Talk:The Holocaust Industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier talk: Archive 1

Without prejudice to the issue, it is the Neutrality Policy of this website to describe each major point of view (i.e., "POV") on controversial issues. Clearly, the origin, living conditions and destiny of Palestinian refugees is a Controversial Issue. Several authors publishing in English have expressed views on this subject.

Agree with me so far? It doesn't matter whether /I/ endorse the views of the ADL, Arafat, Begin, Chomsky, Daniel Pipes, Finkelstein, Hilberg, Janner, Peters, Steinberg, or anyone else. If they or their views are popular, we had better mention their views in the article.

That doesn't mean we have to endorse anyone's view: the Wikipedia is not going to say:

  • they were forced from their homes; or,
  • they left their homes voluntarily

Rather it will say, it MUST say, that Writer X says they were forced from their homes and that Writer Y says they lef their homes voluntarily.

Our job is not to settle controversies, it's to describe them. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you Ed for your beacon of light in the haze of darkness. However, I would like to make the following points:
  • Given the polemical nature of the subject matter, we will make it especially difficult for ourselves if we include extremist standpoints, at least in the beginning. Can we aim for the mainstream in the spectre of opinion please? I would consider mainstream Jewish-American opinion best represented by the New York Times (although of course it is not presented as such), not the ADL or a similar outfit.
  • If Leumi insists on including viewpoints which are extremist to those of us who are not Jewish and have no great sympathy for the aims of the Israeli state, than I insist that they are labelled as such. That means calling a spade a spade, in accurate, neutral language. If Leumi disagrees with our labels, he can say so on the Talk page, and we can discuss it further, but I would like his word that he will not unilaterally modify or delete these labels from the articles. This issue is vitally important to me because I feel that Leumi doesn't yet understand that sources such Pipes and the ADL are highly partisan and must be presented as such. That being said, I appreciate that Finkelstein is radical for many American Jews people and he should likewise be clearly labelled as such.
  • By the same token, if Leumi inists that we include mention of From Time Immemorial in the refugee article (which I am not in favor of), that Leumi accepts whatever context we come up with to make abundantly clear that outside of conservative Jewish circles the book is widely considered to be discredited.
  • Finally, I would like to ask Leumi to indicate he understands the issues above by reverting as a gesture of good faith the following edit to Norman Finkelstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Norman_Finkelstein&oldid=1910085 (Removed non-neutral phrasing. ADL is not a pro-israel advocacy group.)
If Leumi agrees with the above and reverts the edit, I will withdrawl my request on Protected Pages, Angela can unprotect the pages, and we can continue editing them. For my part, these articles don't have to be perfect, just acceptable. -- Viajero 19:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've seen several mentions of the New York Time's scathing review of The holocaust industry but have been unable to find the actual review anywhere on the web. Can anyone source this article for me ? theresa knott 08:32, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Zero, do you have access to it? -- Viajero 09:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Go to nytimes.com and create a user account and log into it (this is free). Then search for "Norman Finkelstein" making sure you select "since 1996" as the time period. What you are looking for is a review by Omar Bartov on Aug 6, 2000. The full text is there. It is very vitriolic. Also possibly of interest is a news article on Feb 8, 2001, but that one is pay-per-view ($2.95). --Zero 11:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Zero I will do that. theresa knott 12:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well it seems even the Bartov review is pay per view now. I'm not prepared to pay for it so never mind. theresa knott 13:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I've found it now. Thanks again.theresa knott 13:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is the URL if anyone else is interested: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1DF163DF935A3575BC0A9669C8B63 -- Viajero 14:08, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yikes, that is quite a diatribe! Personally, I think the tone undermined the message. What do you all think, is it worth trying to extract a quote or summarize? Maybe something like this?:
In a highly critical review in the NYT, Omar Bartov said the book was filled with "shrill hyperbole" and dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory [...] both irrational and insidious."
Anyone else want to try? -- Viajero 14:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am in the process of re-reading it for the third time, with a view to extract a quote but it's difficult. There are no obvious "soundbites" and the sarcastic tone makes it even harder. I'll have a go later.

Sorry for the delay in answering, I was slightly ill recently and only just got to the computer. Viajero, while I appreciate your compromise offer and I hope we can reach one, I don't think you're speaking accurately when you state the view is represented only in "conservative jewish circles". I am willing to say "conservative circles", as that seems to be more accurate. Furthermore the ADL is an extremely respected organization, and Mr. Pipes is, while controversial (and should be mentioned as such, no more so than Norman Finkelstein, who is considered a radical in many circles, by no means limited to Jewish ones. Within your perspective, the ADL may be viewed as radical, but I hope you recognize this is not the mainstream opinion by any means. I do agree we should mention the controversial nature, in some people's views, of all these groups, however, and I hope we can come to an acceptable manner of doing so.Leumi 16:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi - can you make a suggestion for how to describe the ADL ? I have no knowlege of them, I am not jewish, not American, not a follower middle eastern politics. In one sentence or less describe to me what the ADL is all about. theresa knott 10:08, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League may help. One interesting controversy is regarding them giving an award to Silvio Berlesconi, for his support for Israel, despite the fact that the far-right are part of his coalition government. Shooting yourself in the foot, really. There have also been allegations connected with anti-apartheid groups and work with the security services. Secretlondon 10:21, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Sectretlondon but you've missunderstood my motives.(My fault for being too literal) I've read the ADLpage but I'm trying to get leumi to describe the ADL in a way that other users can live with. If they aren't a "pro isreal advocacy group" what are they ? (The question is for leumi)theresa knott 10:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why specifically Leumi? Is she/he any less partisan on the issue? And why is there even a need to describe them if we have a whole article describing them? The first sentence from ADL describes them: The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an American organization set up by B'nai B'rith that fights anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, racism, bigotry, and various forms of political extremism through an array of programs and services. As I've mentioned before, simply describing them as "pro-Israel" is wrong, because they are pro-Israel among other things. --snoyes 19:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why describe them here at all? The reader can always click on Anti-Defamation League if they don't know what sort of group it is. That's what the links are there for. Otherwise, we'd drown in a sea of labels: The notorious right-wing extremist Mr. A calls the well-known center-left writer Mr. B "a far-left zealot" and stuff like that. Better to say that A regards B as "a far left zealot" and let people follow the links if they really want to get into it. --Uncle Ed 19:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Someone suggested just this solution over at Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, but it bears mentioning again: when there's a controversy over labeling, let the reader decide. Otherwise, you might end up with something like this: "The ADL, which Commentator X calls a "radical pro-Israel advocacy group", and Commentator Y characterizes as a "moderate civil-rights group", and Commentator Z thinks is a "front for our Reptiloid slavemasters", says. . ." -- it just ends up looking silly. --MIRV 19:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
But they _are_ a front for our Reptiloid slavemasters! --snoyes 19:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand that we have to have an inclusive attitude towards viewpoints, but to completely dispense with qualifications... I don't know. Ok, for the ADL, we have an article. But say I come up with a bizarre claim in quote from a book by some obscure writer no one has ever heard of. I insist this POV is included. What are you going to do? There is no article on this book or writer in the encyclopedia. You are not allowed to label it, ie, say it is of an obscure historian, or it is a minority POV. The onus will then be on YOU to refute with documentary evidence, which may be easy or may take a major effort -- like going to the library and spending hours looking at microfilm. If we are lucky, we end up with a mishmash of competing quotes. If not, the article ends up some some extreme, completely unqualified assertion hanging there in bare space. I completely agree, let the reader decide. But readers also need guideposts, and this is especially so the further one gets off the beaten path. In an article on a Latin American subject, I wouldn't refer to a rebel group without offering the reader some kind of context, ie, a "Maoist insurgency group" or something, so that reader can evaluate the information that is presented. Obviously this is an editorial decision, which can be debated, but I don't think the device should be simply be discarded as such. The examples given above are a gross parody of how it could and should be done.

Also, as I said to Ed a day or two ago, I strongly believe that even though Wikipedia is not paper a Wikipedia article should be an organic whole; one should be able to print it out and have the integral story on that sheet of paper. Links are pointers toward additional information, not for supplying essential information. Obviously, this results in duplication of information, and from Ed's point of view this is inelegant engineering, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not programming a computer. -- Viajero 21:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for the late response. For the duration of this weekend I'm only going to be able to post sporadically due to a rather annoying infection. As for how to describe the ADL, "an organization whose stated goal is combatting anti-semitism and bigotry (though some accuse it of being overly politically partisan.)" Does that work for you? The majority of the description should go on the Anti-defamation League page, I agree, though a short description alongst the lines of the one Ijust descrbied should be included. Thoughts?Leumi 22:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What about the "fighting anti-Zionism" bit? This omission seems rather partisan. --snoyes 22:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A good point. It should be added in. "an organization whose stated goal is combatting anti-semitism, anti-zionism and bigotry" Thanks for reminding me. Any other suggestions? We might also add, as a different sentence in this case, "some accuse it of being politically partisan." That's up in the air though, as the including of anti-Zionism might take care of that. Leumi 22:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
By the look of this section on its website, "Advocating for Israel" http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/ , the ADL most definitely positions itself as a pro-Israel advocacy. -- Viajero 16:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It seems to me that if they "fight anti zionism" then it's reasonable to say they are "pro zionist" can everyone live with that? Also leumi could you please take another look at Viajero's proposal above where he asks you to revert an edit to Norman Finkelstein. If you agreeable to the revert, go ahead and do so, if not say that you will not revert and we can move on to another possible solution. I am very keen to see this page unprotected. There are a number of edits I wan't to make, plus several other wikipedians are reading the book as we speak and will probable want to edit. theresa knott 09:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

2003-12-15 There is no french-speaking page for this book (a later fr:L’Industrie de l’Holocauste ?), so I write here a french review : Dominique Vidal, « Ambiguïtés », Le Monde diplomatique, avril 2001, http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/04/VIDAL/15104 .

Contents

[edit] Finkelstein's anger dissipates - but hits home as well!

Finkelstein's concentrated burst of anger takes in many personal dislikes, and seeks to settle many personal scores. These aside, the book has one, towering message - the misappropriation of moral leverage that victimhood empowers. Finkelstein slays those that use this leverage to extract all kinds of monetary recompense, political advantage, 'trinket-selling in the Temple'. He blasts those that use the political sympathy - the memory of the 6,000,000 dead - to questionable, selfish ends. He has nothing but scathing - an excoriating, shrill voice - for those that descend to a kind of 'competitive victimhood' - a cat-calling "our bad-times, our trials are so much worse than yours - how can you even begin to compare yourselves with us?!?!?" Competitive victimhood so cheapens, so undermines, so dims the memory of the 6,000,000. The message from Finkelstein is loud and clear: no more shall the memory of the 6,000,000 be misappropriated, diluted, weakened, shamed! Never again shall the memory of the 6,000,000 be brought so low! Never again!

[edit] Criticism

NPOV means that the reviews section should mention the fact that most leading scholars rejected the book. (The word "leading" is necessary since there is no way of knowing about all reviews or comments published in obscure publications.) Also it should obviously quote Bartov's review that by any account was very significant. (This includes Finkelstein's own account.) --Denis Diderot 15:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be much better simply to note that there was a mixed critical reaction. I would be happy to add specific references to other critical reviews if you have any in mind, but the vague assertion that "most leading scholars reject [the book]" is a violation of NPOV and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. In the case of contentious issues relating to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, there is clearly very little consensus as to who consitutes a "leading scholar". For this reason, it is not NPOV for Wikipedia to make vague references to this class of people. Cadr 10:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"It would be much better simply to note that there was a mixed critical reaction." No. Because this is very misleading. Who is a "leading scholar"? Is it always POV to use this term? Then why don't you have any problem with this: "Raul Hilberg, leading Holocaust historian"? Though I agree with you that unspecified references to "leading scholars" or "leading historians" (more precise) may be dangerous and POV, they are not inherently so. In this case, for example, it's very unproblematic. If you can find a large number of postitive reviews by scholars, that by any reasonable definition may be called "leading", then please let me know. But if you have a problem with the label "leading", then how about using some other phrase that conveys the same thing instead of simply reverting back to the old misleading and biased version?
The main evidence for the claim is the absence of positive reviews in scholarly journals. Here is some additional evidence:
Peter Novick , emeritus professor of history at the University of Chicago: "Novick stated that Finkelstein is distorting the facts [...] and "displays a paranoid belief in some sort of global conspiracy of the Jewish elites in the U.S."
Prof. Israel Guttman, formerly the chief historian of Yad Vashem: "This is not research; it isn't even political literature,"
Prof. Michael Brenner, who teaches Jewish history and culture at Munich University: "There is a nucleus of justified claims in the book, including the stuff about the compensation issue, the lack of transparency of the Jewish organizations that are handling the matter, and the Holocaust obsession of the American Jewish establishment. Nevertheless, in order to gain a proper understanding of these claims, Novick's book was definitely enough. Finkelstein's style only makes it harder to accept these claims," says Brenner.
Prof. Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev: "He has not published any research to date that might be called a ground-breaking contribution. Essentially, the only book he published in the field is a collection of articles he wrote over the years, which do not make any unique contribution either, except for an interesting analysis of some research studies by other scholars," says Morris.
"Incidentally, in one article he also critiques my book 'Birth of the Refugee Problem,' claiming that I did not draw all of the appropriate conclusions regarding the State of Israel from the facts that I myself reveal in my book. My impression is that he is more of a pro-Palestinian propagandist than a serious scholar."
The German historian Prof. Hans Momsen: "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices."
Omer Bartov, Professor of History and European History at Brown University : "This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that "The Holocaust" will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious."
Steven J. Zipperstein, director of the program in Jewish Studies at Stanford University:"Imagine an old-style, sectarian rant, with its finely honed ear for conspiracy, with all the nuance of one's raging, aging, politicized uncle. Put it in a lovely, beautifully printed volume, place a respectable left-wing imprint on its title page and you have, in effect, Norman G. Finkelstein's new book."
--Denis Diderot 11:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You list eight negative reviews by professors of history. Now, unless the number of leading historians in the world is less than 16, the statement in the current revision of this page is incorrect. Presumably, you do not mean what you say literally, as suggested by your argument that "the main evidence for the claim is the absence of positive reviews in scholarly journals". So, I suggest that at the very least you use a more literal turn of phrase. For example, "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative", or "a number of prominent [less POV than "leading"] historians have written largely negative reviews". I'd accept this wording for the moment, but not necessarily indefinitely — we have to be very careful about these most/many/largely/etc. statements, since they're almost impossible to verify objectively. I expect you think the first sentence of this comment is pedantic, but we have to be pedantic here: we can't just say "most this" and "many that" without some pretty strong justification. Why not just list these negative reviews (in a more compact form) rather than making such generalisations? It would probably get your point across far more effectively than the borderline weasel-wording in the current revision. Cadr 19:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No they are not eight negative reviews. Most of them are comments made by the researchers when they were asked by a journalist what they thought about the book. It probably comes as a surprise to you, but History is a well established academic discipline. Respected historians don't generally make things up as they go along. When 8 leading historians make unusually negative judgments about a book, certainly some other historians may disagree, but the notion that the next 9 leading historians asked would disagree substantially is completely implausible. Your suggestion that "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative" and your presumption that I don't mean what I say literally, indicate to me that you probably don't understand how the system works. If some academic writes a book full of nonsense, for example claiming that the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conventional bombs, you shouldn't expect to find that "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative". The only reviews you would find would probably be in "Journal of the Yellow Danger" or similar publications, as well as perhaps a few successful placements by proponents of the thesis (or friends of the author) in "scholarly" journals without proper quality control. (I'm not in anyway implying by this example that Finkelstein's book is full of nonsense, I'm just trying to make the point as clear as possible.) It is instructive in this regard to make a comparison with Novick's book which was published a year earlier. Novick's book was also controversial and was severely criticized by some reviewers, but it was treated with respect as a scholarly contribution. It was reviewed in a number of reputable journals, such as American Historical Review and Journal of American History. Finally you haven't explained why you don't think a quote from Bartov's review should be included. Bartov is a generally respected researcher, the review was published in the New York Times Book Review, and according to Finkelstein it was very important for the reception of his book in the US. --Denis Diderot 10:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
You didn't source your quotes so I presumed they were from articles. It makes no essential difference where the comments come from anyway. Just say, "several prominent historians have been critical of the book" (with a list of the names if you like, and a few example comments). How about that? I have to say, if these are just offhand comments from these historians and not actual reviews, they have very little merit as actual criticisms, but I have no objection to including them. I totally agree with you that the fact that the book has been ignored to a large extent is significant, but I'm not sure we can reallly work that into the criticisms section -- best to stick with actual criticisms and not speculate as to why historian X or Y has not reviewed it. Re Bartov, I don't have any objection to his quote being included. If I've given any other impression I apologise, but I've never actually been against any particular quote being included.
Re literal interpretation, you can't possibly have meant what you said literally, simply because you didn't qualify "leading historian" in any way. (I assumed that you meant something like "leading historians with an interest in Jewish history/the Nazis/the Holocaust", but you didn't say so in the article, and once you start trying to define this class of historians things get more slippery.).Cadr 10:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello there, just wanted to say I added some information about Raul Hilberg on the page. All the stuff I added was simply taken from other Wikipedia articles -- it seems fairly NPOV to me.

In my view, mentioning for any book that "most leading experts praise/condemn it", without explaining how they condemn it, is the equivalent to 'argument by authority' in rhetoric. There is simply no reason in an article to make a generalized statement like that, except to assure the reader that 'people in the know' think you shouldn't pay attention to it--which is why people find it POV. This neither means that people can't be cited, nor does it mean you can't say make comments about 'leading experts' and 'most people in the field', because those comments can be relevant in instances. In this case, it would be made relevant if there was spelled out a reason in the same sentence why its rejected. But in this case, its hard to do, because the different historians that user:Dennis Diderot quotes actually say different things. Hans Momsen, for instance, just mentions that the book is trivial and that people who are anti-semitic will find it appealing; while others call the facts distorted. some of those critics call Finklestein a fanatic, others just call him unoriginal. it might be fair to say that "this book was poorly recieved by most scholars on Jewish history"--although one would have to mention that the author of that major book on the Holocaust supported Finklestein. 'This is my point': I actually disagree with the bad and extreme interpretations of the NPOV policy, which call for everything it deems a 'mainstream opinion' (which can be POV itself) to be outlined. This method doesn't help Wikipedia, its just as easy to be mired in a POV article based on attempts to report what mainstream views are, subject to equally distorted revisions. But I also think Wikipedia should try to be NPOV and unbiased. That means however, more than a knee-jerk referral to the NPOV policy (like knee-jerk referrals to rhetorical terms like argument by authority, btw). It means there needs to be less meta-discussion, and more actual discussion of the real subject of the article. In a way, I think an article has to be formed like an argument, which can be badly formed. If its badly formed, it could be because of POV, like a badly formed argument can appeal to authority. However, it doesn't mean an article has to list every opinion--in fact there are some articles where it is better if reports of any opinions at all are left out, because they aren't very relevant and often distracting to the article as a description of the subject. But people think they can avoid discussion of the facts by meta-discussing the politics of the facts---to avoid arguments. It doesn't work. Brianshapiro


[edit] Category:Holocaust denial

Why is this article in that category? Whatever we may think of Finkelstein or this book (and I tend to accept the world of the numerous historians who think it's dubious), it simply isn't a book of holocaust denial. As far as I am aware, it is not arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that standard accounts of it are wrong, or that there weren't any gas chambers, or whatever. Would it be acceptable to remove this category? john k 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


At no point does Finkelstein claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. He is not a historical revisionist or a denier. He is saying that certain inviduals and organisations within the Jewish community (a minority of Jewish people) are using the holocaust as a way of milking their host gentile populations for reparations.Also that the holocaust is often used as a political weapon by certain Jewish people and organisations. What he says is true and can be seen happening on a daily basis in America. At no point does he say this behaviour is engaged in by a majority of Jews or deny the Holocaust took place, its a small minority of scheming hand rubbing money obsessed people of Jewish descent that are the issue.

[edit] Changes

I made some changes. Corrected the misleading impression that his parents were combatants in WW2. This is worth remarking on since Finkelstein has come under attack for bringing the subject up and relates details of his parents experience in the book.

Inserted a key theme of the book that wasnt really touched on- the claim that the Holocaust is used as a 'shield or 'alibi' for activity by Israel/Zionist. Tidied up some references and quoted from Omer Bartov in context- the 'Protocols' point is one that was repeated elsewhere by other critics if memory serves. A more substantial rebuttal from Finkelstein might also be worth including but I think the collection of articles on his site that is linked to works just as well. DJSemtex 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Holocaust_Industry_1fc4.html"