced [the book] as 'ludicrous and worthless'....The Israelis also got into the act....[T]he chair of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University, Avishai Margalit, derided Peters's 'web of deceit'....Faced with escalating accusations of censorship levelled mainly by the British press, the New York Times finally ran a piece in November 1985. It was placed in the Thanksgiving Day (non-)issue, on the theater page, without even a listing in the index." (Image and Reality, second edition, pp. 45-6) So, "aroused little attention" is fine with me, as I said. But I think it's clear that there was also a healthy dose of "skepticism" (I agree "hostility" is inappropriate) in the US air - unless Finkelstein's lying. And as stated previously, I think it's important to describe the reception Finkelstein's critique initially received without dismissing the account as "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky"; I believe we are all in agreement about that. John, this is an aside, but in my brief experience with Finkelstein's writings (Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality), I've found him to be a careful scholar, "heavy agenda" or not. I wonder if you have any first-hand impressions - feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you like. sneaky 01:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is whether or not Finkelstein's findings were met with "skepticism", as you claim. It has been proposed that, in fact, they "aroused" (or better "received") little attention. You seemed to agree with this wording earlier; have you now changed your mind, or do you agree that the "little attention" wording is better? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was responding to Jayjg's post in which he claimed, e.g., "If you are going to insist that his views were met with skepticism, then please attribute that view to someone, as I attempted to do." That's not a view. That's what happened. And that was the issue here: Jayjg's insistence on characterizing a factual statement as the "view" of two controversial academics, thus discrediting the statement in the eyes of most readers, and no doubt confusing the rest. According to Merriam-Webster Online, skepticism connotes "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object". Perhaps Finkelstein's findings were not viewed with "an attitude of doubt" by mainstream US media editors. But what is the alternative explanation? That his findings were accepted, but simply not published until British reviewers started to make some noise? Not likely. Actually, it would be more accurate to say: "Finkelstein's findings were initially rejected by the mainstream US press". Because that's what happened: he tried to get his findings published in mainstream journals and newspapers, and got rejected. I used "received with skepticism" because it sounded more encyclopedic than "rejected". But why don't we dispense with the formalities and use "rejected" instead? I think that language would be most accurate. I also think this doesn't really matter, and "received little attention" is an adequate alternative. But I don't want to lose track of the original issue, which was Jayjg's mangling of the simple sentence informing readers that initially, Finkelstein's critique was viewed with skepticism - actually, rejected - by the mainstream US media. sneaky 06:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
You stated a few comments ago You and I agree that "Finkelstein's charges initially aroused little attention" is a simple statement of fact.; have you changed your mind on that? As for his work being "viewed with skepticism", that is an attribution and an interpretation of events, not a simple statement of fact. If there was credible evidence that a number of editors rejected his work saying "I am skeptical of your work", then it would be a statement of fact. In any event, are you now suggesting that the wording should be "his work was rejected by the mainstream press"? Or is the "little attention" wording what you prefer? Jayjg (talk) 06:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I haven't changed my mind. All three statements - "initially aroused/received little attention", "were initially viewed with skepticism", "were initially rejected" - are statements of fact, it seems to me. True, I do not have editors on record saying, "We were skeptical of Finkelstein's findings at first". But according to the cited definition of skepticism, Finkelstein's critique was obviously initially received with skepticism, unless we are to believe that editors accepted the veracity of Finkelstein's findings, but refused to publish them for some mysterious reason - an interesting conspiracy theory perhaps, but out of place in an encyclopedia entry. I would vote for the third statement, because I think it is the most accurate rendering. But they're all factual, and I don't care at this point, so if I'm outvoted by a third editor - john k, perhaps? - then I certainly won't complain. sneaky 07:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
You have based your statements on Finkelstein's narrative of the events, and your own interpetation of the motives of the people involved (according to Finkelstein's narrative). Wikipedia:Cite your sources would indicate that you should at least indicate that Finkelstein is the source for the information, and Wikipedia:NPOV/Wikipedia:No original research would indicate that you personally should not be trying to assign motivations for the lack of interest in Finkelsteins' work. My attempts to do just that (both cite the source of the narrative, and/or remove interpretations of motive) have so far met with rejection from you; yet as far as I can tell my edits fall entirely within Wikipedia policy, while yours do not. If we cannot resolve this issue on the Talk: page, the next steps would normally be a Poll or a Request for Comment. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is absurd. Where did I provide my "own interpretation of the motives of the people involved (according to Finkelstein's narrative)"? No one's talking about motives here. We're talking about a simple description of the period of time between when Finkelstein started circulating his critique in the US, and when British and Israeli reviewers tore apart the Peters book, which awoke US editors from their stupor. During that time, US media refused to publish Finkelstein's critique; further, they refused to pursue Finkelstein's findings in any way. As I said above, that's actually a bit more than "skepticism", isn't it - that's outright rejection of Finkelstein's findings. But "skepticism" is not inaccurate, as it connotes doubt, which must be the explanation for the initial response Finkelstein got: if editors didn't doubt Finkelstein's findings, then they would have published or at least pursued them. Your edits just don't make any sense. Using your logic, which "falls entirely within Wikipedia policy", the statement "Noam Chomsky spent time in a kibbutz as a child" must be qualified like so: "According to Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky spent time in a kibbutz as a child." Look, are there any competing theories out there? Is anyone claiming that Chomsky didn't spend time on a kibbutz - or that Finkelstein's findings were not received with skepticism/rejected, i.e., that they were received with open arms/accepted? No. Ergo, it's preposterous to say "According to..." before such statements. Now, that said, I have provided a fairly detailed excerpt from Finkelstein's essay on the matter on this talk page; if you want to simply paste that into the article, and then cite Finkelstein in the standard fashion, I'm all for it. You could even say "According to Finkelstein..." before that excerpt, because in that case, the qualification would be accurate. Perhaps that would be the best resolution: Let's say "According to Finkelstein..." and then paste in that excerpt. What does everyone think? But if you put "According to..." before a basic statement of fact, it gives the impression that it's not really a statement of fact, and that there's a range of opinion on the issue. That's just wrong in this case. sneaky 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can you quit saying "journal," when you mean "mainstream press," Sneaky? Scholarly journals were pretty uniform in either ignoring or attacking Peters's book, and as I noted, scholarly journals take along time to print reviews, anyway. "Journal" is a term which suggests the American Historical Review, not the New Republic or the Atlantic Monthly. That the mainstream press did not publish Finkelstein's work seems to be true. To attribute a motive to this seems to me to be inherently POV, especially when one is doing so based entirely on the say so of an interested party. john k 07:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No annoyance intended, John. I didn't realize I was misusing the term. Is the New York Review of Books - which initially rejected Finkelstein's critique outright before eventually commissioning Porath to do a review - not considered a journal? Or the Library Journal, which published a laudatory review of the Peters book by Brandeis president and Chaim Weizmann biographer Jehuda Reinharz in April 1984? It's really an honest question - I'm not clear on the distinction. Also, the book was initially given positive reviews by some US scholars, even if those scholars were writing in the mainstream press, e.g. Walter Reich in Atlantic, Ronald Sanders in New Republic. At any rate, I agree that we should not attribute a motive to the initial rejection of Finkelstein's critique. sneaky 07:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
O.K., it appears we are all in agreement then about your statement that Finkelstein's work was met with "skepticism". Is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clearly there's no agreement, because you think the "skepticism" statement is an interpretation, meaning that we should not take Finkelstein's word for it - perhaps editors were actually quite receptive to Finkelstein's critique, and they just chose not to show their love by publishing it. In that event one might expect to read that Finkelstein received numerous letters from editors informing him, "We don't doubt that your critique is accurate - we're just not going to publish it. Thanks though. Keep up the good work!" Anyway, I've opined that "initially rejected by the mainstream US media" is the best description of what happened. That's my vote. Let's get John in here and count the votes. sneaky 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sneaky, do you object to just saying that "Finkelstein's work roused little attention?" If so, why? If not, what are we arguing about? john k 01:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At this point I'm equally baffled. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I said, if we're going to exclude the Finkelstein excerpt, then my vote is for "initially rejected by the mainstream US media". If I'm outvoted by John and Jayjg, then "roused little attention" is fine. However, I think the best solution would be to paste that Finkelstein excerpt into the article, cite it, and preface it with the qualification "According to Finkelstein...". Do you guys object to that? Seems to me everyone's concerns would be satisfactorily addressed that way. If you vote for "roused little attention" instead, I would like to hear your specific objections to quoting the Finkelstein passage. sneaky 03:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's issues of balance. How important, in the scope of an encyclopedia article about Finkelstein in general, is it to put a lengthy quote from him about this particular issue? Doesn't this rather unbalance things? Furthermore, there are NPOV issues - it seems to me that quoting Finkelstein at length implies that his view is accurate. And adding weaselly stuff at the end makes it even worse. I'd much prefer to keep it simple. He wrote the critique, and it didn't arouse much attention. Then British reviewers and so forth savaged it, and it was revived. Perhaps some point could be made that for Finkelstein and others, this showed the dominance of the American media by pro-Israeli elements (or whatever it is that Finkelstein is arguing), and in that context, perhaps, Finkelstein's quote is relevant. I don't think it's relevant as an explanation of what actually happened. john k 03:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, given the current article layout, it would be a bit incongruous to put the entire quote in there. The relevant portion of the excerpt, which I propose we insert into the article, is the following: "By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had gone through eight printings (cloth) and received some two hundred notices, ranging from ecstasy to awe, in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a splendid series of columns in The Nation to exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, Atlantic, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax." A few questions: (1) Do you think that this is properly characterized as Finkelstein's "view" of what happened, i.e., that the excerpt shows fact-distorting "POV" bias? You seem wary of implying "that his view is accurate" - but is there an alternative "view" that you're aware of? Isn't Finkelstein just telling his readers "what actually happened"? (2) What do you mean by "weaselly stuff"? (3) Why would the excerpt only be relevant in the context you mention? In the excerpt, as far as I can tell, Finkelstein makes no allegations of "dominance...by pro-Israeli elements", nor does he attribute nefarious motives to any actors. Actually, the excerpt seems relevant only to a basic retelling of events, which is after all what we're trying to do. I think that "didn't arouse much attention" glosses over the fact that US periodicals and newspapers roundly rejected Finkelstein's findings and also refused to pursue them independently. (Of course, this appropriately leaves aside the question of motives - we agree that readers should be allowed to make their own conclusions.) sneaky 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

1) Well, there's some bits that are unclear. What does it mean that periodicals that hadn't reviewed the book rejected Finkelstein's work on the subject "as of little or no consequence?" Which is of little consequence - Finkelstein's work, or Peters's? 2) I mean, I don't want to have "Finkelstein says such and such, but others would disagree." That's just annoying. 3) Yes, you're right, in that limited context. But isn't this the broader point that Finkelstein is making? It's certainly the point that Said makes in his review of the affair. While, out of context, the quote seems largely fine, it is part of a larger argument, isn't it? As such, I don't think we can take it as a dispassionated account of the facts. john k 07:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) I think "a manuscript on the subject" refers to Finkelstein's "manuscript" on the Peters book ("the subject"). (2) Agreed. (3) In the chapter from which the passage was excerpted, Finkelstein does not make that broader point. He talks about how some people had to eat a little crow once they realized that they'd endorsed a hoax, but as far as explicitly attributing motives, constructing explanatory theories, etc., he is perhaps surprisingly silent. I wasn't aware that Said had posited "dominance by pro-Israeli elements" as an explanation in his article, but Finkelstein certainly does not do so in his essay. So, the excerpt is not "part of a larger argument" in that sense; actually, it's basically a synopsis of the chapter postscript from which it is borrowed. Accordingly, can we take the excerpt as a reasonably factual account, and preface it with "According to Finkelstein"? Or were there other unclear elements? sneaky 07:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
While the quote is clearly Finkelstein's view, it is hardly a dispassionate recitation of facts. Rather, it is filled with his interpretations of the events as they unfolded. He persistently refers to Peters' work as a "hoax", which is a rather overblown and POV phrase for what, in reality, is a sloppy and highly flawed work. He refers to the range of positive reviews as ranging from "ecstacy to awe"; again, surely a POV phrase, and one which the reviewers themselves would no doubt refute. He claims that "The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence"; but what evidence does he provide for that claim? Was he in the editorial meetings in which the decisions were made? Finkelstein's POV narrative may well be a "reasonably factual account" of Finkelstein's perceptions, but it falls short of being a neutral account of the facts. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Which is why we should say, "According to Finkelstein, [excerpt]." Or, how about this, guys: "Finkelstein's critique initially roused little attention. According to Finkelstein, [excerpt]." Does that seem reasonable? A few responses to Jayjg's comments: (1) Have you read Finkelstein's critique of Peters? Merriam-Webster says that one meaning of hoax is "something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication". Without a doubt, Peters' account relied on "fraud" and "fabrication". It was therefore a hoax. Nothing POV there. In fact, it is (pro-Israel) POV of you to object. (2) Do you propose Finkelstein is lying when he says those periodicals "refused to run any critical correspondence"? Editorial meetings are obviously irrelevant. If Finkelstein is lying, then those periodicals must have run critical correspondence during the period in question; if he's not lying, then they didn't run it. I'm not aware of anyone ever having suggested that Finkelstein lied about this, other than you. (3) You insist on dismissing the excerpt a "POV narrative" based on "Finkelstein's perceptions". However, no one - other than you - has questioned Finkelstein's version of events. "POV" suggests that there is some dispute. Clearly there is none here among informed observers. Of course, to be absolutely certain, we could read through every issue of those periodicals for the period in question and see if any critical correspondence was printed. But I assume you agree this is an impossibly high standard. sneaky 02:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
(1) Peters' account relied on all sorts of things; it ignored facts, made sloppy arguments and selective use of sources, used actual information in quite dubious ways, etc. However, the books most critical reviewers (aside from Finkelstein) didn't, as far as I am aware, go so far as to describe it as a "hoax", no doubt because of the overblown and POV nature of that word. Also, please note that though I obviously did not express any "pro-Israel" POV in my comment, in general it is quite all right to express POV on Talk: pages, though not, of course, in articles. Regardless, it is irrelevant; please focus on article content, not on your continuing crusade to focus attention on me and your misperceptions of my actions. (2) I propose that the periodicals in question did not run correspondence that Finkelstein considered critical. "Refuse" is another POV word intended to invoke the notion of some sort of willful conspiracy of silence on the matter. (3) Your assumption that people agree with Finkelstein's narrative simply because they do not comment on it is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ex silentio. Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) In the abovementioned Thanksgiving Day, 1985 issue of the NYT, Yehoshua Porath was quoted as saying that the Peters book "is a sheer forgery....In Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish, except maybe as a propaganda weapon" (Image and Reality, 46-7). Porath is perhaps Israel's foremost expert on Palestinian history. "Hoax" and "sheer forgery" are not readily distinguishable in my view. Reviewers' assessments aside, Peters plagiarized entire passages from Ernst Frankenstein's Justice for My People, a Zionist propaganda tract (cf. Image and Reality, pp. 42-5). Yet, according to Jayjg, "to describe it as a 'hoax'" is "overblown and POV". Presumably describing it as "'a sheer forgery' that plagiarizes generously from Zionist propaganda" is also "overblown and POV". (2) A truly delusional assessment. (3) I don't claim that the "silence" from Finkelstein's critics on this matter proves that people agree with Finkelstein; ergo, there's no "logical fallacy", as I assume Jayjg is aware despite his accusation. I said, "'POV' suggests that there is some dispute. Clearly there is none here among informed observers." That doesn't mean he's right; however, it does mean that no one's challenged him - so who are we, as Wikipedia editors, to be the first, when our challenge would be solely based on speculation? But anyway, my proposal addreses this. I repeat: "how about this, guys: 'Finkelstein's critique initially roused little attention. According to Finkelstein, "[excerpt]".' Does that seem reasonable?" I think it's eminently reasonable, because it begins with some anodyne "NPOV" glossing, and then clearly attributes the (undisputed) narrative of events to Finkelstein. I'll go ahead and make the change, and, having already made every conceivable argument to substantiate it, will henceforth withdraw from this debate. sneaky 03:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Porath does also say that "she [Peters] attempts to refute the Arab myths merely by substituting the Jewish myths for them" [6]. Myths offered as history is a hoax--Ian Pitchford 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It isn't that he ought to be ashamed for his name; it's that I don't see his motive. --VKokielov 04:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massive POVing

Xed, do you imagine that insertions like "meticulous scholarship and advocacy of positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are viewed as controversial by Zionists. He has been highly critical of exploitation of Holocaust survivors by Zionist organizations and has written extensively on the ideological abuse of anti-semitism and the Holocaust by supporters of Zionism and of Israel" are at all NPOV? Do you understand that the claim that he is known for "meticulous scholarship", that only Zionists view him as controversial, that Holocaust survivors are "exploited" by Zionist organizations, that supporters of Zionism and Israel "ideologically abuse" anti-semitism and the Holocaust are POV claims? Please take WP:NPOV seriously. Jayjg 18:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The insertions seem fairly accurate and innocuous. What's your problem with them? - Xed 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment above - do you recognize the difference between a POV assertion and a statement of fact? Jayjg 19:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have responded. Your response indicates some sort of personal attack on me. If you wish to show why something is POV you will have to explain why, rather than make vague comments followed up by personal attacks - Xed 19:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have documented specific POV issues, among many - please read the comment above. Again, do you honestly think that phrases that assert he "argues persuasively" or which describe his works as "devastating" are NPOV? Do you think that removing actual citations and insering POV about Gov Schwarzenegger follow Wikipedia's editing policies? If you want to defend all the POV insertions made by that IP editor, feel free to do so here. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"argues persuasively" is simply a factual statement. The article on Max Stirner contains the same phrase. I can't see what your problem is. - Xed 19:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Xed, "argues persuasively" is a POV, as are all the other items I have brought up. If the Max Stirner article contains simlar POV, that does not make it acceptable here. Furthermore, the article cannot adopt Finkelstein's POV as fact, but must present it as his position. Please take these issues (and Wikipedia policy) seriously, and justify these attempted inclusions. Jayjg 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been reminded that edit warring is harmful (see [7]). And yet you continue. I find this disturbing. Even more disturbing is that you are now out-sourcing your edit-warring (see User_talk:Jpgordon#Various_issues, User_talk:Willmcw#Norman_Finkelstein). - Xed 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon incident
Enlarge
SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon incident
Actually most of the edit-warring happens with Jayjg/SlimVirgin as a team. See this last example:
That is the reason why an affected editor created the SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon username. That editor wrote: ""SlimVirgin violates Wikipedia rules: on Civility and 3 Reverts. SlimVirgin dishonestly violates 3R with jayjg and a tag-team...." It should be of no surprise if SlimVirgin shows up here too. --Vizcarra 20:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing documentary evidence of Jayjg's shocking behaviour. I had not realised the situation had degenerated to such a degree. - Xed 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Xed, Talk: pages are for the purpose of discussing article content; please try to do so. See previous comments above as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy discussing article content. But it seems you are not – and have reverted to edit warring and even attempting to out-source your edit-warring. You are reminded again that edit warring is harmful (see [8]), and yet you are now out-sourcing your edit-warring (see User_talk:Jpgordon#Various_issues, User_talk:Willmcw#Norman_Finkelstein). Please stop this unsavoury behaviour. - Xed 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's hardly unsavoury behaviour to ask another editor to take a look at an article; isn't that the whole purpose of RfC? It's pretty funny to see the action of a known troll (the creator of that bogus username) cited as evidence of anything other than trollish behaviour; if I create a username User:VizcarraXed and then put on it "Users Vizcarra and Xed are consistantly violating Wikipedia NPOV and Civility rules", it wouldn't be proof of anything either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it wouldn't prove anything, since you are making up a connection between Vizcarra and myself. However, there is ample evidence of what Vizcarra calls "tag-teaming" between Jayjg and others. It seems that now that Jayjg has been warned off edit warring, it's clear he's using you and others as proxy edit-warrers. In my estimation, that's many times worse then simply edit warring on ones own. - Xed 23:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Crap. I'm nobody's monkey. I make my own decisions and my own edits; if sometimes my idea of NPOV is similar to Jayjg's, or my reaction to anti-Jewish edits is similar to Slim's, that hardly makes me a "proxy edit-warrer". If you think otherwise, I advise you to take your complaint to the proper venue; this certainly is not it (and complaining about it here certainly won't change anyone's behaviour). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • What complaints would those be? Jayjg has already been warned about not getting involved in revert-wars and he hasn't desisted. It can't just be coincidence that editors who have no contact with each other, suddenly agree on Jayj's behavior, such as I, Xed (before this incident), the anon who created SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon. I must confess that recently I have not noted you in edit-warring however and that you did extend your hand towards reaching civility. But when Jayjg intends to get you involved in an edit-war that has started and that invitation calls the contributions by the other editor "ridiculous", what can be expected other than an extended edit-war? "Could you look into this?" Would probably be better than saying "this user insists in including POV crap" (or something along those lines). And it would be even better if that call for comment was posted for an extended group to see. Instead of someboby who's sometimes "idea of NPOV is similar to Jayjg's". How does that help in edit-warring? You should look for objective second-opinions, not those who usually side with you. --Vizcarra 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • In other words, post an RfC. Feel free to do that. Besides, one look at the edits you were making (see below) made it clear that Jayjg was 100% right when he referred to absurdly POV edits. When I see absurdly POV edits, I ask for help from people who I know can easily recognize POV edits. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The outsourced edit-warring continues (User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Norman_Finkelstein). You would think Jayjg would be circumspect in going against Wikipedia (see [9]) - Xed 09:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Finkelstein

In order to avoid edit-wars, we can begin to assign sourced to all opinions. What has been eliminated are Norman's POVs, and since this is an article about him these opinions should be included. We can't describe his positions as controversial, because all opinions are when they are not agreed upon 100%. Certainly the sources included at the bottom of the article support that he does have some POV critical to certain movements. --Vizcarra 21:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good examples of breaches of POV

How about this: changing

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda.

to

Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda, accusations Finkelstein flatly dismisses. "

Do we need to discuss here how this is a POV edit, or is it obvious to all? Or how about changing

Finkelstein has expanded his findings in a book entitled Beyond Chutzpah...

to

Finkelstein subsequently expanded his findings in a devastating volume entitled Beyond Chutzpah...

I'm not sure if this is the proper venue to discuss why the insertion of "devastating" is purely POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following, which portions are POV?

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda.

certainly isn't. It is a fact that he's been called such by the ADL. "Predictably" is certainly POV, I give you that. --Vizcarra 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why did you insert it? And why did you insert "devastating"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't insert it, I reverted the removal of important information including that word. But either way I just removed it. --Vizcarra 00:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • In other words, blind revert-warring without actually reading the material? How about "predictably"? How about "meticulous"? How about the use of the term "Zionists" without qualifications? How about the presentation as fact of Finkelstein's opinion in the "Holocaust Industry" section? How about some citations for the Schwarzneggar thing (and since when can the governor of California ban the publication of a book, anyway?) How about the removal of the factual information about the books publication? How about the removal of Leon Wieseltier's quote? All of this is, as Jayjg noticed, utterly POV. I do believe you are fighting this simply because you're annoyed at Jayjg and feel a need to oppose him, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • <<In other words, blind revert-warring without actually reading the material? How about "predictably"? How about "meticulous"? How about the use of the term "Zionists" without qualifications?>> It is a work in progress.
        • <<How about the removal of the factual information about the books publication? How about the removal of Leon Wieseltier's quote?>> I did not see a source. Did you see one?
        • <> Your belief is wrong though and... How is this remark improving the issue? Why are we getting personal instead of discussing the content of the article. --Vizcarra 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Shrug. You started that back when you brought up my name a couple sections back. If you get to impugn my motives, I get to question yours. Regarding Wieseltier, I think the cite on Finkelstein's own website should suffice. Just to clarify things -- was the original anon contributor you? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
          • How can I question your motives before you got involved? I brought up the previous incident before you came in here to provide your POV on the matter.
          • Thanks for the source, you are welcome to include it, notice that I commented out the quote waiting for a source, instead of deleting it. I can do it myself if you'd like me too. Off of willingness to resolve the matter amicably.
          • Which anon contributor? --Vizcarra 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
            • The one whose edits you were blindly reverting. (If it were you, then of course it wasn't blind reverting, and any comments I've made to that effect were unfounded.) As far as questioning my motives, everytime you've brought up that troll account, it impugns me, Jay, and Slim. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussoin here and the recent edits, I have reverted the edits. They seem to have added a large amount of POV material. I'm sure we can improve this article, but let's not add POV in the process. -Willmcw 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisher quote

Apparently is was not the linked Fisher (Mark Fisher) who said it, but rather Marc Fisher, a columnist for the Washington Post. As such, I'm not sure it's encyclopedic, as I don't know enough about Marc Fisher. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know I've read it before, but I can't remember where. I'm sure I'll be able to find it. --Ian Pitchford 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Just do a Google on the text. It's been reprinted a thousand times, and was the subject of a small controversy with Finkelstein participating. The matter may be worth a paragraph. -Willmcw 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additions by I Speak Only Truth

Norman G. Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American who is an assistant professor of political science at DePaul University. Although he claims to be a full professor, he is an assistant professor. Finkelstein is infamous for his ad hominem debating style. During lectures, such as at Yale University, and on webcasts, he often calls another person an "imbecile", "idiot", "fraud", or "liar". Unlike most professors (even assistant professors), he has never published a scholarly or research paper in a peer reviewed journal. His books are not published in the mainstream press.

  • Please provide sources for these statements. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 06:16
    • The whole "discussion" in this page is a good example of how people with an agenda, and possibly in an organised manner, can dominate and control the editing of text in an open-source encyclopaedia.The Gnome 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Last addition to introduction (Finkelstein only being accepted by the far-right) is too debatable to include.

-Finkelstein includes ad hominum articles on his website that he disagrees with, the fact that the quote was taken from his website proves nothing, see his letters section which includes viscous hate mail.-HW

First of all if you're going to use the talk page to discuss an edit than you have to say so in your edit summary so that people can find what you're saying. You also have to put edits in the talk page in a new section for the same reason. As for the content of my edit - it is very important for wikipedia to put things in context. In the real world its very easy to distinguish between someones whose criticisms are mainstream and influential and someone whose opinions are rejected by the minstream. Because the internet lowers the playing field, this distinction is eliminated and someone like Finkelstein appears to be just as important as someone like Elie Wiesel. I have included the quote from the economist because it shows where Finkelstein is in relation to other commentators on the issue. There is nothing debatable about saying that he has not found much traction among mainstream thinkers, he hasn't. There is nothing debatable about saying that his work has caught the attention of the far-right, at least its not debatable enough to be included at Holocaust denial. I don't see any reason to revert my edits. GabrielF 20:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is another example of the failure of wikipedia: "owners" of site take control and through fair or foul means (e.g. claiming an editor is a "vandalizer" and barring that editor from further edits) prevent opposing credited viewpoints from being posted. This article is replete with personal opinions (e.g. a book by Peters is "widely discredited" - bs). - by finkelsein supporters, who fight to delete opposing validated additions. and btw, unfortunately a jew can be an antisemite, in addition to finkelstein himself there are dozens that role off the tongue (does the name Adam Shapiro ring any bells)? so have your fun all you little anti semites, edit the page to your hearts content, in the real world it won't make a bit of difference (and wikipedia as a valid source of information is further discredited). ag


Peters book "is widely discredited" bs - really, I thought her book was totally discredited. The book is a complete embarrasment - rarely even mentioned today. Finkelstein seems to put a lot of faith in Raul Hilberg - bad judgement on his part. Hilberg's major work has major unheralded revisions over time - many are a "denier's" dream come true. His testimony in the Zundel trial will live forever ( he cast more doubt on the Nuremberg trials than any "denier" could hope for.)

[edit] Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz

212.51.20.123 has reverted to the short version. I basically agree that this section shouldn't be so long, but the short version is strongly biased against Dershowitz, and contains many false statements.

1. The plagiarism charge isn't really "he said, she said." It isn't NPOV to say "Opinions differ on whether the earth is flat," and leave it at that.

Even assuming that Dershowitz has done all the things Finkelstein accuses him of, he's not guilty of plagiarism, as defined in many academic-writing manuals. The current version claims that F.'s book "documents" the plagiarism charge, when the opposite is true: it accuses him of some acts that don't add up to plagiarism (not to mention that F.'s editors forced him to remove the word "plagiarism."

2. Dersh. has said that he regards F.'s charge that he didn't write the book as the more important charge, and it is certainly more serious and specific than "plagiarism." The short version makes no mention of this charge.


3. It's the least important problem, but this is false too: "As evidenced by the reviews in the list that follows this article, the book has received a polarised reception: praise from fellow-critics of Israel (including a number of Jewish writers) and intense hostility from supporters of Israel."

First, there is no list of reviews. Second, the most important point about the reviews is that there have been almost none in the U.S.: I'm not even sure that it's accurate to use the plural "supporters." I'm aware of only one critical review in the U.S. (F. has mostly been ignored, not criticized). Finally, the opposition between "fellow-critics of Israel" and "supporters of Israel" is horribly biased. Many (even most) writers would claim to be both. Others are neither, and wrote their reviews from neutral points of view. Ragout 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, plagiarism is defined as using another person's work without attribution. Dershowitz copied quotations wholesale from Joan Peter's work, including transcription errors, without proper attribution so it's arguably plagiarism. Deuterium 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
He copied, for example, Mark Twain's work, and attributed it to Twain. This is not at all plagiarism. Suppose (as I would guess is true) Dersh was familiar with Twain's writings about Palestine for decades, but that when he went to quote Twain, he copied the passage from Peters instead of Twain. Again: not plagiarism. And it's not just my opinion, it's just the definition. Ragout 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Plagiarism is defined as copying another person's work without attribution. Dershowitz copied Joan Peters work and did not attribute it. "Work" is not limited to meaning actual prose but can include _ideas_ and _selections of quotations_. This can clearly be argued to be plagiarism and it would be POV for Wikipedia to take one side of the debate. Deuterium 05:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Dersh made perfectly clear that he was relying on Peters' work: he cited her numerous times. Plagiarism includes copying ideas without citing them, but Dersh cited Peters. It's simply a fact that Dersh didn't commit plagiarism, and the article has much too much discussion of the bogus charges that he did.
Plagiarism includes copying "selections of quotations?" That's a new one to me (especially when many of the quotations at issue appear in dozens of books). Reference? Ragout 05:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, plagiarism includes copying any ideas or work. Why would you think that quotations, unlike everything else, do not constitute "work"? That's an extraordinary point of view considering how much effort can go into finding and presenting relevant quotations.
"To cite from a secondary source is generally discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite" [see Chicago Manual of Style 17.274].
And Finkelstein claims that Dershowitz did not actually examine the works he cited, presenting the strong evidence that Peters' typos were copied and incorrect editions were cited.
That's hardly strong evidence. But whatever the truth of this charge, it doesn't amount to plagiarism. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, Dershowitz did not indicate the quotations were originally cited by Joan Peters'. Deuterium 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The CMS says he shouldn't. You (& F.) say Dersh copied Peters' "ideas" w/o citing. But which ideas? None are named. Is Peters' use of ellipses supposed to count as an "idea?" When a charge is made but no supporting evidence is presented, it is not POV to state "no evidence supporting the charge was presented."
The CMS says he should have read the original sources. Finkelstein, for various reasons (i.e. that Peters' typos were copied and incorrect editions were cited), believes he did not.
Quite true -- but this isn't plagiarism. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to quoting Harvard's definition of plagiarism from WWS, as you've done in the article. But the article doesn't mention that he did cite Peters! It makes it sound like he lifted the quotes from Peters but never acknowledged that he relied on her work!
Not correctly or completely.
Then name some *idea* that Dersh borrowed but didn't cite! Or anything that actually supports charges of plagiarism! Better yet, show me where F. has offered anything that actually supports his charges! Not: the elipses are in the same place.
The quotations. He presented the quotations as original research when there is strong evidence that he did not read them at all. This is presenting another person's work as yoru own, which is arguably plagiarism, particularly when they form a large part of his argument. Deuterium 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess I will add in this crucial fact, but the article is drifting back towards "he said, she said," which isn't an accurate description of the world, and makes this section excessively long. Reading this section over, I see that one place to cut is F.'s evidence that Dersh. lifted quotations from Peters. There's no need for such a long discussion, since Dersh acknowledges it. I'll wait to cut this to give time for discussion. Ragout 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The plagiarism claim has been taken seriously by the mainstream media and the academic world and has been presented as a serious debate and has _not_ been presented as a cut-and-dried issue where one side is correct and the other is wrong. There are at least two mainstream book reviews cited that agree with Finkelstein's argument. Wikipedia should merely report both sides of the debate and not draw conclusions as to whether or not Dershowitz plagiarized, since that point is contested. Anything else is POV and OR. Deuterium 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, linking to ambiguous and inconclusive scientific papers to claim that Dershowitz's style of plagiarism is "very common" in academia is definitely original research and inappropriate; if it is "very common" as you claim it to be, it should be easy to find a mainstream cite that says so clearly and definitively. I warmly suggest you review the "original research" policy. Deuterium 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
These papers are neither ambiguous nor inconclusive. And of course there are many people I could quote stating that F.'s accusations don't amount to plagiarism [10].. I'm not going to do so because the section is already excessively long.
BTW, The "original research" policy is intended keep out crackpot theories, not to prevent knowledgeable people from contributing. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Might I enquire as to your expertise regarding plagiarism? What do you know that everyone else does not, considering there is still ongoing debate about Finkelstein's claims? Deuterium 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've pointed out, there is little ongoing debate, except in a few fringe publications. F. is mostly ignored. Perhaps because he make wild, unsupported charges.
Also, can you explain how the pages you link to actually prove your claim that Dershowitz's style of plagiarism is "very common" in academia? [11] doesn't even say this, and I can't access your second link. Is it subscription only? Deuterium 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So you cut these without even looking at them? "Read before you cite" was put in the Dershowitz-Finkelstein page by someone else. That page (and the article it's based on) shows that errors in bibliographies are copied by later authors, perhaps suggesting that the later authors did not read the original article. The study claims that 80% of references in bibliographies are copied from earlier articles. The second study (This link should work) also shows high rates of errors in references. It even shows that 10-20% of references do not support the point they are claimed to support.
I did read the one I could actually access. So why are you trying to include a cite that users can not access? Both articles are academic, obscure, full of jargon and apply to other fields of research (e.g. anatomy). Deuterium 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, citing the scientific literature is hardly "original research," anymore than citing a newspaper article is. Ragout 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Using obscure scientific articles to support a particular argument in an ongoing, two-sided public debate is most certainly original research, as anyone familiar with the orginal research rules will tell you.
Again, if it's such a common practice you can use a mainstream, unequivocal, cite to support this, preferably from someone who is actually commenting on the debate. Deuterium 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What you are doing is _definitely_ in violation of the following Wikipedia:Original_research: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:...it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Deuterium 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you even bother to read what you write? "without attributing the analysis...to a reputable source." I cited two reputable sources: academic journals. So it's not Original Research. And now that I've fixed the url, users can access the abstract.

[edit] Finkelstein Ignored in Mainstream Media & Academia

Deuterium says "Thee plagiarism claim has been taken seriously by the mainstream media and the academic world and has been presented as a serious debate and has _not_ been presented as a cut-and-dried issue where one side is correct and the other is wrong. There are at least two mainstream book reviews cited that agree with Finkelstein's argument.

I think there is a lot to be said for this standard about what should be in a Wikipedia article. The attention given to particular arguments should often reflect the amount of attention paid by the mainstream media and the academic world. Since F.'s charges are not taken seriously by either the mainstream media nor the academic world, at least in the US, they should not be given much attention in the article.
The mainstream media in the US has long since stopped paying attention to Finkelstein. F. and his supporters have complained about this numerous times. As Deuterium acknowledges, the most prominent place F.'s Beyond Chutzpah has been reviewed is the the National Catholic Reporter and the American Conservative. This is not "mainstream media," these are fringe views from low-circulation journals. These magazines represent the views of pro-choice Catholics and anti-war conservatives (no kidding). Hardly "mainstream media!"
F's Beyond Chutzpah has not been reviewed in any academic journal that I'm aware of, and certainly very few. (unsigned comment by User:ragout)
There are a plethora of mainstream reviews of Beyond Chutzpah, see here. The reviews are both postive, negative and ambivalent which show that there are two sides to the plagiarism debate. If you were correct that it was an open-and-shut case and Finkelstein was simply wrong, then there shouldn't be an argument at all and the media should be unanimously disagreeing with Finkelstein. It is not, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Deuterium 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
F. says they're reviews, but many of them are not, they're articles. I see 3 reviews that could arguably be called mainstream: Christianity Today, Tikkun, and the Jerusalem Post (perhaps some of the articles or reviews in foreign languages are mainstream, but I don't know). Only one of these even mentions plagiarism (JPost). F. has not been reviewed in any large US newspaper.Ragout 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you've just broken the Three-revert_rule. It looks like I just broke it too (Oops).Ragout 03:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I certainly haven't as I've only reverted twice and the versions I've reverted too have been different. Deuterium 03:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Really, you have: it's 3 reverts max in a 24-hour period, not in a day. And partial reverts count the same as a complete revert. Ragout 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I really have not. Even using a loose definition of "revert" I've only done it two times. You're the one who's violated the rules. Deuterium 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Deuterium's violation of the 3-revert rule:
1st revert 03:08, 5 April 2006
2nd revert 10:22, 5 April 2006
3rd revert 22:06, 5 April 2006
4th revert 22:23, 5 April 2006
Do you ever admit that you're wrong? Ragout 07:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The 1st and 2nd "reverts" you cite are clearly not "reverts" at all. Please read Wikipedia:Revert, thank you. Deuterium 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
An administrator has now made the eminently sensible ruling "Deuterium violated 3RR as well. Given the extreme lameness of the violations they're both blocked for 123 minutes. —Ruud 16:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)". So I hope you will take your own advice and read the 3-revert rule. Your habit of getting into conflicts with other editors, literally every day, is not good for Wikipedia. Ragout 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no next war, please!

The 2003 discussion on this page provided a complete guide to what is an argument and what is an opinion. Why repeat it??? But if somebody needs to discuss something, please do it here - my computer time is too limited for a revert war!

Well, I see that in 2003 Mirv said,
But possibly relatedly, the first edit I made to the "affair" page is to change a sentence that called Finkelstein's accusation "plagiarism" to an accusation that "Finkelstein called 'plagiarism.'" That's because what Finkelstein would tell you that Dershowitz did--the actual motions he went through and the product that resulted--does not fit what the word "plagiarism" connotes to most people, and doesn't even count as plagiarism to some, for instance me. D has been accused of "plagiarism" in F-speak but in normal English it's hasty and tendentious to give the accusation that label.
This is exactly the point I'm making. No one even tried to refute Mirv, just as no one has even tried to refute me.
As it stands, it's as if an article said "Abe has accused Bill of attempted murder, and documented the charge in a book. Bill has denied the charge," and elaborates no further. This would hardly be NPOV, if the documentation showed only that Bill got several speeding tickets. That situation is exactly analogous to the current state of the article. F. has charged Dersh. with academic high crimes, but provided only evidence of trivial errors, at best. So, the article needs to be fixed.
By the way, it seems that the 2003 debate led to the ADL's unsupported charges being relegated to a single sentence, with a long rebuttal. That ought to be the outcome with Finkelstein's unsupported charges too. Ragout 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redundancy and Excessive Length in Dershowitz Section

This section is growing excessively long. The article is about Norman Finkelstein in general, not just his conflict with Dershowitz. It should state only the major points of the D-F debate -- there is an entirely separate article discussing the Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair.

Part of the problem is the redundancy of the article. There is no need to say twice that Dershowitz threatened to sue. There is no need to say three times that F. has accused D. of lacking knowledge about his book. Hence, I'm removing these redundencies. Ragout 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest on Dershowitz-Finkelstein

1. Mentioning Dershowitz's letter to the governor makes D. look a little foolish, but has no relevance to the plagiarism charge or the ghostwriting charge. It belongs in the D-F Affair article, and I'm removing it from here.

2. Someone has written:

The charge that Dershowitz was not the true author of The Case for Israel was also rephrased to read Dershowitz didn't have "a clue of his book's content"..."manifestly ignorant of the content of his own book" (Beyond Chutzpah, pp. 95, 254), although one article cites the publisher as saying "the suggestion that Dershowitz did not read his book has been removed from the text" and "Withey told Inside Higher Ed why the University of California Press decided to remove Finkelstein’s suggestions that Dershowitz did not write The Case for Israel. ... 'It was unclear the point he was trying to make, and he couldn’t document that, so we asked him to take it out,' she said, noting that there could have been multiple readings of the reference in Finkelstein’s book." [12]

This is incoherent, mostly because the rebuttal (F. didn't remove ghostwriting charge) has swallowed the original claim (F. did remove ghostwriting charge). It is also poorly written. So I'm reverting it.

3. This statement from the article is extremely biased: Finkelstein expanded his findings in a book entitled Beyond Chutzpah, providing evidence that in at least two instances, Dershowitz reproduces errors in Peters' citiation of original sources, and so could not have checked the original sources he cited.

This statement says: F. ... provided evidence ... that D. could not have checked the original sources he cited. F. may claim this, but it is not a fact. There is not reason why D. could not have have reproduced the errors, and also checked the original sources. So I will edit this to make it NPOV.

4. The article says that citing original sources without consulting them violates rules in the CMS and WWS. This is true, but the article should make clear that neither source calls these violations "plagiarism." The WWS rule isn't even in the plagiarism chapter.

5. I've removed the cites to academic studies of citation practices, which Deuterium objects to on the grounds that they discuss scientific fields rather than history. This is true, but irrelevant, since the rules for plagiarism and citations are the same for those fields. WWS doesn't say "plagiarism is bad, except in scientific research" ! However, I'll move them to the D-F affair article in the interests of brevity and comity.

6. I've removed the sentence: When confronted by Finkelstein, Dershowitz admitted that if "somebody borrowed the quote without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, obviously that would be a serious charge."[13]

This sentence is stripped of important context and so is misleading. So I'm deleting it.

In context it is clear that D.'s use of the phrase "the quote" does not refer to just any quotation. "The quote" refers specifically to inaccurate quotations that don't accurately reflect what the source said. No one has accused D. of this -- so he's being a little tricky, defending himself against something no one has alleged. Further, in context, D. is talking about quotes from Peters, which may be relevant to his point. He may be saying that it would be stupid to quote Peters without checking the original sources, since it is well known that some Peters quotes are inaccurate.Ragout 05:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

(copied from SV's talk page)

If I understand you correctly, you believe that citing the definition of plagiarism and attributing to a reputable source amount to "Original Research." In the Norman Finkelstein article I tried to describe the definition, and you deleted it on the grounds that it's OR. I don't see your logic here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragout (talk • contribs).

Sorry Ragout, I don't follow. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You cut the following passage, claiming it was OR:
"If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted....Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[14]"
This is just an attempt to describe what these two reputable sources say about the topic at hand (plagiarism). Hence, I don't see how this is Original Research.
I'm not necessarily unhappy with your edits (which is why I commented on your talk page rather than here) but I'm not convinced this is OR.Ragout 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a classic example of OR. You'd need to cite a source for that exact argument. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've read WP:NOR, and I don't see why this is OR. For example, from WP:NOR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research'" So I repeat: citing the definition of plagiarism from authoritative sources is not OR. Nor is it an "argument."
Note also that the article does cite a source for that "exact argument": Freedman. Ragout 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I added the full quote from him. But where you had summarized the argument, you didn't quote anyone or attribute the argument. An unattributed argument is OR. If you read the policy page, you'll see that it says that explictly. And of course it was an argument. X says A and B is not plagiarism. Dershowitz did A and B. Therefore, Dershowitz did not plagiarize. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are not accurately summarizing the quoted section (and your X,A,B claim is a classic logical fallacy, which does not appear in the quoted section). The section quoted does not say that Dersh plagiarised or that he didn't plagiarise. It says: if Dersh did A it is not plagiarism. If Dersh did B it is plagiarism. It is a way of putting forth the definition from two very reputable sources.
Let me ask you, would this be OR if "Dershowitz" was changed to "a writer"? It sounds like you think that would be fine, since it would simply be quoting the "exact argument" from "Writing with Sources." Ragout 05:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would still be OR; in fact, it would be even worse. Any arguments you make or position you strike up must be made by sources in relation to the topic of the article. You must find a source that says: "Dersh did not commit plagiarism because ... and furthermore the Chicago Manual of Style says ... and the dictionary defines plagiarism as ..." You are not allowed to go off and do your own research about what various people think plagiarism is, at least not for this article. Please read the policy page. No unpublished synthesis of published data is allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This section of the article is about charges of plagiarism. Hence the definition of plagiarism is "directly related" to the topic of the section (if not the entire article). I see nothing in the OR policy that defines "directly related," so please don't tell me for a fourth time to read the WP:OR page.
And citing the definition of plagiarism does not equal a synthesis. I note that it's only on the Nth iteration of this discussion that you raise this new claim. So it must not be obvious, even to you. Please elaborate.
In general, I think your interpretation bends the intention of the OR policy to the point of unrecognizability. "The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves. However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analyses or interpretations of published material, and their idiosyncratic syntheses of published material, where the syntheses serve to advance positions the editors may hold." The definition of plagiarism from WWS is not my "crank" or "idiosyncratic" view. It's widely agreed upon, including by Finkelstein, who cites WWS himself.Ragout 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Another point occurs to me. You claim that I have gone off and done my "own research about what various people think plagiarism is." This is not true. Instead, I have consulted the sources (WWS & CMS) that have been cited by Dershowitz, Finkelstein, and other participants in the debate. Ragout 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't keep arguing the same point. All I can ask you to do is read the policy carefully. The type of synthesis of published data you were presenting is not allowed. If you're right and it's relevant, find a source who has made the argument. If you can't find a source, let that tell you something. This is a moot point now anyway, because I included the source's argument that dealt with your point. If you did consult those sources, then quote them or attribute it. Don't claim the point for yourself. And the above is not my interpretion of OR. It's what the policy explicitly says. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You repeatedly tell me to read WP:OR, and make claims about what the policy "explicitly says." As best I can make out, your main point is that the quote from WWS and CMS isn't "directly related" to the article. But you haven't quoted a passage from WP:OR that supports your position. That should tell you something. Ragout 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin says this debate over quoting the CMS is moot because he (or she) has fixed the article already, by quoting an alternate source. Obviously, SlimVirgin hasn't been following this page for too long. Already, a few hours later, somebody has raised the issue again, adding to the article:

The Chicago Manual of Style discourages the use of secondary ("quoted in..") citations with the expectation that the author will have consulted the originals.Ragout 10:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some reasonable arbitration as to the facts. If you simply quote Freedman's argument without citing CMS, you are abdicating the responsibility to be objective. If you quoted someone as arguing the world was flat, and I cited NASA's evidence to the contrary, would this be OR?
From WP:NOR: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." [unsigned comment by 129.137.207.104]
I completely agree (& I cited the same WP:NOR passage earlier). SlimVirgin's notion of OR results in "Republicans say the earth is flat. Democrats disagree." Ragout 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Well, except that it's a strawman, since there is far more support for the claim that the earth is not flat than just that. Regardless, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what "The TRUTH" is; instead, we quote what reliable sources have said on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Further: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources"

I agree with Ragout, his edits are clearly not OR. Cadr 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think SlimVirgin understands the WP:NOR policy, at least not as it was originally written. Now he has practically rewritten the policy to tailor fit it to his particular bias on the Dershowitz/Finkelstein debate. Then he has the Chutzpah to quote the policy back at you as an authority in this instance. The idea that you can't quote anything directly, but only in triangulation is nonsense. It creates bias rather than objectivity. Maybe we need to escalate his rewriting of the WP:NOR policy to the Council of Elders. --1010011010 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's original research; you simply cannot make up arguments to refute or support arguments you see in an article. Instead you must find reliable sources which make that argument for you. It's quite basic: something is original research if it "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." This, of course, is exactly what has been done here, introducing an argument using the Chicago Manual of Style which purported to support an argument made in the text. And I don't imagine a new editor with 6 edits really has the full grasp of WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
But the Chicago manual of style has been referenced in the dispute between Dershowitz and Finkelstein, so it's not OR to find the relevant section of the manual of style, quote it, and see if it supports the claims of those who cite it. Cadr 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is - you are using a primary source to try to "refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position", which is what the WP:NOR policy specifically forbids. It's as if the Catholic Church said that a certain verse in the Bible meant ABC, but you went to the Bible yourself and said "however, the verse actually says XYZ, so the Catholic Church is wrong". Again, you don't go about trying to make cases for one side or the other; instead you just quote the cases others have made, as per policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at Ragout's recent edits, and he doesn't do anything of the kind. He just quotes the CMS policy on citing via secondary sources, which has been referenced by at least one party in the dispute. Can you give me a link to a diff where what you consider to be Ragout's OR is introduced/removed from the article, because I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to any more. Thanks. Cadr 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Finkelstein claims Dershowitz was plagiarizing; Dershowitz says he was not. Ragout added this argument to the page "Dershowitz says that Finkelstein is simply accusing him of good scholarly practice: citing references he learned of in Peters' book after having first consulted the original sources. If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[15]" Ragout is constructing an argument regarding the veracity of Dereshowitz's claim, then citing primary sources to support his argument. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The CMS has been cited in the dispute already (see [16]). I don't see any real argument in the edit. One could rephrase it a bit to make it less argumentative: "Dershowitz denies Finkelstein's accusation that he did not consult the original sources. The practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual is to cite the source actually consulted, but neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources 'plagiarism.'" I really don't see how that could violate OR. Cadr 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, CMS was cited in the dispute already; but that doesn't give us carte blanche to start quoting it to make up our own arguments. "If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual" is nothing but an analysis of and argument about claims made by Dershowitz; classic original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I pointed out in my previous comment that the "If...then" wording makes it sound more argumentative than it actually is. Would you have a problem with my paraphrase? Cadr 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not allowed to make the point at all. You have to find a source who makes it with reference to this dispute. And there is one, and I added a quote to that effect yesterday, so why do you want to add it twice? Or have I misunderstood? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is not a quote in the article which makes the point (A) that CMS says that if you cite a primary source which you've come to via a secondary source, you ought to actually look at the primary source (which according to Finkelstein Dershowitz didn't); (B) that flauting this guidline does not constitute plaigerism according to CMS. These are both important points, and they are only OR under an absurd interpretation of the policy which would prevent just about any reference to a primary source in a Wikipedia article. Cadr 00:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cadr. Let me add another reason why citing WWS or CMS is better than citing Freedman's explication of these sources: because WWS & CMS are clearly less biased and more reputable than Freedman. Freedman has impressive credentials and is pretty reputable, but the very fact that he's commenting specifically on this controversy suggests that he may have a bias. For all I know, he may spend every summer with the Dershowitz family in Cape Cod. CMS & WWS, however, can't have bias towards D. or F. because they've been around since long before this controversy and will be around long after.
In other words, SlimVirgin's insistance on sources addressing this particular controversy amounts to calling for the use of potentially biased sources when unbiased sources are available. Ragout 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, WP:NOR does not say you can't use a primary source to refute an argument. It says precisely the opposite. OR "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Hence siting a reputable source, whether primary or secondary, means that it is not OR. Citing original sources is actually encouraged. Ragout 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowing Ideas Vs. Borrowing Quotes

Some editors seem unhappy with the following language:

  • Writing with Sources, a writing manual cited by Finkelstein, criticizes the practice of quoting sources not actually consulted, but does not call it "plagiarism."[17]

on the grounds that WWS calls borrowing ideas plagiarism.

But both are true. The WWS does not call citing w/o consulting "plagiarism." And it does call borrowing ideas "plagiarism." So, I think the article should explain that the WWS says both these things. So, please stop deleting the statement about quoting sources without consulting not being plagiarsim (according to WWS). Instead add a statement about what is plagiarism.Ragout 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Time Immemorial - citation records and scholarly reception

Referencing a citation database is not original research. Citation records are only a partial measure of a work's scholarly reception, obviously, but they are verifiable. -- Danny Yee 05:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ISI Web finds just one citation since 1988 -- and that's by Edward Said. And the earlier citations are mostly in e.g. the Times Literary Supplement and the New York Review of Books, which aren't primary scholarly journals. I think that's sufficient evidence for "not highly regarded among scholars", though I agree with Jayg that it's not evidence for "discredited". -- Danny Yee 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You have presented a novel narrative regarding the effect of Finkelstein's work on Peters' credibility. Please provide a proper citation for that thesis instead, and please do not remove the request for citation until you provide one. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, your link seems to imply that the phrase "novel thesis" is to be found in WP:NOR, but when I look at this page, I don't see these words. What gives? Ragout 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Novel thesis, novel argument, novel narrative, etc. Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Danny, you need a source if you want to say the book isn't highly regarded among scholars (by scholars, do you mean academics, by the way?). A review in the NY Review of Books indicates it was taken seriously, though I suppose that depends on what it said. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If a work has no citations in the scholarly literature, then a citation database seems like a reasonable source for asserting its lack of scholarly regard. I agree that citation measures are a blunt instrument for evaluating a work's reception, but they are at least verifiable - not OR! - and perhaps ideal for controversial Wikipedia articles for the same reason they are beloved of grant awarding bodies. (I have no problems with NYROB and TLS, btw, but they tend to the polemical and are not substitutes for peer-reviewed professional journals.) Anyway, I see Jayg's point now -- the issue is not whether the book has standing among scholars or not, but whether Finkelstein had anything to do with that. -- Danny Yee 06:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Danny, it would be original research for you to make that edit on the basis of absence of evidence only. You could check to see what the TLS and NYRB said and who wrote the reviews. Maybe you'd get a scholarly comment that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be a weak argument (for scholarly reception), but surely not original research. A citation database is a verifiable external source, not something someone makes up! But we're splitting hairs now. (I have some general questions about this for you, but I'll post those on your talk page as they're not relevant to this article.) -- Danny Yee 07:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It surely is original research; you are using primary sources to present a theory or argument. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Danny, we've interacted before on Kuro5hin btw. Here is a book review in the prestiguious Foreign Affairs magazine that says "Finkelstein already has one victory to his credit. Along with a few other conscientious scholars, he demonstrated that Joan Peters' book "From Time Immemorial", which claimed that Palestinians arrived in Palestine only recently, was based on shoddy scholarship. That landmark essay is included in this collection and is the best of his offerings." [18]. This search in Google Scholar turns up a lot more hits -- it may be that someone isn't doing it properly: [19]. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we add something like "the prestiguous Foreign Affairs magazine referred to Finkelsteins work on From Time Immemorial as a 'landmark essay'". --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust Denial

I see that MEMRI's severely edited Finkelstein interview is causing some misunderstandings. Readers are directed here for a correction. CJCurrie 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be interesting enough to put in the MEMRI article. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


At least Finkelstein is smart enough to note ( know) that you can't have too many survivors if you want to claim a holocaust. How come he seems to be the only one trying to get the numbers to add up who can count?

[edit] Horrible article, needs redo

What a horrible page he has. It needs a redo. Especially separating facts and opinions. Why are we this bad & unreadable on wikipedia? I'll start changing, -DePiep 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADL

I've restored the reference to the ADL's description of Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier. I had entered this material in a previous edit and somehow neglected to source it, my apologies. The NOR rule was also raised so I'd like to clarify. The ADL in this case was specifically responding to The Holocaust Industry and pointing to it as evidence for its claim that Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier. The Finkelstein quote is not a random one selected for juxtaposition with the ADL quote; it is rather the concluding sentence and argumentative summary of the very book the ADL is referring to. --G-Dett 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You've used a non-reliable source, a blog in this case. Also, the quote does indeed appear to be a random one inserted for the purpose of undermining the ADL's alleged claim; does the ADL refer to this quote? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, the ADL letter (to the president of Georgetown University) describing Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier has been quoted either in part or in its entirety in any number of publications. Is Frontpage Magazine considered reliable in this respect? If so, there's this article[20] as well as this one[21]. Also, Georgetown University published the letter itself online in pdf format here[22].

As for the NOR rule: the ADL's letter refers explicitly to The Holocaust Industry, but not this particular quote. The quote is not, however, in any sense a random one; it is the book's thesis. The book not only accepts but is indeed premised on the fact of the Holocaust; the argument is that both its victims and survivors have been abused, for financial and political reasons, by a reparations and commemoration "industry" that enriches those in charge of it while exploiting the suffering of those it claims to represent. The enormity of the Holocaust, what Finkelstein calls its "staggering proportions," is precisely what makes its exploitation so appalling from Finkelstein's point of view. That argument is repeated in countless formulations throughout the book; my selection was "random" only in the sense that it was taken from the last page, when virtually any other would have done just as well.

The anonymous editor of the the talk entry below writes that "what should be given is both whatever quote or fact the ADL has cited to claim that Finkelstein is a denier (or what there basis is, if it is based on private conversations whose contents are not a matter of record or something similar), as well as that quote that is already there as Finkelstein's response. This article just makes the ADL look completely ridiculous."

First of all, the quote we're discussing is not "Finkelstein's response." The ADL letter is a response to the book whose thesis consists of the quote in question. First comes NF's book, then the ADL's response. I thought I had made this sequence clear in the wording of the disputed edit.

Now, without lapsing into original research, or indeed speculation, I can't say why the ADL has responded to a book that begins with the fact of the Holocaust as its very foundation by describing its author as a "Holocaust denier." But that is what has happened. Here is the "quote or fact the ADL has cited to claim that Finkelstein is a denier," taken directly from the ADL letter: "in his highly publicized book, 'The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,' Finkelstein argues that the Holocaust 'has become a straight-out extortion racket.'” Whether the ADL looks ridiculous or not depends on your POV, I suppose. What they've done here is simply to substitute the word "Holocaust" for Finkelstein's phrase, "Holocaust Industry."

I'll defer to Jayjig's authority and experience with regard to wikipedia protocol, but I have serious misgivings about this deletion. This section is about Finkelstein's feud with the ADL. The ADL's accusation of Holocaust denial is centrally relevant to that feud, as is the argument of the book that prompted the ADL to level the accusation in the first place. We should figure out how to get the material into the article without violating NOR.--G-Dett 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the part that isn't original research. By the way, I don't think most of the links you gave were the links you intended. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The links to the ADL letter and the two FrontPageMagazine articles quoting the ADL letter? They seem right to me...


"""I can't say why the ADL has responded to a book that begins with the fact of the Holocaust as its very foundation by describing its author as a "Holocaust denier.""" - He's lucky he wasn't called anti-Semitic, self-hating Jew, etc - favorite ADL tactics ad nauseum. Truthfully, I believe Finkelstein is too smart to believe much of the Holocaust story - and too smart to say so publically. He certainly can't have read Hilberg and been convinced ( he has a PhD doesn't he ). (anonymous edit added by 159.105.80.92)

The "Holocaust story"? Am I reading this right? 159.105.80.92, are you a plant? --G-Dett 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is mostly ok but there is blatant POV in the ADL section as well as the Dershowitz section. In the ADL section, I'm quite certain that the ADL did not point to that particular quote to make their case. Nor does that quote necessarily prove anything, Finkelstein could have contradicted himself at some point. So, what should be given is both whatever quote or fact the ADL has cited to claim that Finkelstein is a denier (or what there basis is, if it is based on private conversations whose contents are not a matter of record or something similar), as well as that quote that is already there as Finkelstein's response. This article just makes the ADL look completely ridiculous. Similarly with Dershowitz. Even if all the facts presented in the section were true (and I somehow think there's more too it than that), there's clear bias in the writing. Further, of all the claims that Finkelstein made the article focuses to choose on one rather unique case where Dershowitz might have screwed up. This is not representative of the fact that Finkelstein probably made thousands of claims against Dershowitz and at least some of his claims are doubtless nonsense. In other words, this article only mentions Finkelstein's best and Dershowitz's worst performance. Further, the comments added on the quote presented near the end of the section are unnecessary, and are quite clearly POV.

Response: "This article just makes the ADL look completely ridiculous" for calling Finkelstein a denier, the editor above complains. I'm not sure I follow the implied logic here regarding POV. There are numerous citable instances of Finkelstein affirming the fact of the Holocaust; there are no citable instances of him denying it. He has never once shown any interest in doing primary historical research into the details of the Holocaust, and has affirmed again and again that he simply accepts the consensus findings of mainstream scholars regarding what he calls the "staggering dimensions of Hitler's Final Solution." He is the son of Holocaust survivors, and in the forthcoming Haunted House, portions of which have been published, he writes about his parents' experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto and in the concentration camps. And he periodically issues statements like the following: "No rational person disputes that the Nazis systematically exterminated 5-6 million Jews."

The ADL nevertheless describes him as a "Holocaust denier." Your understanding of the NPOV rule is that we should present the accusation in such a way that it appears plausible? Because otherwise the ADL might look ridiculous? --G-Dett 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've reverted your latest edit, in which you deleted a sentence about Finkelstein dismissing the charge of "Holocaust denial" as libelous. Your reasoning that the reference should be moved to a page about a minor-league journalist is unconvincing. The ADL established the precedent for describing Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier. (Most of those who followed suit have been careful to quote the ADL rather than directly repeating the libel.) Finkelstein's general rejection of the charge absolutely belongs in this section.

In another context Jayjg has written, "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.'" That was well said, Jayjg, and the same principle applies here. It is noteworthy when someone prominent says something demonstrably false about someone, but NPOV does not require that we treat an unsupported and unsupportable charge as somehow plausible.

I've also removed the following from Jayjg's edit: "Regarding his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, the ADL states "Finkelstein argues that the Holocaust ‘has become a straight-out extortion racket.’ Finkelstein is well known for his anti-Israel rhetoric and his claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money. He has said that he ‘truly honored’ Hezbullah fighters from Lebanon for ‘having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers,’ and that, ‘I can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison to the Gestapo.’"

If you want to summarize the ADL's position on Finkelstein beyond what's given in the page as it is now, by all means do so. But there is no sound basis, in an article on Finkelstein, to extensively quote the ADL as it cobbles together quote-fragments from Finkelstein - unless the goal is simply to inject POV.

Furthermore, Jayjg's edit misleadingly makes it appear that all of the quote fragments cobbled together by the ADL somehow pertain to Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. In fact only one of them does. --G-Dett 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The ADL has said a number of things about Finkelstein, all listed above. I didn't cobble anything together, I quoted them exactly. As for the Holocaust Denial thing, Finkelstein didn't say it in response to the ADL. If Finkelstein and the ADL have a little tiff, then you need to outline both of their positions vis a vis each other - you can't quote one, but not the other, nor can you throw in all sorts of other things they've said to different people in different contexts. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone, please at least move the extensive quotes by ADL to ref list. We can put up any article proving any point in the world by making it a compilation of politicized quotes. Such material belongs to refs section if it belongs to articles at all. --Irpen 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Extensive quotes? It's not so many. Perhaps the whole section about the ADL should go, it seems to a very minor issue in his life anyway. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I disagree with your notion that Holocaust denial is a minor thing, and that unsupported accusations about it merely form the basis of a "little tiff." Please also explain your claim that it is POV to say, "Finkelstein has routinely dismissed the accusation of Holocaust denial." And why it is POV to say that the ADL cites evidence for their claim that Finkelstein is an "anti-Israel propagandist," but not for their claim that Finkelstein is a "Holocaust denier." Does the ADL cite evidence for this latter claim? Where?
You appear indeed not to be reading any of this very carefully. No one said you cobbled together quotes. What you've done is simply quoted the ADL at length while they cobbled together quotes from wildly different contexts: fragments of things Finkelstein has said about Hezbollah, about IDF actions in the Palestinian territories, about a quote from a Harvard magazine, about Holocaust reparations lawsuits. You seem to think this fragmentary quote-collage is something the ADL said "regarding" The Holocaust Industry. This is nonsense. Only the remark about reparations has anything to do with that book.
You also conclude that Finkelstein's general remark about "those libeling me as a Holocaust denier" somehow doesn't apply to the ADL, the first and most prominent group to aim that epithet at him. You might explain your logic here in more detail, for the benefit of those of us who have tried and failed to follow it.
I have rarely seen such sloppy and tendentious editing. If you won't fix it, Jayjg, I will. --G-Dett 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've seem much more sloppy and tendentious editing than yours, but no matter. I've fixed up your edits again; let's quote the sources for what they say, and not insert our own opinions about them. And in particular let's not remove sources for information in the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've now quoted the ADL directly; let's stick to doing that. Alternatively, we could remove the whole section - it's still a tempest in a teapot. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on producing a decent article edit, Jayjg, and deciding to confine your errors and insinuations to the talk page. Regarding which, the link you seem to think I removed was put there by me in the first place. Thanks for restoring it. I think we should also restore the link to the ADL letter the FrontPage article references as well. And while we're congratulating ourselves for quoting the ADL directly, let's not lose their direct quote describing Finkelstein as a "Holocaust denier." Holocaust denial is generally considered to be the most extreme form of hate speech, as well as marking for most the test case of what should be protected as free expression. You're very much in the minority regarding it a "tempest in a teapot." --G-Dett 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I consider the accusation of Holocause denial serious enough to be put in the article, especially if it is a false one. So go ahead. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It might make sense to create a new section, "The Accusation of Holocaust Denial," and cull the relevant material from existing sections to put into it. The ADL's accusation is pretty central there. Subsequent accusations (by Alan Dershowitz and others) have tended to quote the ADL's words in tones of approval falling just shy of explicit endorsement, most likely so as to avoid being liable for libel. The accusation of Holocaust denial has since been leveled at Finkelstein in a variety of forums; to my knowledge, no one, including the ADL, has ever tried to substantiate it.
Creating this new section would have two added benefits: 1) It would bring the existing ADL section into sharper focus, since it would thenceforth deal only with their substantive disputes regarding the "new anti-Semitism," Holocaust reparations lawsuits and so on, no longer confusing these issues with the quite different one of defamation and character assassination; and 2) we could then eliminate the David Irving section entirely. Finkelstein's remarks regarding Irving are confined to a bland endorsement of a mainstream third-party's opinion, as formulated in the New York Review of Books, that Irving is a formidable archival scholar whose revisionist arguments about the Holocaust are "obtuse and quickly discredited." Having an entire section built up around this passing (and dismissive) comment, and placing it under the suggestive heading, "Finkelstein on David Irving and on numbers of Holocaust victims" (as if these two things had anything to do with one another in Finkelstein's work) seems haplessness at best, calculated innuendo and bad faith at worst. --G-Dett 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


The ADL section is bizarre. There are two whole paragraphs in which the ADL is quoted at length summarizing Finkelstein's arguments. Not making their own argument about him, just sort of speaking for him.

That's their criticism, and it will be staying, rather than having people simply re-iterate Finkelstein's thesis in their own words. A criticism should be allowed to be a criticism, not turned into another soapbox. Also, I've removed the original research that keeps being shoved into the article; please stop claiming that the ADL has provided no evidence for its claim that Finkelstein is a Holocaust Denier, unless you have a reliable source which says so. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, drop the imperial tone. Wikipedia consensus is not arrived at by diktat. Now, to substance:
1) you appear to have gotten your head in a muddle about original research. The following sentence – "The ADL has also described Finkelstein as a 'Holocaust denier,' without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial" – is a straightforward presentation of a cited source. It's not that I've looked at the cited source's evidence and found it wanting, or looked elsewhere for ADL evidence of doubt or denial and found none. It's that the cited source doesn't specify any statements of doubt or denial. Period. Elementary acts of reading comprehension do not constitute original research.
If I mentioned that the ADL didn't specifically cite any statements of doubt or denial because none exist, that would be original research. (And accurate original research, as we both know.) But original research does not, by any stretch of a wikilawyering imagination, include a straightforward presentation of the contents of a linked, cited, relevant and reliable source.
There's a simple solution here. If you think the ADL cites an example to substantiate their claim, then edit the article to include it. Here's a handy formula: "On the basis of his claim that X, the ADL describes Finkelstein as a 'Holocaust denier.'" Fill out and insert.
2) As things stand now, the ADL section has two brief summaries of Finkelstein's positions, and two and a half large paragraphs given over to the ADL to summarize – not critique, summarize – Finkelstein's positions. The effect is to elide the difference between what Finkelstein says and what Foxman says he says. This indeed may well have been the intention, given that user Jayjg, who introduced the material, twice attempted to present it as a "Finkelstein statement," even though it was Foxman who said it, and in an aggressive revert Jayjg referred to it as a "direct quote," though to whom he didn't say.
Here is an example of critique: "Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel, Norman Finkelstein accused Dershowitz, of 'fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense.'" Or this: "Finkelstein's criticisms of Holocaust education initiatives and reparations lawsuits amount to a belief that 'anything that... benefits Israel must be a calculated attempt to cover up Israel's essential depravity,' according to the ADL's national director and chairman, Abraham Foxman." But not this: According to Finkelstein, Dershowitz's The Case for Israel argues that "because Israel has been treated as 'the Jew among nations' it is 'entitled' to do 'whatever it needs to do' in order to defend itself and its interests, and even to 'decide for itself' the applicability of international law to actions undertaken for strategic and territorial reasons. Finkelstein has criticized The Case for Peace on similar grounds, arguing that Dershowitz believes that "'criticism of Israel' is a sure symptom of 'crypto anti-Semitism' and that those guilty of such 'bigotry' should be 'named and shamed'..."
...and on and on, windily, windily.
In other words, quote the critique directly if it's succinct, summarize it if it isn't, and don't just give X endless air time to say, Y thinks this, and Y argues that, Y believes this, Y's book is about that, and it argues this...yadda yadda yadda. Wikipedia is not Hannity and Colmes, where you get half a sentence from Kofi Annan on videotape, and then four minutes of Ann Coulter presenting what she says are the views and positions of the United Nations.
If you have a sensible answer to the above, I'll happily refrain from an edit war.--G-Dett 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have an excellent understanding of original research; the ADL called Finkelstein a "Holocaust Denier", and you have made the novel claim that it was without citing any evidence, obviously intended as a counter-argument to their claim. How do you know they haven't given evidence somewhere else? In any event, I don't appreciate whitewashing, and I can't really work with someone who so regularly violates WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if my tone has grown brusque, Jayjg. I am for my part finding it difficult to work with someone whose negotiating posture seems so rigid, his reasoning so slack. It is my understanding that on Wikipedia you don't really get to hand-pick your collaborators. Let us muddle along, then, and move towards consensus as best we may.
It isn't a "novel claim" to write that the ADL's accusation was levelled "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial." It's a straightforward presentation of the contents of a reliable source: a letter from the ADL to the president of Georgetown University, published online by Georgetown. That letter twice describes Finkelstein in general terms as a "known Holocaust denier." The letter does not point to instances of denial. It presents its description as a given, not as a case to be argued.
"How do you know they haven't given evidence somewhere else?" you ask. The question is irrelevant. The edit you keep deleting doesn't say they haven't. It simply describes the nature of the accusation contained in the Georgetown letter. As I said previously, elementary acts of reading comprehension do not constitute original research. The Georgetown letter is the reliable source. You don't need a second reliable source to say that the first reliable source says what it says. WP:V was not designed to create an infinite regress.
This is all I have to say about how the article should appear. If you produce a coherent rationale for your incessant reverts, I will henceforth let them stand.
What I have to say now pertains only to the talk page. Your insinuation about "whitewashing," if I understand it correctly, is not only uncivil but in manifestly bad faith. There are numerous citable instances of Finkelstein affirming the fact of the Holocaust; there are no cited instances of him denying it. He has never once shown any interest in doing primary historical research into the details of the Holocaust, and has affirmed again and again that he simply accepts the consensus findings of mainstream scholars regarding what he calls the "staggering dimensions of Hitler's Final Solution." He is the son of Holocaust survivors, and in the forthcoming Haunted House, portions of which have been published, he writes about his parents' experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto and in the concentration camps. And he periodically issues statements like the following: "No rational person disputes that the Nazis systematically exterminated 5-6 million Jews."
In short, there is no evidence known by me or cited by you for the claim that Finkelstein is guilty of Holocaust denial. There is, on the other hand, very strong evidence for the claim that the ADL is guilty of defamation. I wonder, therefore, who here is doing the whitewashing.--G-Dett 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're not going to get anywhere if you make "apologies" that, in the same sentence, accuse me of being "rigid" and having "slack reasoning". Naturally I didn't read any further than that insult. Until you figure out how to use the Talk: page in a civil way, I'm just going to assume your comments are meaningless violations of policy, and revert your edits. Cheers. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering Jay, how much of this edit do you suppose constitutes original research? CJCurrie 03:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

None. See the linked articles used to source the information. And if you have issues with that article, bring them up on that article's Talk: page, rather than pointlessly harassing me about some other article on this talk page. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
None of the cited sources advance the view that the Ouze Merham quote must be false because there are other false Sharon quotes in circulation. Notwithstanding that the interview obviously was fabricated, that particular claim is original research.
This isn't harrassment, Jay; I'm making a serious point about consistency. CJCurrie 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This source and this source certainly make the connection. There doesn't seem to be any relationship between that example and G-Dett's original research here, and it's rather absurd to claim one is "making a serious point about consistency" regarding reversion of vandalism of an article, which is exactly what the edit you referred to was. If you have serious objections to that article's content, or the way it is written, please bring them to that article's Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(i) Those two sources list the "Merham interview" in conjunction with with other Sharon misattributions. They don't argue that the interview is obviously false because of the other Sharon quotes; the Merham article, however, makes this very case.
(ii) Your most recent post to the Merham page was indeed a response to vandalism. However, that doesn't explain this (a link to an article that has nothing to do with the subject), or this (the first appearance of the "other Sharon quotes" line). I apologize for not referring to these links in my initial post.
(iii) My point, Jay, is that you seem to be taking an inconsistent approach to OR issues on these pages. G-Dett has made a detailed and cogent argument as to why his edit is not original research, and by your own admission you didn't bother to read it before reverting. On the Merham page, by contrast, you've (i) advanced a novel argument, and (ii) used this argument to introduce material not directly related to the subject. You'll forgive me if I say that this doesn't seem appropriate.
I don't plan to write anything further about this matter. CJCurrie 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's still absurd to bring up edits I made over a year (and 20,000 edits) ago as examples of an "inconsistent approach to OR on these pages". If you look at the Talk: page of that article, you'll note a discussion about what the actual title of the article should be, still un-resolved. A title change, or slight re-working of the material, would no doubt solve any lingering OR issues. As for the G-Dett's OR on this page, it is unresolvable, since it "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". G-Dett insists on trying to refute the ADL's accusation that Finkelstein is a Holocaust Denier using his own argument. It's not good enough that Finkelstein's own rebuttal immediately follows the accusation, G-Dett feels he must make yet another rebuttal that he has invented himself. When a case of OR is as obvious as this, there's no need for me to expose myself to the abuse in G-Dett's comments. I've made it clear to him that if he cares to try to express himself in a way that does not violate the civility policy, I'll certainly give his comments consideration. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Four things.
1. The edit isn’t OR. And it doesn’t attempt to refute or rebut the accusation in the ADL letter. That the accusation in question was made in general rather than specific terms, by appeal to consensus knowledge (Finkelstein is a “known Holocaust denier”) rather than cited examples, does not in itself discredit it. Any more than saying, “The president of the MLA referred to Walt Whitman as ‘the greatest poet in American history,’ without elaborating,” would discredit that judgment. When you are over your personal pique, we can resume movement towards consensus.
2. You say that “naturally” you didn’t read past the first sentence of my comment above. My guess is that you read the whole thing, and are at a loss for a rebuttal. Out of curiosity, though: do administrator privileges include being able to revert without reading or reviewing?
3. If doing 20,000 edits a year is interfering with your ability to apply basic Wikipedia policies in a consistent, convincing, and professional manner, then take it easy a little. This isn’t a race.
4. I’m a she, not a he. All the best, --G-Dett 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The edit was OR; who else has defined the ADL's accusation this way besides you? And you have again violated WP:CIVIL in your comment ("when you are over your personal pique"), so there's no point in reading further. Please keep in mind that as soon as I see incivility in your comments directed at me, I stop reading. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Jayig, please do not get emotional. First of all, there is no incivility that I can see in your opponent's entries. When one can't rebut a valid criticism of his own position, an unsubstantiated attempt to turn the table by accusing an opponent of WP:PA and violation of WP:Civil is the wrong approach. I will not tell you "reread the WP:PA" because I am sure you know what's there. Just don't put the argument on its head by bringing up the policies that do not apply.

Now, to the specific of the argument. That "ADL does not support their accusations in Holocaust Denial by citing anything by F." is the statement of fact and not the interpretation. If you claim that this is a false statement of fact, the right way to proceed is to bring up any ADL's release where it accuses F in HD and adds examples of F's writings or speeches that he denies the Holocaust. When you come up with them, we will integrate them into the article. Until then, the statement of lack of substantiation of ADL accusation stands since ADL does not substantiate them in the Georgetown letter.

Finally, the article deflects significantly from an objective presentation tone by going at length to cite the ADL directly in the text. The lengthy quotations should be either eliminated or moved to refs. ADL is not an academic but a political organization. We should we wary of using the political quotes in encyclopedia article. Someone somewhere in a political speech said "Mission accomplished". Such statement cannot be used in Wikipedia article as a proof of a success of a certain mission. --Irpen 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm not emotional, and I don't respond to or even read comments that start with "please do not get emotional". I've outlined a number of incivilities in G-Dett's statements as well. I'm perfectly willing to read and respond to arguments which are not personal; that is, they deal solely with article content, and make no ad hominem comments regarding other editors (allegations about emotional states would fall into that category), or suppositions about their motivations. I'm eager to have a proper discussion about article content, but only when the Talk: pages are being used properly and for that exact purpose, rather than to violate policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, telling that your responses and editing seems emotional is not an ad hominem in any way. My perception may be wrong and you are perfectly calm. If so, just say so. Now, you reverted me with no explanation whatsoever although I explained my edit above. Also, I tweaked the lead because the first phrase should say the most basic thing. Most basic is that he is a Political scientist and not that he is an assistant professor in DePaul. Please don't revert without explanation and don't cite NPA and Civil where this is unwarranted. TIA, --Irpen 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now user:Isarig made this revert in defiance on the ongoing talk discussion. Since he refused to provide the explanation at the article's talk, that I requested, I am posting here the message he left at my talk:

I found your edit which inserted the text 'without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial.' to be POV editorializing. The ADL letter is referenced, and readers can make up their own minds as to the quality of their arguments. Isarig 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we have now two users who edit the article totally ignoring what their opponent are trying to say at talk, I see no other way as to POV label the appropriate sections until the dispute is resolved to, if not a consensus, but some form of a compromise between good-faith users.

As such, I will mark

  1. the ADL section, since its editors refuse to provide an example of ADL substantiating its claim of F's Holocaust denial, while at the same time remove from the article the factual statement that ADL does not cite any facts at all. Another reason is that the statement relies largely on political quotes as sources. I explained above what's wrong with that and neither Jay not Isarig cared to respond.
  2. I will also mark the "criticism" section since it cites extensive quote by F's detractors but, at the same time, mentions F's responses only through refs. Either both should be presented in full or both should go to refs (the later solution is preferable to an academic style article but some seem to prefer the political quotes for whatever reason
  3. Finally, I don't understand at all why my changes to the lead were reverted, since none of the users explained what's wrong with my lead. As I wrote in the edit summary, the most basic things need to be in the first para. The most basic is that he is a Political Scientist and not where he is an Assistant Professor. Since, the lead is not in a separate section I cannot POV-label just the lead and would have to label the whole article. Being blind-reverted again, I will do just that.

One more time, I invite Jay to explain himself at talk. I am neither supporter or a hater of NF. All I want is the article to be moved forward from its current unacceptable state. --Irpen 23:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to speculate regarding, pontificate about, analyze or in any way refer to another editor's "emotional state", alleged motivations, etc. These kinds of statements are by definition ad hominem. Please read the linked article regarding the meaning of ad hominem. There is no place for this kind of argumentation on any article Talk: page, and there's been far too much of it on this article Talk: page. No editor is under any obligation to try to subject themselves to that kind of argumentation, as it fundemantally violates a key Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL. I've proposed in the next section that any concerns about article content be raised there, completely avoiding any ad hominem statements. Please take advantage of it. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I insist that there is no ad hominem in my entries. Also, there is plenty of explanations there. But I accept your offer to start this anew. Let's move forward in the next section. I will repeat my arguments there, if you wish. --Irpen 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's start again

I'd like to move forward here. If any editors have any specific concerns about article content, please express them here, without in any way referring to other editors. Let's just stick entirely to article content. Please go ahead. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversy about OR here hinges on whether the disputed edit analyzes, rebuts, or refutes the ADL claim. I'll briefly state my position on this, with apologies to those who didn't pass over my previous posts.

Items 1 and 2 have been more or less pasted in from above – with all references to other editors removed, as per the guidelines for this new discussion. Item 3 is a proposed solution to the disputed edit.

1.It isn't a "novel claim" to write that the ADL's accusation was levelled "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial." It's a straightforward presentation of the contents of a reliable source: a letter from the ADL to the president of Georgetown University, published online by Georgetown. That letter twice describes Finkelstein in general terms as a "known Holocaust denier." The letter does not point to instances of denial. It presents its description as a given, not as a case to be argued.

"How do you know [the ADL] haven't given evidence somewhere else?" it has been asked. The question is irrelevant. The edit in question doesn't say they haven't. It simply describes the nature of the accusation contained in the Georgetown letter. Elementary acts of reading comprehension do not constitute original research. The Georgetown letter is the reliable source. We don't need a second reliable source to say that the first reliable source says what it says. WP:V was not designed to create an infinite regress.

2.The edit does not attempt to refute or rebut the accusation in the ADL letter. That the accusation in question was made in general rather than specific terms, by appeal to consensus knowledge (Finkelstein is a “known Holocaust denier”) rather than cited examples, does not in itself discredit it. Any more than saying, “The president of the MLA referred to Walt Whitman as ‘the greatest poet in American history,’ without elaborating,” would discredit that worthy judgment.

3. My proposed solution would make clear that no analysis, rebuttal, or refutation is implied: "In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, and alleged in passing that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier.'"

I hope this provides a basis on which to move forward. --G-Dett 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this (3) does form such a basis, but (1) and (2) do not. (1) and (2) are both editorializing- they are comments about the content of the ADL letter. Th eletter is referenced, and readers can make up thier own minds as to the quality of the arguments made there, or lack thereof. My tweak to your proposal is that we should not say "in passing", as this is again a judgement call by the editor. How about just "In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, and claimed that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier.'"? Isarig 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As per Isarig; what is described as "describing the nature of the accusation" is, in fact, an editorial comment intended to downplay its veracity. If all something requires is "elementary acts of reading comprehension", then we certainly don't need to point it out to the reader, do we? Not unless we're trying to make some point. We don't editorialize about all the positive statements about Finkelstein; for example, we don't say "Avi Shlaim stated: On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills. but Shlaim did not specifically cite which statements of Finkelstein were erudite, original, sparky, and meticulously attentive to detail etc." Let the sources speak for themselves. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad the proposed edit (3) provides a basis. (1) and (2) indeed editorialize - they are comments on the talk page. Their purpose is to make the case for (3).
My objection to your proposed modification is that it loses specificity, while gaining nothing in neutrality. I have deliberately chosen a formulation that specifies the nature of the charge, while remaining agnostic on the question of whether the contents of the letter include arguable evidence in support of it. How, I wonder, does it "downplay the veracity" of a position to know that in a given context it was articulated passingly? The editor who says it does appears, in any case, to be referring to the disputed edit rather than the proposed solution.
Is it possible to read the letter and understand its allusion to Finkelstein as a "Holocaust denier" as other than a passing one? The letter presents it as a given, a "known." In neither of its iterations is the phrase even the grammatical subject of the sentence, much less the subject of debate. In strict rhetorical terms, it is in both cases an example of elegant variation - the textbook case of a passing reference.--G-Dett 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's possible to understand it as other than a passing reference - I think the reference to him as a Holocaust denier was "pointed", not "passing". Regardless, we don't need to editorialize; the word "passing" is meant to downplay the accusation, which is a serious one, and which should not be downplayed. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"If all something requires is 'elementary acts of reading comprehension', then we certainly don't need to point it out to the reader," an editor ripostes. This is a red herring pickled in sophistry. Of course we don't point out to our readers what is obvious in the article itself. But we do make an effort to describe and summarize the secondary materials we link to with maximum accuracy and specificity, don't we? Otherwise Wikipedia would just be a metastasizing collage of unassimilated direct quotes and fragments thereof. Even the sentence here beginning, "Foxman also criticizes Beyond Chutzpah on similar grounds" would run afoul of the rather extreme version of original research being invoked on this page. 'After all,' an editor might object, 'what reliable source describes those grounds as similar? Oh, it's just obvious? Well then, if the grounds are so obviously similar, then we certainly don't need to point it out,' and so on, ad absurdum. --G-Dett 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sophistry? I'll let that unnecessary and uncivil comment pass this one time, but please restrain yourself. As for the "on similar grounds" phrase, it is content that is intended to make the text flow better and more interestingly. If anyone seriously objects to its accuracy, they can certainly remove it. 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjg (talk • contribs).

Jayjg, let me remind you that we are repeating this discussion in the second thread (basically rewriting it) only because you made a groundless accusation that those expressing the disagreement with you above were guilty of WP:PA, WP:Civil and WP:whatever. In fact, there was none of any of that. The discussions were mutually respectful. Then you claimed that you did not read the responses. I, actually, think your even saying so is grossly disrespectful. Reasonable editors try to work out their disagreements here in good faith and in the middle of this you, basically, say: "I don't read your arguments. So, I don't care". Now, THAT 's disrespect. So, may I please ask you to stay on topic, that it the article's content, and if you have anything to refute the points presented to you, do just that. If you, OTOH, just can't come up with any rebuttal, please just say so or accept the change rather than find a non-existing PA, ad hominem and claim there is nothing to talk about.

Now, to the points. As I said earlier, "ADL does not support their accusations in Holocaust Denial by citing anything by F.", at least not in Georgetown letter. This is a statement of fact and not the interpretation thereof. If you find the statement itself disputable, fine. Show how is that a false statement but there is no original research in stating that black color is darker than the white color, even when a particular source just mentions the colors of two objects and does not say which one is darker. Demanding to prove lack of substantiations is simply illogical. If you claim the statement is false, come up with the quote on where ADL in that letter cites any specifics and we will close the matter. Until then, the statement of lack of substantiation of ADL accusation stands since ADL does not substantiate them in the Georgetown letter. Besides, the article deflects significantly from an objective presentation tone by going at length to cite the ADL directly in the text. The lengthy quotations should be either eliminated or moved to refs. ADL is not an academic but a political organization. We should we wary of using political quotes in encyclopedia article. We should simply say: "ADL claimed that..." <ref> and have a quote in the refs section not a lengthy quote by such a political and non-academic organization as ADL inside the article's body.

My second significant problem with the article is the "criticism" section. It is basically a collection of cherry-picked lengthy quotes by his detractors not balanced by F's responses, but merely links that F. said something too. I don't think that the way to address it is to add equally lengthy quotes by F. The right way is to rewrite the whole thing as such: "Benny Morris wrote on F's writing that...<ref> to which F responded that...<ref>". The article in its current form merely gives an undue weight to F's criticism by supplying it with lengthy quotes, thus loosing any virtue of NPOV.

I hope I made my points clear and we will have a discussion to achieve some NPOV in this article. I would much prefer a reasonable solution coming out of this discussion quickly to keeping "POV-section" tags for an extended time, which may happen if the supporters of the current version simply refuse to talk and write here: "You can say whatever you want, we won't listen". Let's listen to each other and try to make one more article better. Cheers, --Irpen 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, let me remind you that I had to start this section because you and G-Dett kept claiming that describing someone as "rigid", having "slack reasoning", needing to "get over personal pique", or to "not get emotional" were not violations of WP:CIVIL, or even more bizarrely, were not ad hominem comments. Please recognized reality and move on, avoiding any further comments about other editors, their alleged emotional states, etc. The critics of Finkelstein (the ADL in this case) may well have cherry-picked quotations they found particularly egregious in his works. And you know what? That's the way they criticized him. You can't remove their criticisms simply because you think they should have argued a different way. And you certainly can't make up your own defences for him, defences that no-one else has made in response to the ADL. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
‘Sophistry’ means specious reasoning. It is by definition not ad hominem. Bearing in mind that incivility can take many forms, including excessive peevishness, let us not grow querulous over a little rhetorical verve.
Jayjg rightly describes the ADL description as “pointed.” I think that’s good; let’s include it. Accusations of Holocaust denial are by definition pointed as well as serious, all the more so when unsubstantiated as in this case. “In passing” is not somehow the opposite of pointed; that’s a false choice. Passingly is how the ADL made its pointed allegation. The important thing here is to not misrepresent the Georgetown letter and mislead the reader. The episode deserves to be treated here because it constituted a high-profile unsubstantiated slur against the subject of the article (with serious repercussions), not because there’s any serious debate going on about Holocaust denial in Finkelstein’s work. Obviously we don’t describe it as an “unsubstantiated slur” in the article itself. But as Jayjg wrote on another talk page, “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.'" That quite succinctly sums up the editing principle we need to observe here.
It would be fine with me if the article read, “In a letter to Georgetown University expressing dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted there, the ADL made passing but pointed reference to Finkelstein as a ‘known Holocaust denier.’”
That’s not bad, in fact; maybe we’re getting somewhere. That formulation goes out of its way to present the ADL’s accusation in neutral terms, without misleading the reader into thinking it was a circumspect or substantiated interpretation of his work.
I wonder if other editors might weigh in here, and we can move – finally! – toward a consensus edit.--G-Dett 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your post above makes it clear that you are using "in passing" as a roundabout way to say "unsubstantiated ". I can't support that. The ADL accused him of being a Holocaust denier in the letter. We can say that. We provide a reference to the letter, and readers can make up their minds if the charge was substantiated or not. F disputes the allegation. - we can say that as well. If F also says "they did not substantiate thier allegation against me" - we can quote him saying that, too. Anything else, be it Irpen's addition of "The ADL does not support their accusations in Holocaust Denial by citing anything by F." or your euphimism of "in passing" as a way to say "unsubstantiated" is WP:OR and editorializing. Isarig 03:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Forget my secret intentions and roundabout ways. These are my business and totally beside the point. The question is whether "in passing" is appropriate and accurate wording for the article. Can you explain why you think it isn't, Isarig, without superfluous reference to my motivations for editing? --G-Dett 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything secret here - you were quite explicit that when you write "in passing", you mean that as another way of saying "unsubstantiated". I've already explained in detail why we can't have an editor voicing his POV that certain allegations are unsubstantiated. If you are not clear about my reasoning, please review WP:NOR. Isarig 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The very debate we're having is about how WP:NOR applies in this situation, so to simply redirect all questions about your reasoning to the text of that policy is an example of begging the question. It is as if we were debating the meaning of Hamlet, and I said to you, "If you are not clear about my interpretation, please review Hamlet."
The other source of confusion here arises from your focus on my intentions. They are irrelevant, as are those of every editor. The only thing to discuss is the appropriateness of the edit. Neither my intentions nor yours will alchemize the phrase "in passing" into a synonym for "unsubstantiated." They are entirely different in meaning as well as in tone. "Unsubstantiated" is pejorative and dismissive. "In passing" is neither. It simply means the charge was levelled tangentially and by appeal to consensus wisdom ("known Holocaust denier"), rather than as a debatable interpretation to be advanced by persuasion. The phrase is neutral, suggesting nothing about the truth or falsity of the charge it describes, and it remains neutral regardless of the views of the editor who suggests it.
Of course I regard the allegations of Holocaust denial as false. I would imagine that everyone who's come this far on the talk page realizes they're false. But the talk page is one thing, the article another. The question is how to neutrally and accurately present the Georgetown letter in the article.
So Isarig: without question-begging assumptions, without superfluous reference to my intentions, or what I mean by words, rather than what the words themselves mean, will you explain why you find the phrase "in passing" problematic?--G-Dett 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've already explained this to you. We should not say "in passing", as this is again a judgement call by the editor. It is your POV that the the charge is false, unsubstantiated, and levelled tangentially and by appeal to consensus wisdom. If all you really want to do is to neutrally and accurately present the Georgetown letter in the article, I've already given you a formulation that does just that: "In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, and claimed that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier.'". This is factually accurate, as well as neutral. Your suggestions are not. Isarig 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with G-Dett's proposal with one correction. "...made passing but pointed reference to Finkelstein as a ‘known Holocaust denier' without citing any of his statements to substantiate such allegations". I absolutely disagree that calling a black color "dark" is "editorializing" (see my post above). ADL is a serious organization and we may expect the reader to be familiar with it (while not necessarily so). As such, the reader may expect that accusations from organization with such clout are somehow substantiated. The truth is that in this case they are not and the reader needs to know about this abnormalcy. If, OTOH, anyone can show the substantiation in ADL's letter, this is sufficient grounds to dismiss my correction. Also, if ADL substantiated those allegations elsewhere, it is fine to say so right after this phrase in the form of smth like: "In its earlier press-release of ... ADL cited the ... statement of F. as an example of his Denial of Holocaust".

What should be supported by refs in the article is the "presence" of substantiations, not lack of them. Absence of any example of presence means lack. Sorry, I am not an en-N user. Regards, --Irpen 03:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may absolutely disagree that it is editorializing, but it is editorializing, nonetheless. People know what 'Black' is , and there's no need to tell them your POV (correct though it may be) that it is "dark". Thus, if the topic of discussion was F's car's color, we could say "F drives a black car', without having to editorialize along the lines of "F drives a Black car, a dark color". Similarily, people are referred to the actual text, and can make up their own minds if the charge made therein was substantiated or not, w/o a WP editor voicing his OR that it was not. Isarig 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to say the car is dark when we know it is black, true enough. But there is no harm to say so when it is relevant. Similar, if we have a ref that someone is a New Yorker we are allowed to bring up that he was non-Bostonian if the context warrants that, while the ref we are using simply states that he was a New Yorker. Doing so is not adding or inventing content. Same here, lack of specifics in ADL letter is a fact. We just say so. It is up to you to show otherwise if you dispute their absense in ADL letter. It's presence, rather than absence is what has to be proven. As G-Dett said above, "elementary acts of reading comprehension do not constitute original research". That's an excellent way to say it. --Irpen 04:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Although G-Dett said that, it does not make it fact. A claim is not necessarily a fact; for example, you claimed that there had been no violations of WP:CIVIL in previous conversations, when, in fact, the truth was the opposite. If you feel you want to add any editorial content to the ADL letter, it is you who must justify doing so. Why is it important to assert that there are a "lack of specifics" in the ADL letter regarding this specific issue? What point are you trying to make? Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, when discussing POV, editorializing, etc., do try to distinguish between their proper use on the talk page, and alleged infractions in the article itself.

I was under the impression that you wanted to insert that POV into the article. If you don't, and are content was using it just here on the Talk page, my apologies. Go ahead and call the ADL letter "unsubstantiated" here all you want. Isarig 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig and Jayjg, could you say once and for all, what cited Finkelstein sentence in the Georgetown letter could be understood, by a person with normal reading comprehension skills, as indicative of Holocaust denial? --G-Dett 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of that? That would be my OR, which is no better than your OR. Isarig 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR has no bearing on the talk page. I note, with some regret, the persistent confusion about protocol.

If elementary reading comprehension permits no ambiguity about the disputed edit, then there is no question of original research, and hence no valid objection, no basis for the revert war, and no basis even for this protracted debate. So, once again: what cited Finkelstein sentence in the Georgetown letter could be understood, by a person with normal reading comprehension skills, as indicative of Holocaust denial?--G-Dett 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of this exercise? Suppose I told you "Statement X, by F, cited in the letter, is indicative of Holocaust denuial". If you'd agree with me, than obviosuly we'd have no reason to include your desired qualifier. If you'd disagree with me, we'd have a POV dispute, and agian, we could not allow just your POV in the article, nor could we allow both your POV and mine, becuase they are both OR. I ask you agian: If all you really want to do is to neutrally and accurately present the Georgetown letter in the article, what's wrong with "In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, and claimed that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier.'". This is factually accurate, as well as neutral. What is the poitn of adding any other content? Isarig 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Why do we need to add anything further? What does it add to the article? What is the point in doing so? Why is it so important to state that it was "without stating specifics" or "in passing"? Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As to your question: "referred to Finkelstein as" is better than "claimed that Finkelstein was," because the latter falsely suggests that an argument has been made. Beyond that, the words are OK. I propose to add, not delete, remember?

As to my question: the point of the exercise would be to determine, once and for all, whether we actually have a substantive dispute about the letter, or whether this has all been wikilawyering. Don't dodge.--G-Dett 00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: what cited Finkelstein sentence in the Georgetown letter could be understood, by a person with normal reading comprehension skills, as indicative of Holocaust denial?--G-Dett 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the questions raised earlier, thanks. Again, why do we need to add anything further? What does it add to the article? What is the point in doing so? Why is it so important to state that it was "without stating specifics" or "in passing"? Don't dodge. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, your question was already answered. The reason is (and now I am starting to quote my earlier entry verbatim) that "ADL is a serious organization and we may expect the reader to be familiar with it (while not necessarily so). As such, the reader may expect that accusations from organization with such clout are somehow substantiated. The truth is that in this case they are not and the reader needs to know about this abnormalcy. If, OTOH, anyone can show the substantiation in ADL's letter, this is sufficient grounds to dismiss my correction. Also, if ADL substantiated those allegations elsewhere, it is fine to say so right after this phrase in the form of smth like: "In its earlier press-release of ... ADL cited the ... statement of F. as an example of his Denial of Holocaust". "
So, the reason is that lack of substantiation in an accusations by some blogwriter is something expected and does not need to be mentioned. If we ever use the blog as an article source, suffice is to say that "according to the internet blog..." or "according to Tabloid"... Lack of substantiation in the allegations voiced by such a serious organization as ADL is not normal. This abnormality is important and valuable information for the reader. --Irpen 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so you believe there is some sort of "abnormalcy" regarding the ADL's statement about Finkelstein; that's a fascinating original idea, argument, or thesis. Wikipedia policy certainly allows you to advance that novel theory on the Talk: page. Of course, to actually place something supporting it in an article, you'd need to find a reliable source which has advanced it.
The article already gives Finkelstein's own comments on the ADL accusation; if you can find any other reliable sources who comment on the ADL accusation, feel free to add them as well. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, Jayjg, THAT above is of course civil right? Condescending tone plus making fun of your opponent's being non-native speaker who used a non-optimal and, perhaps, a non-existing word. I checked the dictionary and found out that such word is indeed not there. Should have said "abnormality". Please accept my apology for that.

Am I still allowed argue my disagreement with you? Because you earlier labeled a phrase "Please don't get emotional" an ad hominem (!) right above and now with the tone I am getting from you, I feel more and more certain that I am somehow unwelcome at this article. In case I am still allowed to post here, please note that I am not arguing to have the word "abnormalcy" mentioned in the mainspace. Neither I argue for "abnormality" as I also restrict it to a talk page. As for the mainspace, I simply want an article to mention a hard fact, that is "lack of substantiation in ADL letter". I have a reliable source for that. A letter itself. The letter 1) Makes an allegation; 2) does not substantiate it. These are sourced facts. If you disagree, please argue facts. --Irpen

Um, I wasn't making fun of you. "Abnormalcy" is a legitimate English word, and I had no idea you weren't a native English speaker. The hard fact we have available is that the ADL called him a "known Holocaust denier"; the rest is your original research/editorial comment. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By such logic, saying that 9827364 is greater than 3562 is also original research. I doubt you can find such exact statement. If there is no substantiation in the letter, its absence is a fact. Since the reader will be supplied with a link to a letter, s/he will certainly be able to check the statement if s/he wishes. However, lack of substantiation in such a horrific accusation as being a Holocaust denialist is a big deal when the allegation is voiced by such an organization as ADL rather than in the blog hosted by Irpen. Important facts belong to the article. Lack of substantiation is a fact. Please read the letter. --Irpen 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the (hypothetical) context in which one might need to explictly say that 9827364 is greater than 3562? I am not being facetious here - I want you to think of such a context because I'm sure I'll be able to show you how it could be addressed without stating the obvious. Assuming we agree that Holocaust denial is a big deal when the allegation is voiced by such an organization as ADL - we address this in the article by quoting F's dismissal of the charge, and referring the reader to the actual text. Why do we need to spoonfeed them your POV that the letter did not substantiate the charge? Isarig 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to spoonfeed my POV to anyone. In fact I don't have any POV on the issue as I did not read F's books or read through his web-site or evel listen to him, live on in recording. Neither I read much of his criticism. I want the article state, not a POV but a fact that is the lack of any specifics in the allegations brought by ADL, at least within a letter. The letter is short, written in a simple language and easy to comprehend for you and me. Read the letter for yourself at http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/israel/ADL-letter.pdf
On the other hand, if we follow your suggestion this important fact will only be known to a reader who takes time to carefully read the letter, a pdf file that needs to be loaded after from the long list of refs. Most readers don't check all sources. Even those who don't need to know about this important fact because it is a big deal. Both accusations of HD is a big deal (especially brought up by ADL) and such accusations being brought up without any substantiation is a big deal (especially when done by ADL). Lack of specifics in the accusation is not a POV but a fact. If substantiations are there, just point them out and this will be the end of the dispute. Contrary to what you say, I suggest to argue facts and not POVs, --Irpen 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the ADL would agree with you that it is a fact that the charge was unsubstantiatied. That makes the claim POV. If this was really such a case of "false accusations of HD", and since you claim that false accusations of HD coming from a group like the ADL are a serious matter - then surely you can find some reliable source that commented on the outrageous false accusation charge by the ADL, and as Jayjg wrote, neither one of us would have a problem with you including such commentary. If, on the other hand, you can't find such a source, that tells us that either (1) a false charge by the ADL is not such a big deal, and hence no need to call it out in the article, or (2) the claim that the charge is false is not really a clear cut "fact" as you claim, but rather a matter of interpretation. Isarig 03:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You twisted my words. I am not saying the charge is false and I have no business to judge that on my own. Neither I am saying that the charges are not substantiated. I am saying a very simple thing. "ADL in its letter does not substantiate the charges it lays". I asked you to read the letter and point out towards ADL's substantiation of the charges there if you claim my statement is false. For your conveniece I copied the link to the letter right next to my request. Did you read it? If this is a true statement, it is important enough to be mentioned in the text directly. Lack of substantiation in the HD charge voiced by an organization like ADL (rather than you or me) is as important as the charge itself. --Irpen 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you believe this is an "important fact" that must be brought to the reader's attention? It is obviously a personal analysis and critique of the contents of the letter. Jayjg (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig and Jayjg, I have now asked the following three times:

What cited Finkelstein sentence in the Georgetown letter could be understood, by a person with normal reading comprehension skills, as indicative of Holocaust denial?

If neither of you has an answer to that, there is no question of original research and no basis for your revert war. Period. Each time I ask this, one of you replies by asking me a question, which I faithfully answer. I think I am now entitled to a simple answer from one or both of you on this, as is every editor who has followed this wearying discussion to this point. --G-Dett 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this, twice already. The answer is - "Statement X". Pick any statement at all, and have X equate to it. If you agree that that statement is indicative of Holocaust denial, we're done. If you don't agree, you have a POV dispute with the ADL, and you can't use your OR in the article. Find a WP:RS that says this, per WP policy. Isarig 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Isarig, let's have it: demonstrate that Statement X exists by telling us what it is.

And Jayjg?--G-Dett 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


No, now the ball is in your court to start answerign some of the questions we've been asking you, namely - what would be the point of adding your desired qualifier, and what would be the point of me demonstarting that X exists. Isarig 04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The nerve.

Isarig: hit [ctrl]-F and type “Jayjg rightly describes” and read from there through to the end of that post. That is one of the many candid, careful, detailed and direct iterations of my answer to your first question. Then hit [ctrl]-F and type “The point of the exercise would be" and that will take you to one of several straightforward iterations of my answer to your second question.

When you’re done, then please, as a basic demonstration that you’re not simply bluffing on an empty hand, answer my question:

What cited Finkelstein sentence in the Georgetown letter could be understood, by a person with normal reading comprehension skills, as indicative of Holocaust denial? --G-Dett 04:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not playing your speculative games about what a "person with normal reading comprehension skills" might or might understand about that letter. Edit within policy. Don't insert your own analysis, or editorial comments. Use the Talk: pages for their intended purpose. I believe we have come up with an agreed upon wording, is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving town (and Wikipedia) for a week. All that's needed for the edit to be satisfactory in my mind is that it should not inaccurately suggest that the ADL argued that Finkelstein was a "Holocaust denier."

Here are the two possible edits I agree with:

1."In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, and alleged in passing that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier.'"

2."In a 2002 letter to the president of Georgetown University expressing dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, the ADL referred to Finkelstein as a 'known Holocaust denier,'" without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial.

Or any of myriad variations thereof.

Isarig and Jayjg have objected to the phrases "in passing" and "without specifically citing statements of doubt and denial,", citing WP:POV and WP:NOR. Other editors see these as part of a straightforward presentation of the contents of a reliable source. Meanwhile, Isarig and Jayjg have coyly refused to say what Finkelstein statement(s) cited in the Georgetown letter could be interpreted as indicative of Holocaust denial. This would seem to obviate their argument that the description is debatable. It also strongly suggests they have invoked WP:POV and WP:NOR in bad faith.

I hope that others step in here and we can resolve the dispute in a sensible way, so as to avoid mediation and, at all costs, arbitration. --G-Dett 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot defend original research by saying "prove my theory/editorial comment is wrong". It is not "coy" to resist original research, or to resist playing speculation games about what people "with normal reading comprehension skills" might make of the ADL letter. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The relevant fallacies here are strawman arguments and begging the question. Jayjg isn’t being asked to “prove my theory/editorial comment is wrong”; he’s being asked to demonstrate that the description of the cited source (that it does not specifically list statements denying the Holocaust) is debatable, and hence a “theory” in the first place.
Given the persistence of misrepresentation in the face of repeated clarifications like this one, the question of good faith arises.--G-Dett 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Again, you ask me to speculate as to what the ADL considers to be Holocaust cenial. I note that the letter states "Finkelstein is well known for his... claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money"; one could argue that that is a form of Holocaust denial. I won't go further, because I'm not the ADL, and, unlike you, I don't think this kind of speculation is appropriate for Wikipedia, precisely because the original research policy forbids it. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
1) The phrase "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial" in the disputed edit clearly refers to statements by Finkelstein. The example you adduce above is not a statement by Finkelstein.--G-Dett 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
2) Perhaps the ADL does consider Holocaust denial to be something other than "belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography," but I'm decidedly not asking you to speculate about that. I think it is you, rather, who are insisting upon such speculation in order to create POV/NOR doubt about a straightforward edit.--G-Dett 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
G-Dett, I'm not sure what you want then. You cannot insert your own arguments or editorial comments about what the ADL didn't say, or should have said, or might have said if it were making a better argument; it baffles me that you refuse to let the facts simply speak for themselves. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You have not made a serious case about OR here, Jayjg, and the facts cannot speak if you continue to delete them.--G-Dett 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have made a very serious case about OR here; you keep inserting editorial comments/counter-arguments to dismiss the ADL's claim, and when confronted with this, you insist that these are "simple facts" and engage in lengthy interrogations about what you imagine people of "normal reading comprehension" would understand. The article already has Finkelstein's dismissal of the ADL's claims, please stop inserting your own personal dismissal as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Jay, you have not even begun to make a serious case that the clause you continually delete constitutes original research. Your comments on this matter, for all their variety of tone, are rather consistent in their techniques of persuasion, which simply alternate between question-begging and argument by assertion. With the exception of exactly one comment by you, the "very serious case" you've made that the deleted material is OR consists entirely of you asserting that it is or assuming that it is.
To demonstrate (as opposed to merely assert or assume) that what you delete is an "editorial comment" (and hence OR), you'd need only demonstrate that the clause you object to (which notes that the ADL letter does not quote statements of Holocaust denial by Finkelstein) constitutes somehow a debatable interpretation rather than a readily apparent fact about the cited source.
That's all you'd need to do to demonstrate that the clause is original research. It is also, however, the sine qua non of your case that the clause is original research. With it, that is, your case is bulletproof, but without it you have no case at all.
And yet, only once do you even try to provide this lynchpin of your "very serious case": "I note that the letter states 'Finkelstein is well known for his... claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money'; one could argue that that is a form of Holocaust denial."
A form of Holocaust denial. It seems the only way for you to find room for doubt and debate in the disputed clause (and hence grounds for deleting it as OR) is to imagine that the ADL might be employing an indiosyncratic definition of Holocaust denial. (Wikipedia defines the term with admirable clarity as "the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography.") If this is your reasoning, you might with perfect consistency complain of "original research" when I write that the ADL letter "expresses dismay" about a Finkelstein lecture at Georgetown; after all, perhaps the ADL means something else by the words "shocked and troubled." Who knows? – perhaps the ADL uses an elaborate system of encryption in its correspondence, so that what appears to be a letter attacking Norman Finkelstein is in fact a Pindaric ode celebrating the works of Barbara Streisand.
Your "very serious case about OR" is flimsy to nonexistent, Jay, and doesn't justify censoring an uncomfortable but verifiable fact.--G-Dett 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi G-Dett. Once I got to the claim Your comments on this matter, for all their variety of tone (peevish, paternalistic, imperious, evasive), I of course, did not read further. Was that your intent? It seems it must have been, as I've made this quite clear already; there is no reason why I should have to put up with your ad hominem and uncivil comments on this page, and I will read no further once I get to personal and unsulting comments. If you wish to address the content of the article, and make arguments about that, then please do so. There is no need to personalize this. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The paranthetical description of your tone has been removed from the above, Jay. I hope you'll find you can read it all the way through now. --G-Dett 13:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's far more stuff in there that is entirely unnecessary, but I will respond anyway - not in the future if this continues, though, so please keep that in mind. Something is considered "Original Research" if It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Now, according to you, the ADL described Finkelstein as a Holocause Denier "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial". As has been explained, this is an analysis of the content of the letter, which is intended to counter the ADL's claim. If the ADL wrote a letter describing David Irving as a "well-known Holocaust Denier", and someone wanted to insist that the letter did not "specifically cite statements of doubt or denial", you would rightly identify that individual as a POV-pushing Irving defender. The need to undermine the ADL's claim only arises when one objects to that claim itself. We do not describe letters or similar sources by saying what is not in them, but rather by what is in them. One may have wished that the ADL had written a differently worded, more specific, more detailed, etc. letter, but they didn't. We only describe what they actually said, and we don't insert editorial comments about what they might have said, but didn't. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

Thanks Jay.

1. Reading me the definition of OR, yet again, this time in italics, serves only the rhetorical purpose of making it seem that your argument and wikipedia policy are one and the same – my point, of course, is that they are not;

2. "As has been explained, this is an analysis of the content of the letter," etc. This is simply more argument by assertion, and as such has no value;

3. The comparison of the ADL's letter about Finkelstein with a hypothetical letter about David Irving is weirdly misguided, and I think it points quite precisely to what's misguided about your rationale for deleting the phrase in the first place. Irving, unlike Finkelstein, has denied the Holocaust and is therefore generally regarded as a Holocaust denier. There are no doubt thousands, probably tens of thousands of references to him as such in countless reliable sources, popular and scholarly. So yes, it would indeed be POV-pushing (as well as just plain weird) for Wikipedia to zero in on one such reference and indicate whether it levels its allegation in general or specific terms.

The situation with Finkelstein is totally different. Only a tiny minority of people believe he's a Holocaust denier; perhaps about as many as believe the earth is flat. There are only a handful of references to him as such in reliable sources, and even then only if we count as reliable sources publications like FrontPageMagazine. Virtually all of these references, moreover, cite the ADL as authority and merely repeat their allegation. To the best of my knowledge, no scholar in a peer-reviewed book or article has ever described Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier, or described his work as an example of Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism. It would be fair, indeed, to ask whether the ADL allegation even belongs in the article (WP:NOR says that "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up"). Given the prominence and pedigree of the ADL, however, I think the answer would have to be yes, their accusation is noteworthy. But given its anomalousness (echoed as it is only by a few fringe figures in the popular press, and no scholars anywhere) it seems important to be clear about the nature of the accusation: What is cited as evidence? Is it advanced as an argument or referred to as consensus knowledge? Is it presented in general or specific terms? Etc.

In any case, it should be clear that the comparison you've set up is wholly inappropriate. An appropriate comparison would be if Abraham Foxman were invited to speak at a university, and NOW wrote to the university president in protest, describing Foxman as a "serial fondler and well-known date rapist." If that happened, I would think it would be OK for the Wikipedia article on Foxman to say, "In a letter to the president of X university, NOW described Foxman as a 'serial fondler and well-known date rapist,' without specifically citing alleged incidents or legal charges." Assuming that were the case, would you, Jay, object tenaciously to the latter clause as original research?--G-Dett 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this. G-Dett, the sentence after the one you're discussing contains Finkelstein's rebuttal. The point here is that someone else must make that rebuttal — Finkelstein or some other published author — but it can't be a Wikipedian who offers the defense. That's the key difference. If we publish a Wikipedian's opinion ("but the ADL offered no examples"), we're engaged in OR, because we're adding something for which no published source could be found — because no published source has said that in relation to the ADL claim (and if one has, we should simply quote him). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
G-Dett, you've highlighted exactly the issue here. You find the comparison between Irving and Finkelstein "inappropriate" because, in your words "Irving, unlike Finkelstein, has denied the Holocaust". While you think the claim against Irving is true, you find the claim against Finkelstein so outrageous that you feel you must rebut it in some way; therefore, you insert your own analysis of the ADL's statement into the article. But Finkelstein's own rebuttal of the ADL is already in the article; why do we need G-Dett's as well? As for NOW calling Foxman a "serial fondler etc.", if NOW had done that, of course it would belong in an article about Foxman, and of course we couldn't rebut it by saying "however, NOW did not provide the names of the victims". On the other hand, you can be darn sure that Foxman would have rebutted it somewhere, likely via a legal suit; one wonders why Finkelstein has not brought suit against the ADL for the claim that he is a Holocaust denier. It's possible you imagine I'm fond of Foxman, or would relax the OR rules to defend him against a scurrilous attack. Rest assured that neither is the case. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay, the Finkelstein/Irving comparison isn't inappropriate on account of what I find plausible or outrageous; it's inappropriate because Irving has been described as a Holocaust denier by countless credible writers in thousands of citable sources, popular as well as scholarly, whereas Finkelstein has only been called a Holocaust denier by the ADL and a few fringe writers writing in semi-reputable fora. That's why the comparison doesn't make any sense. It is the anomolousness (not the outrageousness) of the accusation in Finkelstein's case that makes it significant, worthy of special note in Wikipedia.

I appreciate your latest input as well as SlimVirgin's, but both of your responses continue to beg the question. The very thing we're disputing is whether saying the ADL's accusation was made in general rather than specific terms constitutes a "rebuttal" of their position, or a novel theory about it, or whatever. I and other editors don't think it does, and I've outlined at length why not. For your part, you don't demonstrate that it does; you just continue to take it is as a given.

Of course I think the ADL accusation is outrageous; Holocaust denial is serious, and phony accusations about it shouldn't be used as a weapon. But that is neither here nor there. Please credit me with an intelligent and informed respect for what Wikipedia is and is not. I don't think the Wikipedia article should reflect my outrage, or "rebut" the ADL claim, or anything of the sort. And I am certainly not asking for some sort of 'exception' to the NOR rule. Wikipedia regularly presents relevant, indisputable information about cited sources, and this is no exception.

As far as why Finkelstein hasn't taken out a libel suit, I think he follows his mentor Chomsky in being opposed to them in principle. He's one of these so-called "free speech absolutists," if I'm not mistaken.--G-Dett 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep asserting that OR has not been proven, when, in fact, it has. Here's an easy way of finding out if what you're saying is OR; quote someone who says the same thing you do. If you can't find a quote that makes your point, then you're doing OR. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
G-Dett, it's very simple. You must find someone else who has said that about the ADL allegation. Someone other than you must say: "But they offered no examples!" It cannot be a Wikipedian who says it. That's the long and the short of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What is "that" in this case? People who have said that the accusation was made "in general terms"? It has not become original research to paraphrase, has it? Because this seems like a fairly reasonable paraphrase. It is not a novel analysis, just a description of what the ADL said. If statements like this are to be banished, then pretty much the whole of wikipedia will collapse. john k 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Areasonable parphrase of what the ADL said is somehting along the lines of "the ADL called Finkelstein a Holocaust denier". The statement "The ADL called F a holocaust denier but offered no examples" is not a paraphrase, it is OR. Such statements are removed in WP as a matter of routine. Isarig 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"The ADL called F a holocaust denier but offered no examples" has not been suggested by anyone as an edit.--G-Dett 04:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
For the excruciatingly literal-minded amongst us, "The ADL has also described Finkelstein as a "Holocaust denier," without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial." is not a paraphrase of "the ADL called Finkelstein a Holocaust denier", either. Isarig 04:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It is, though, a paraphrase of the Georgetown letter. As is this - "In a letter to the president of Georgetown University in 2002, the ADL expressed dismay about a Finkelstein event hosted by the university, alleging in passing that Finkelstein was a 'known Holocaust denier'" - also rejected as "original research" by Jayjg and Isarig.G-Dett 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
They didn't "allege in passing" that he was a Holocaust denier; you invented that. They simply described him as a known Holocaust denier. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the argument that Isarig, Jay, and Slim are making is that any exercise of judgment of any kind on the part of wikipedia editors is inappropriate. I would suggest that if the ADL has, elsewhere, substantiated its charge that Finkelstein is a holocaust denier, then it is inappropriate to imply, by some statement about this particular letter, that they have not done so. But if they have never, in any published writing, explained why they believe Finkelstein to be a holocaust denier, then it's absolutely necessary context to explain that their only reference to him as a holocaust denier is made, well, without any context or explanation. Whatever one thinks of Finkelstein's ideas more broadly, I don't see how any reasonable person can call him a holocaust denier. his book on the Holocaust does not deny the existence of gas chambers, or the murder of Jews, as far as I am aware. As I understand it (without having read it, admittedly) it makes the argument that the "Holocaust Industry" exploits the Holocaust to prop up Zionism, or something along those lines. It seems to me that Finkelstein's argument is offensive enough on its own without adding the (inflammatory) charges of holocaust denial to the mix. It's unfortunate that the ADL has done so, and I agree that it probably ought to be mentioned, but to mention it without any context seems at least as problematic as not mentioning it at all. As G-Dett has noted before, the definition of OR being applied here is untenable. john k 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not the argument Isarig, Jay, and Slim are making. The point we are making is that one cannot make up defenses for claims which, due to their coming from a reliable or notable source, belong in an article, no matter how much you feel those claims are incorrect. Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier by my definition; but my definition is irrelevant. Summarizing and paraphrasing are quite different from analyzing and arguing with; the latter is indisputably OR, by any definition. G-Dett insists on analyzing and arguing with the contents of the letter, rather than simply summarizing what the ADL has to say. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
How is it a "defense" to summarize the ADL article? It is not "arguing with the contents of the letter" to note that it does not provide any details about Finkelstein being a holocaust denier - it doesn't provide any details about Finkelstein being a holocaust denier. It asserts that he is a holocaust denier, but doesn't explain the assertion. The idea that this is inappropriate is ridiculous, and this standard of "original research" that you are advocating now only ever comes up in articles relating, directly or indirectly, to Israel, and only in ways that aid one particular side of the debate. I'm getting really tired of this. john k 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Summarizing and paraphrasing are quite different from analyzing and arguing with."
Indeed they are.
"The latter is indisputably OR, by any definition."
Indeed it is, though the qualifier "by any definition" is superfluous. It is OR by OR's definition, because "analyzing and arguing with" is the definition of OR. Well done: a perfect circle.
I believe I am now as well versed in the text of WP:NOR as Mike Tyson is in his Miranda rights. Would that my opponents were equally versed in what it means to beg the question. The debate here is not about whether "analyzing and arguing with" is OR, that being its definition. The debate is about whether the disputed edit constitutes "analyzing and arguing with," as some here assert and assume but do not demonstrate; or whether it constitutes "summarizing and paraphrasing," as others here have demonstrated exhaustively.--G-Dett 03:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John K. Summary and paraphrase are routine on Wikipedia. It seems pretty clear that the agenda at work here is not in the deleted phrase itself but rather in the editor who keeps deleting it. --Hiramhamilton 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From non-reconsability of the positions stated above, the compromise or an agreement here seems an impossibility. I hope this can be resolved at some point when more editors attend the article. Until then, the disputed sections will remain tagged as such. The options as I see are:

  • An agreement between the users currently involved in this discussion (a hypothetical solution since this seems an impossibility in view of the latest responses)
  • More editors stop by and agree with Jayjg and Isareg that objections brought by G-Dett and myself are of no merit. In the latter case, tags could be removed despite the consensus would not be reached because if is shown that the objectors persist simply due to their holdout fringe positions, the article will have to leave with the next best to consensus thing that is a clear majority of sensible editors overuling non-worthy objections. That has happened before too and this is an acceptable solution. Otherwise, articles like the Holocaust would have been premanently tagged since people who deny Holocaust no matter what (such people do exist) will never allow themselves to get convinced. If the majority of sensible editors see my ad G-Dett's objections equally unworthy and meritless, the article would reflect the version on which Jayjg and Isareg insist.

However, until more people show up, I see no point in continuing this discussion. --Irpen 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to Georgetown University

Speaking of sources. http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:ytScaEO-KNQJ:israel.georgetown.edu/ADL-letter.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a is not opening for the obvious reasons. Frontpage is usually not considered WP:RS. Thus, we do not have any RS information about the content of the letter anyway. I guess if ADL pulled down the letter from the web there is something wrong with it. I propose to use WP:BLP and pull down the paragraph about the letter (and the tag) all together or at least put according to frontpage before it. abakharev 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The ADL neither published the letter online nor took it down. It was put up by Georgetown University, who has moved it to here: studentorgs.georgetown.edu/israel/ADL-letter.pdf. I'll fix the link accordingly.--G-Dett 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Georgetown University put it there; the website in question is that of the "Georgetown Israel Alliance", which appears to be a Georgetown University student group. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status

I believe Finkelstein is a full tenured professor now, not an assistant professor. On his website, he posted a response by Alan Dershowitz to an article he wrote, and Dershowitz says that Finkelstein "is now up for tenure" at DePaul.

I think "up for tenure" means currently under consideration for tenure. Tenure decisions are never a sure thing til they're final, and the decision about Finkelstein will surely be a difficult one for De Paul.
That said, I think the introductory sentence needs work. Finkelstein "is an American assistant professor at De Paul University"? His current employment status is hardly what makes him a noteworthy figure. Moreover, the phrase just sounds ridiculous to the ear, not to mention a little patronizing. Wikipedia doesn't describe Daniel Goldhagen, for example, as an "American former assistant professor at Harvard University"; it describes him as a "American political scientist." I notice that one editor here used the same phrase for Finkelstein, and his edit was reverted without explanation.
It seems we should begin with something like, "Norman Finkelstein is a controversial American political scientist," or "controversial American author and academic." The rest of that first paragraph is fine. The second paragraph gives his employment resume, and explains that he now teaches at De Paul; if we think it's important to give his current position on the track to tenure, that would be the place to insert it.--G-Dett 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with G-Dett. john k 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe also that in the caption to one of the latest broadcasts of Democracy Now it says that it features professor Norman Finkelstein, whereas in the past it always specified assistant professor of political science. I'm not positive, though, so maybe not. Either way, I agree that the opening sentence needs reworking. 152.23.84.168 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing, "professor" is both the generic word for assistant, associate, and full professors, as well as a specific term for a full professor. The Democracy Now thing doesn't decide it: the honorific in every case is simply "professor." I've looked at DePaul's faculty directory; it's not clear there whether he has tenure yet. They'll probably keep quiet about the whole thing. Based on his publishing resume, he'd probably get tenure if he weren't so controversial. I don't envy DePaul; it'll hit the fan for them either way.--G-Dett 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; I also checked his C.V. and it doesn't appear to have changed, so I guess if he is up for tenure, he's still undergoing that process. 152.23.84.168 17:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissolve Irving section?

Why is there a section called "Finkelstein on David Irving and on numbers of Holocaust victims"? What do these two things have to do with one another? The information therein is OK, but packaging them together in this way, and with this kind of subtitle, is incredibly tendentious. Finkelstein passingly affirms consensus opinion about two different things, in two different contexts: 1) that David Irving is a "notorious" and "obtuse" Holocaust denier who was once a serious archival scholar; and 2) that he, Finkelstein, regards as definitive the three-volume historical account of the Nazi Holocaust by Raul Hilberg (described in his own Wikipedia article as "one of the best-known and most distinguished of genocide historians").

Bundling these two things together under this subtitle is multiply misleading: it suggests that his work is somehow related to Irving's, which it isn't; and it suggests that he has done his own research on the number of Holocaust victims, which he hasn't (he just cites a leading authority's account as definitive).

Let's get rid of the section, and assimilate the material elsewhere in the article. Maybe a new section called "Finkelstein and Allegations of Holocaust Denial." That's the implied subject of this section, as well as an explicit subject of the next.--G-Dett 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADL and Abbas

I'm glad you finally got the point aboout OR, [[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]. I think it's fair to say we can move on now, and pretend your rationalizations for your own OR regarding the ADL letter to Georgetown never happened. Isarig 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The point about OR is one you have yet to grasp, Isarig, but you’re getting closer.
“In fact, The ADL website lists Mahmoud Abbas prominently as a Holocaust denier" attempts to refute a claim made in one reliable source by digging around in other reliable sources looking for possible contradictions. WP:NOR calls this "synthesis" ("A and B, therefore C") and explicitly prohibits it. The information you deleted about the Georgetown letter, by contrast, did not refute anything and did not introduce evidence from a second reliable source to contradict the claim made in the first reliable source. Rather, it merely summarized the content of that first reliable source, providing context for the claim quoted from it – a customary practice on Wikipedia, indeed a practice without which, as John K. pointed out, Wikipedia would collapse, and one which entails no question of OR unless the accuracy of the summary itself is in dispute. The summary was (and continues to be) regarded as neutral and indisputable by several editors here, not only me. You and Jayjg suggested that you found the accuracy of the summary debatable – but when asked why, you steadfastly dodged the question; when asked to be specific, you refused. Pressed repeatedly, you finally produced something about "statement X" which was very nearly gibberish[23]; Jayjg, for his part, speculated that perhaps the ADL has an idiosyncratic definition of Holocaust denial – so idiosyncratic, in fact, that a statement of Finkelstein's which doesn't deny the Holocaust might nevertheless be fairly construed as evidence of Holocaust denial.[24]
If the sentence censored by you and Jayjg went like this – "In a letter to Georgetown University, the ADL described Finkelstein as a 'known Holocaust denier'; in fact, Finkelstein has written of the 'staggering dimensions of Hitler's Final Solution,' and compared denial of the Holocaust to denial that Columbus sailed to America in 1492" – then it would constitute OR, and you'd have a point here. But it didn't, it doesn't, and you don't.--G-Dett 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


My dear, if I were to play your little game, I'd tell you that “In fact, The ADL website lists Mahmoud Abbas prominently as a Holocaust denier" does not attmept to do anything. It is, in your words, "a straightforward presentation of the contents of a reliable source", namely, an article on the ADL web site. Or, to use your partner-in-OR Irpen's words, it is a "statement of fact and not the interpretation. If you claim that this is a false statement of fact, the right way to proceed is to" show that this article does not appear on the ADL web site, or does not say what I claim, and "When you come up with them, we will integrate them into the article. Until then, the statement" which shows F is a liar stands.
I however, do not play such games. OR is OR, whether it is an editor introducing his own analysis of F's claims by showing they are false using primary sources, or when it is an editor introducing his own analysis regarding the merits of the ADL's claims. I hope you have learned your lesson, and are a better Wikipedian for it. We're done here. Isarig 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the important lesson you've taught me about not playing games, and my compliments on your ingenious method of teaching it (inserting a fake edit as a trap). Beyond that, what I’ve learned here is interesting enough in its own right, regardless of whether it makes me a “better wikipedian.” In all seriousness: I’ve always thought Wikipedia was marvelous, now all the more so. Its core rules preserve integrity, even if some of its most tenacious editors invoke them cynically and opportunistically. Its structural elegance lies in the way it organizes collaborative effort, such that the energies of motivation are harnessed while the impurities of motivation (ideological crankishness, personal pique and peevishness, the insatiable desire to ‘spin’ core obsessive issues by tinkering with hundreds of related articles, etc.) are continually filtered out. It’s like an organism, the wick of consciousness made possible by the continual churn of the digestive functions, its sweetness and light offset and made possible by the fetid smells of waste produced down below. In your own pungent way, Isarig, you’ve helped me to understand the workings of this process. We're never done here - we're Wikipedia!--G-Dett 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Olfactory qualities notwithstanding, it was an effective method. I'm glad that this time the lesson was well understood (given that previous attempts had failed), and we can now move to some serious editing. Isarig 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Everyone likes his own smell, Isarig. But do have another look at my last post, as well as Fowler on irony wile you're at it -
a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that “more” and of the outsider’s incomprehension -
and think hard about who you are in each. --G-Dett 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

An irony-free version, Isarig, if you're still lost in thought.

How does 'planting' an obvious case of one kind of OR (synthesizing, using source B to refute source A) settle a dispute about a different kind of OR (allegedly tendentious summary of single source A)? And how, for that matter, does planting irrelevant fake edits teach me to not "play little games"? How does following it up with a sort of triumphalist swagger, equal parts schoolmaster and bully ("I hope you have learned your lesson"), mingled with creepy endearments ("my dear"), set an example for how I can become "a better Wikipedian"?

To settle the earlier dispute in your favor, what you'd need to do is show that the summary is debatable (not "false," as you continue wilfully to misconstrue it). You never showed that; in fact you refused to try to show it, and it became quite clear that you were bluffing on an empty hand. Given the absurdity of your position (maintaining that a summary is debatable but refusing to say why), it's understandable that you should now wish to switch sides. I would even take heart in this, were it not so clear to me that you have not even understood the terms of the argument you lost.

To conclude, I want to pick up on something John K pointed out. The interpretation of OR variously advanced here by you, Jayjg, and SlimVirgin has been neither coherent nor compelling. What is coherent among the three of you is your ideological take on Israel/Palestine. By contrast, between myself, John K., Irpen, et al, there is no such ideological unity. We have, however, put forth a very detailed, cogent, and as of yet unanswered rebuttal to the spurious charge of original research. These distinctions are in themselves rather telling, in ways that anyone who's read this far into this debate will easily recognize.

You have gained your goal, not through serious negotiation or by winning an argument, but by organizing your ideological muscle as administrators. Big deal. Wikipedia will survive.--G-Dett 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To settle the earlier dispute in your favor, what you'd need to do is show that the statement "In fact, The ADL website lists Mahmoud Abbas prominently as a Holocaust denier" is debatable. It appears to be a simple fact. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The key sentence in my previous reply, which can serve as a succint reply to your longwinded post which is made up of equal parts of personal attacks, vioaltions of WP:AGF and misrepresentations, is "OR is OR". We're done here, go find another nit to pick. Isarig 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"OR is OR" is about as nice an example as one could hope for of tautology (a common variant of which is known as begging the question). It has indeed been your key contribution here, as I've been pointing out for some time.

The dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wit, says someone in As You Like It (Celia?). It's been fun, but there is such a thing as overhoning.--G-Dett 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've said thrice already, we're done here. Go find another nit to pick. Isarig 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's now quite clear that when you want to insert a refutation using "simple facts", you insist that it is not Original Research, but when someone else wants to insert a refutation using nearly identical "simple facts", you suddenly insist that Original Research is not allowed. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rosencrantz.

Focus now: there is no Wikipedia rule about what editors want. There is no rule about intentions. If there were, someone would take a look at your 20,000 annual edits (by your count[25]), and you might well find yourself banned from making further contributions. As CJCurrie has pointed out[26], your prolific editing is not notable for its adherence to a single standard of Original Research. It is, however, ideologically consistent: taken together your tens of thousands of edits form the picture of a single-minded and truly epic undertaking, an awesome and impressively sustained POV-pushing effort. But NPOV applies to edits, not editors. Some of your edits have a coherent and compelling rationale; others, like the one we’ve discussed at length here, manifestly do not. That is all.

All are agreed that summarizing or paraphrasing a reliable source is standard practice in Wikipedia. All (I presume) would agree that summarizing is very different from, not “nearly identical” to, synthesis (defined as "A and B, therefore C"). Gildenstern’s irrelevant prank edit – after which he still wants me to assume his good faith[27] – is an example of the latter.

The issue with regards to the Georgetown letter was whether it was a fair summary to say that it leveled its accusation of Holocaust denial “in general terms,” or “without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial,” or “in passing,” etc. You and Gildenstern declared that none of these was a fair summary, while coyly refusing to say why. When pressed, you eventually mumbled something about how maybe the ADL has an idiosyncratic definition of Holocaust denial (and presumably therefore of the Holocaust itself)[28]. Given the transparent ridiculousness of your answer, I can well understand your chagrined reluctance to offer it in the first place.

Your partner has had the good sense to holler ‘nuff (“thrice” now). I suggest you follow his lead.--G-Dett 01:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, as soon as you insult me I stop reading. I got to the third word of your comment this time. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Jay. I've made you Shakespearean!--G-Dett 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

At first I was enjoying this energetic discussion, but I am beginning to find the whole thing pointless and distasteful. G-Dett, comparing your opponents to waste matter and contemptible literary figures may give you a momentary thrill, but it does little to advance the discussion. We may not all be as erudite as you, but throwing out an insult and then compounding it by facetiously declaring it to be a compliment, is no way to treat people. I hardly need to point out that you have the intelligence and perspicacity to make a positive contribution to this community, but your disdain for those you have outsmarted is downright toxic. As for you, Isarig and Jayjg, employing chop-logic and misdirection in order to hold onto a line of argument that has been thoroughly discredited by an interlocutor reflects as badly on you as it does on our ability, as a community, to put aside ideological prejudices and adhere to the principles of wikipedia. Sorry for the sanctimony, but I think you should all be ashamed of yourselves. --Hiramhamilton 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify G-Dett's screed with a response, but I am curious as to what you think is the line of argument that "has been thoroughly discredited". I thought my little game illustarted quite plainly the kind of OR he was was engaging in. Isarig 05:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Hiramhamilton, you have under 50 edits to the project, so it's not surpising that you don't understand the original research policy. However, your misunderstanding does not make an argument "thoroughly discredited". Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg does over 20,000 edits a year[29], so it’s not “surpising” (sic) that these are often careless. Nevertheless he tends to pull rank when challenged. Here’s one example:
“And since I've been editing here for 2 years, and have made 40,000 edits, I suspect I'm rather a better judge of what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article than you are. I'm open to reasonable inclusions, but not crap."[30]
I do this a lot, says Jay, so I must know what I'm doing. My cousin used to justify his drunk driving along the same lines.
I'm more inclined to conclude, with a sinking feeling, that some of those 40,000 edits oughtta be reviewed.
In any case, I guess we have it on authority that it's alright to compare an opponent's arguments to waste matter, so long as the insult is delivered without wit, style, or grace.--G-Dett 02:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you've already decided to set yourself up as my "minder". Please keep in mind that people are regularly banned for doing this sort of thing. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jay, I'll be "banned" for making reference, on this page, to the POV-pushing, bullying, and opportunistic interpretation of Wikipedia protocol that characterize your edits on other pages?
That sounds, well, false.
With all due respect, I think the Wikipedia:Harassment guideline you just referred me to applies to things like stalking an editor from page to page, quibbling over edit after edit. As you did with Superjumbo for two days straight in late September, wandering far outside your Middle East fiefdom into pages on Wangari Maathai, the Insomnia Festival, and Derek Walcott, reverting a total of 61 edits by Superjumbo. No doubt you'll now wax "subtle" about why this doesn't count, and suggest that I haven't done enough edits here to understand what "harassment" means.--G-Dett 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

The last thing I wanted to do was invite G-Dett for another round of mischief-making at your expense. I think I'm as ready as you all are for her to put a cork in it. So please, help me by not setting her up.

Yes, you have many edits, Jayjg. As editors more sober than G-Dett have pointed out, they don't add up to a picture of impartiality. WP:NOR is a relatively simple rule. --Hiramhamilton 02:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My edits have, in fact, been quite impartial, and WP:NOR is a rather subtle rule that a number of people, including most inexperienced editors, simply do not get. If you don't want to encourage further mischief-making, then I suggest you stop trying to get your last licks in. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If WP:NOR doesn't do justice to the subtlety of the rule it describes, then perhaps that page needs to be amended. Your application of the rule as it is currently defined is unconvincing. Setting aside your condescension, I hope we can move on to more productive matters. --Hiramhamilton 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay's argument til now has been that this alleged violation of WP:NOR is so simple and obvious that he owes no one an explanation for deleting it; he need only point them to the text of WP:NOR and remind them it's not allowed. With dissent mounting, he's begun taking an altogether different tack, claiming that WP:NOR is far too subtle a rule to be comprehended by Wikipedia's great unwashed.
On the other hand, this new argument from authority is very much of a piece with the question-begging (the proof that the edit is OR is that it advances a novel theory), tautology (OR is OR), and argument-by-assertion (the edit is OR, period) that characterized Jay's reasoning when he was still in his OR-is-a-simple-and-obvious-thing phase. --G-Dett 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tags

Why do the "Criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship" and "Finkelstein, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Allegation of Holocaust Denial" have NPOV tags on them? Criticism, by its very nature, are POV. I propose we remove both tags. --GHcool 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In current state of the article, I object to the removal of the tags. Criticism is indeed always POV but it may be presented neutrally. This was not done. Objections to failure to mention lack of substantiation in ADL's letter are brought up in good faith by at least two editors, independently, and are neither addressed, nor a consensus or supermajority exists that those objections are without merit. --Irpen 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you found a reliable source that discusses the "lack of substantiation in ADL's letter"? One cannot permanently tag a section as POV simply because one has not found sources to rebut a claim yet. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, I already heard you on that as well as you heard me. The lack of substantiation is in the letter itself and as it has been explained multiple times, the elementary act of reading comprehension does not constitute the original research. You don't need to force me to go into another circle by repeating your rebuttals. I stopped adding anything to this talk once I realized that this is going in circles with no outcome. Clearly, more eyes are needed. If others agree that objections are without merit, the tags will be removed per near-consensus. Until that time, they are appropriate as they reflect good faith objections not disproven yet. Feel free to start a straw poll or ask other users to take a look. Article RfC may be an option. I leave it up to you. Or just wait for more eyes to check it. The last thing I want is the 3RR restrained rv war where the final outcome is determined by the number of meatpuppets or legitimately agreeing editors. --Irpen 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, for history's sake: does the Washington Post's statement that the ADL's accusations were "groundless" count as a reliable source? john k 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Filthy accusations of "Holocaust Denial" (a crime punishable by a considerable term of imprionment in some western nations) should not appear in this article (by Biographies of Living People alone if not) by common decency.
Nor should other editors be forced to prove that these allegations are vile and baseless before they're removed from the article.
Are we sure that editors in this are aware of the basic principles of editting?
Or is there something going on here I don't know about, perhaps an attempt to incite an edit-war?
PalestineRemembered 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid violations of WP:NOR and WP:BLP; this article is about Finkelstein, not Dershowitz or Finkelstein's mother. Also, you can't make up your own arguments to try to refute something Dershowitz said. Please review WP:NOR. Finally, it's very strange to claim there is "an attempt to incite an edit-war" based on weeks-old comments; please avoid further violations of WP:AGF. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making up any arguments about anything - this filthy allegation "Dershowitz recently revealed that Finkelstein's mother was in fact a collaborator with German Nazis during the war." was made by Dershowitz (see my link to his article) [31], other people republished it (see my link) [32], and it's all based on an outrageous misreading of Finkelstein's own words (see my link) [33].
Since when is re-publishing the words of people like Dershowitz (in his own article) considered WP:OR? Why would it be a contravention of WP:BLP, when Finkelstein is the one who is being slandered, and it's easy to prove he's been outrageously mis-quoted?
On the other point, it's plain there are attempts to incite edit-wars when unarguable sourced material, right from the horse's mouth, is reverted in order to cover up a slur on the subject of the article.
Truth deserves better from the editors of the project - and subjects of biographies most certainly deserve not to be treated in this fashion, with provable falsehoods covered up.
If Finkelstein had been making allegations this unpleasant against friends of the Zionists, a huge tide of damnation would fall on his head. But yet, you'd appear to be protecting this most outrageous of slurs!
It's not as if the filthy allegations had been removed from sight once the utter falsehood of their uttering had been exposed - they're still there at the URLs I provided!
PalestineRemembered 23:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please moderate the tone of your comments, and review WP:NOR. You can't insert irrelevant material so that you can then refute it with Original Research. Also, please keep WP:BLP in mind; deliberately inserting negative material about individuals for the purpose of making them look bad is actually a banning offense, and that's basically all you seem to do regarding biographies of various Jews. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Norman Finkelstein self-identify as a post-Zionist?

In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Norman Finkelstein as a post-Zionist. There was no source listed. There is now a category for post zionists here Category:Post-Zionists. If someone finds a source for this, can you please add the category and describe him as such in the body of the article? Thanks. --Deodar 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finkelstein's mother accused of collaboration with the Nazis

Finkelstein has suffered an extremely unpleasant slur on his mother, all the details of which are (rather unusually) available to us on the web.

Can anyone see any objection to a section like this:

Finkelstein's mother accused of collaboration with the Nazis
In January 2006, FrontPageMagazine published an article by Steven Plaut and it is reproduced at "Free Republic" [34]. One of the claims is as follows:

"While Finkelstein likes to defend his own anti-Semitic ravings by claiming his parents are themselves Holocaust survivors, Dershowitz recently revealed that Finkelstein's mother was in fact a collaborator with German Nazis during the war."

It must be emphasised that Alan M. Dershowitz didn't say this about Finkelstein's mother - he said her son suspected her of being a kapo in the Warsaw Ghetto (and hence, was a collaborator with the Nazis). Dershowitz's article is available at the FrontPageMagazine web-site (July 2005): [35]

"You’ve probably never heard of the author, unless you travel in neo-Nazi, radical Islamic or hard left circles. His name is Norman Finkelstein. Yes he is a Jew. His parents were even Holocaust survivors, though he suspects his mother of having been a kapo ("really, how else would she have survived?" he asks rhetorically)".

Now have a look at the origin of this claim (Finkelstein calls his own article a work in progress and claims it was last editted in June 2005). [36]

"The Jewish ghetto police always had the option, she said, of "throwing off their uniforms and joining the rest of us" – a point that Yitzak Zuckerman, a leader of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, made in his memoir. (It was always gratifying to find my mother's seemingly erratic or harsh judgments seconded in the reliable testimonial literature.) Still shaking her head in disbelief, she would often recall how, after Jews in the ghetto used the most primitive implements or even bare hands to dig bunkers deep in the earth and conceal themselves, the Jewish police would reveal these hideouts to the Germans, sending their flesh-and-blood to the crematoria in order to save their own skins. One of the first acts of the ghetto resistance was to kill an officer in the Jewish police. On a sign posted next to his corpse – my mother would recall with vengeful glee – read the epitaph: "Those who live like a dog die like a dog." Still, if she didn't cross fundamental moral boundaries, I glimpsed from her manner of pushing and shoving in order to get to the head of a queue, which mortified me, how my mother must have fought Hobbes's war of all against all many a time in the camps. Really, how else would she have survived?"

The only thing I object to is FrontPageMag's misleading statement that Dershowitz was the one that "revealed" this and presents the statement as fact. Instead of FrontPageMag, the document where Dershowitz first discussed this should be The Case For Peace (I own the book and can find the page number if necessary). --GHcool 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So we have a front page article alleging that Alan Dershowitz "revealed" that Finkelstein's mother was a collaborator. This is based on an Alan Dershowitz article in which he claims that Finkelstein suspects his mothers was a collaborator. This is based on a Finkelstein article where Dershowitz has taken a quote completely out of context, and Finkelstein never said anything of the kind. There is no basis for this claim, so far as I can tell. john k 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The allegation that Mrs. Finkelstein was a kapo is extremely distasteful and degrading to her memory, but the fact is that Norman Finkelstein's quote clearly states that it is his opinion that his mother must have "cross[ed] fundamental moral boundaries." In my opinion, with reguard to both Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, this is a case of "a pox on both their houses:" Finkelstein for having the disrespect to imply that his mother (and by extention all Holocaust survivors) must have been morally corrupted by the experience and Dershowitz for having the disrespect to stretch the truth too far. --GHcool 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misread Finkelstein. He says, more or less "even if my mother did didn't cross fundamental moral boundaries, she must still have gotten really hard in the camps, or she wouldn't have been able to survive." He specifically notes her utter contempt for the kapos. What he is saying is that his mother didn't cross fundamental moral boundaries, but that she may have threaded the line, or else she wouldn't have been able to survive. But he specifically says she didn't cross those boundaries. john k 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, this whole sorry incident is not an important thing about Finkelstein himself. It might be important for the article on the Finkelstein-Dershowitz affair that I believe exists, but given that it's basically just an entirely false insinuation more or less made up by Dershowitz, I don't see that it belongs here. john k 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I disagree with your paraphrasing of Finkelstein's original statement, but there's no need to discuss it further because none of the kapo allegation needs to be in Norman's article. --GHcool 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/r/Talk%7ENorman_Finkelstein_6f40.html"