Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair article.
Article policies
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Previous conversations archived at Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein_Affair/Archive_1

I suggest a new structure for the page. It switches around between the two sides of the argument here. I think it would be clearer if it had a structure that delineated the sides of the debate and the arguments on both sides.

1. Accusations by Finkelstein 2. Responses by Dershowitz 3. Opinions of Others

I agree. Actually this entire entry appears to be little more than chirping from the stands of the Finkelstein Fan Club (see Clinical Narcissism). I think the idea of a true debate eludes you guys. By the way, I've actually read the Peters book. Much of it is cut and paste that does nothing but make it thicker, but much of it consists of of explosive ideas and documents that should be refuted on the evidence. Finkelharping and Chomskychomping amount to little more than obfuscation unless the central thesis, that Arabs immigrated to Mandatory Palestine in large numbers due a prospering economy, can be refuted on its own evidence. My experience, based on nearly 40 years of Middle East studies, is that Arabists don't want that particular issue studied -- at all. 68.5.64.178 07:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

... Cttck 14:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad we came to a conclusion on that and yeah, it did seem to be getting on the long side. I added From Time Immemorial to the Relevant links page, by the way. No problems with that, I hope? It does say on the FTT page that it was one of the central issues in the Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair.Leumi 00:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous Finkelstein fan (I assume it's the same person, since you're making the same damn changes over and over again): PLEASE don't go changing the article back to your version without discussion. --MIRV 17:06, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here's what the anonymon changed, and why those changes don't make any sense:

  • "plagiarism" to "fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense"; senseless because Finkelstein only provided evidence of plagiarism: the other stuff was just a cheap shot.
Exactly, it provides context, and shows that Finkelstein is man who makes cheap shots.
Fair comment, I suppose, but we shouldn't be trying to bias the case either way. --M
  • In the description of Cockburn, "polemicist" became "commentator". Cockburn is a polemicist; he's a skilled and often-correct polemicist, but he's still a polemicist.
A polemicist is not a neutral POV phrase.
It is, however, true -- but you're right, it's not entirely neutral. --M
  • Necessary description of Sayres Rudy changed; all mention of Cockburn's request was removed, making it look (wrongly) like Rudy had jumped in of his own free will. Such was not the case.
I haven't seen any evidence that Cockburn requested this quote. The fact that Cockburn has mentioned this quote does not mean he requested it.
The only place this quote was published was in one of Cockburn's articles; therefore, we can assume that he asked for it. Changed to "Cockburn has quoted Sayres Rudy. . .", since we can't be sure that he asked for the quote, but we can attribute it properly.
  • Re-insertion of Finkelstein's snarky little quip about lawyers and the number of times that he's read the book. Everyone else agreed that quoting his exact words was irrelevant and made him look bad besides.
This 'making him look bad' is necessary for to provide balance from the Dershowitz point of view.
Well, now we have two quotes that make Finkelstein look like a shrill, disagreeable jerk. Is that really necessary? Do we need to report all the insults that obnoxious people like Finkelstein and Dershowitz hurl at each other? I don't think so. --MIRV 17:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

My reading of this article is that Finkelstein is desperately trying to discredit Dershowitz. I presume Finkelstein's motive for this is to get people to stop listening to Dershowitz.

I gather that Finkelstein disagrees with Dershowitz's 32-point defense of Israel. But, instead of refuting any of the points has resorted to the ad hominem tactic of directing his arguments against the man rather than against his points.

The main thrust of Finkelstein's attack is that Dershowitz copied too much from Peters, and didn't give her enough credit. (He's not saying that Dershowitz misquoted the original sources Peters quoted; only that Dershowitz should have checked all the originals himself.) He also seems to hint that Dershowitz should have done more research himself, rather than rehashing any of Peters's work.

Basically, he's saying through out Dershowitz's case, because of technicalities -- rather than because he doesn't have a case.

This seems unfair to me.

I know that my personal POV is not relevant here, but I think it provides a basis for fixing the article.

If indeed Finkelstein is trying to discredit Dershowitz, then we should write the article that way. That is, the article should say that Finkelstein is trying to discredit Dershowitz much the same as that Danish committee was trying to discredit Bjørn Lomborg.

The Wikipedia should not endorse or aid this attempt, but only report that it was Finkelstein's aim. If Finkelstein's motive is known (or other writers have speculated on it), we should report about his motive, too. Otherwise, stick to reporting on all the WAYS Finkelstein (or others) have tried to discredit Finkelstein.

What we should NOT do is try to take sides in the dispute. We should neither say that Dershowitz makes an execellent case, but Finkelstein resorted to unfair means to muzzle him; nor should we say that Dershowitz is a liar, or incompetent, or shoddy or unethical merely on Finkelstein's say-so.

If you came away from reading this article, as you say, feeling that Dershowitz has been unfairly denounced by Finkelstein, then that shows, I would say, that it it does not disfavor Dershowitz. If you managed to come to the conclusion you did, then I expect some fraction of others will too. I do take your point. I insetred into an earlier version stating D's "lightning-rod status" for Palestinean advocates and identified F and Cockburn as Palestinean advocates. It's gone now, but I think the section with Elie Wiesel in it accomplishes the same task of showing readers a possible motive for Finkelstein's attacks. But since we aren't mind readers and since Finkelstein hasn't confessed to any motive besides upholding standards of scholarship, it's speculation to actually attribute a specific motive to him and wrong to report that as fact. I suppose if someone had prominently speculated on the motive in public, we could quote them. But since Dersh does that himself we don't have to. We could line up people who side with D to strengthen his case. But F has plenty who would line up with him. Best to just have each man make his case and let the reader decide. 168... 06:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is a fight between two public figures with opposing points of view. We should merely identify and report on those POVs - not endorse or oppose them. --Uncle Ed 20:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I will suppress my natural tendency to say simply "Finkelstein ripped Dershowitz a new anus," and stick to the facts. Hello Ed. ;) -戴&#30505sv 20:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Okay, then I won't call you a hot-head, an ignoramus, or a troll! :-) Uncle Ed 18:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Quite clever. I wont be talking to you again, Ed. Have a nice day.-戴&#30505sv 01:17, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, these should be reported as events -- a time for the on-air debate, the way which Dershowitz repetitively interrupted Finkelstein, Dw's uncertainty about his own facts, his attempt at distancing himself from Joan Peters' book, while at the same time defending it -- despite the fact that he also credits Finkelstein for exposing Peters' book a fraud. Really silly stuff. -戴&#30505sv

168, you have already mutilated a previous lengthy addition I made some time ago, which I tolerated only because back then I didn't have the time nor the emotional stamina to engage in what would become yet another heated Finkelsteinian discussion. Unfortunately, it appears that you took that decision as a sign that I was not the type of Wikipedian who cared about what other people do with their comments.

WordNet gives the following definitions of "acerbic"

"an acerbic tone piercing otherwise flowery prose"; "a barrage of acid comments"; "her acrid remarks make her many enemies"; "bitter words"; "blistering criticism"; "caustic jokes about political assassination, talk-show hosts and medical ethics"; "a sulfurous denunciation".

It is clear from reading this list that predicating "acerbic" from Alexander Cockburn conveys the idea that his accusations are a reflection of his "acid" temperament and not the result of factually compelling evidence.

"Left-wing" is also inappropriate, because the left-right axis is completely irrelevant in this controversy. As Finkelstein himself notes,

those on the Left ridicule the book as a defense of "the banks".

Qualifying names that have Wikipedia entries is only admissible when the attribute is particularly relevant to the issue discussed. As this is not the case, "acerbic left-wing" should go. Sir Paul 19:22, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's highly relevant. When someone opines "that piece of art stinks," it matters whether it is Sister Wendy or Sid Vicious. If you know who those two people are, then you will interpret the remark differently, depending on who said it, and you are liable to attribute different moods, motives or mental states to the speaker who uttered it. Neutrality does not require the cloaking of the character and reputation of the people we quote. Judges permit defense attorneys to point out that the star witness for the prosecution is a convicted murderer who is being released early in return for his testimony. Do you think this shouldn't be allowed to be pointed out? I have no doubt that Cockburn is attacking Dershowitz in large part because of Dershowitz's politics. Do you? I have no doubt that he has attacked Dershowitz in the manner he does because this is the manner in which he attacks all those whose politics he disagrees with. Do you? 168...|...Talk 21:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your words prove my point: you didn't need to add any qualification whatsoever to Sister Wendy or Sid Vicious to make the obvious point that the identity of the writer is relevant to assess the plausibility of the writing. Readers of Wikipedia are not stupid, and do not need your interpretation of who Alexander Cockburn is to determine whether they should give credit to what he says. If they know nothing about Cockburn, they will click on his name and they will hopefully get an accurate picture of who he is (and if the picture is not accurate, go to that article and fix it). Unless we are talking a property which is contextually crucial, factually indisputable and presumably unknown, the practice of hysterically stockpiling epithets is inadmissible, and should not be allowed. Sir Paul 01:08, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect our disagreement lies in differing philosophies of linking, and I think my philosophy is closer to what you'll read espoused on the meta pages. My feeling is that if a reader would have to link out to appreciate the full intent of an article or paragraph, then then the desired interpretation needs to be made more explicit within the article itself. Linking out should be an option for those who wish to learn more, not a way for writers to avoid writing an individual article in such a way that it is not fully intelligible to a wide audience on its own.168...|...Talk 01:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not fully intelligible?! You really are pushing the bounds of sense here. As regards your claim that your "philosophy is closer to what [I]'ll read espoused on the meta pages", take a look at the discussion over The Holocaust Industry and you'll see the same issue raised over qualifying the Anti-Defamation League. This is what Ed Poor has to say abou it:

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.

And this is what Mirv replied:

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.

If you follow the link to the guidelines, you'll read that

if the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether.

I, and I presume many others, dispute the connotations of characterizing Alexander Cockburn as "acerbic left-wing", so the epithet should be dropped. Sir Paul 03:27, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, if the above doesn't settle our disagreement, I'd appreciate if you would answer my questions and address the rest of the points I took the trouble of raising.168...|...Talk 01:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I said is, I think, sufficient to solve the dispute, so I see no reason to answer your other points. Sir Paul 03:27, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)


I guess we're at an impasse then. But I'd be interested in examples of Cockburn displaying what you perceive to be his mild and centrist behavior. I'm not interested in disputes per se as in simple, rational disputes. I suspect that's what Ed meant too. But Ed flies off the handle some times, which is one reason to read further on the subject of linking. I could dig up a reference for you if you'd like. 168...|...Talk 03:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


(via edit conflict, somewhat redundant) The dispute over "acerbic" is fair, I think, since it is a slightly prejudicial term, so leaving it out would be appropriate. "Left-wing", however, is undisputable and relevant to understanding why Cockburn promoted this particular scandal: he makes no secret of his left-wing politics, and nobody calls him anything else; also he didn't rail against Stephen Ambrose quite so loudly, neh? Leaving out a brief description of Cockburn's politics would leave the reader wondering why he chose to get involved in the flap over The Case for Israel, since he's shown no special dislike of plagiarism in the past. This is what Viajero said about the issue, and I think he has a point:

". . . 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."

I also suggest looking over Norman Finkelstein, which has a relevant brief description of the ADL -- also written by 168..., I believe -- which is necessary to understand why that organization decided to make the laughable accusation that Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier. --No-One Jones 04:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Search google news for "acerbic". It's a common epithet, and undeniably apt for the writings Cockburn seems to be famous for. It's only disputable to the extent that there aren't codified standards for establishing "acerbicness" or "acerbicity" and so people have to leg to stand on when they protest its application. Nevertheless, people can tell acerbicness when they see it, and I doubt very strongly that even 1% of people would sincerely regard trademark-Cockburn editorials as anything less than acerbic. It's probably on the basis of reasoning like that that many would-be objective reporters evidently feel that it's fair to use the term.168...|...Talk 04:22, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute the accuracy of the term -- Cockburn's tone is nothing if not acerbic. However, I don't think it is relevant. Does it make sense to say "Cockburn, who is an acerbic commentator, attacked a book which is strongly pro-Israel"? This phrasing does describe his tone, but it tells the reader nothing about why he chose to take up this cause. On the other hand, the phrase "Cockburn, who is a radical left-wing commentator, attacked a book which is strongly pro-Israel" says a great deal to anyone who is familiar with American -- and European -- far-left politics. Running the two descriptions together into one clause obscures the fact that the use of "acerbic" doesn't say anything especially meaningful or important about Cockburn's involvement in the affair.
"Acerbic" is also, as I said, a slightly prejudicial description; replacing it with a similar but stronger word would yield ". . . caustic left-wing commentator", "humourless left-wing commentator", and so on -- all of which are true and accurate, but prejudice the reader against Cockburn's opinions.--No-One Jones 05:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings: it does seem somewhat relevant that he's an acerbic commentator. However, it seems more relevant that he's a "radical left-wing" commentator, so that seems like a better description. --Delirium 06:07, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)


Acerbic is not "prejudicial" in this case because it is applied after-the-fact of observation and based on those obervations. It is a judgment, but not a pre-judgment, and it is accurate. It is relevant because people who are acerbic employ hyperbole and theatrical rhetoric. Cockburn is calling for a response to Dershowitz's alleged crime (firing from Harvard) which we have good reason to doubt he does not consider appropriate to the alleged crime in the abstract, and a key reason for doubting it is that his style in expressing criticism, in general, is acerbic.168...|...Talk 06:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"radical left-wing" seems tolerable (I have some qualms about the connotations of "radical", but I'm ready to go with this proposal).

I went to the Norman Finkelstein article and saw that the "conservative, pro-Israel advocacy group which says it fights anti-Semitism" qualification was dropped. Consistency demands that it be restored.

Perhaps we could associate some standard epithets with certain individuals and institutions in a separate page so that anyone debating the appropriateness of qualifying them in a particular way can learn from previous discussions and stick to the consensus reached back then. I'm sure questions about labeling the ADL as a conservative pro-Israel advocacy group would surface in the future, and it would be a waste of time and effort if the same arguments had to be replicated each time that happened. Sir Paul 13:51, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

What a dumb topic. It is completely obvious that Finkelstein is attempting to discredit otherwise serious scholar based on politics, not scholarship. This became transparently clear when he pointed out an error in Dershowitz's book that was actually in the Palestinians' favor. He tried to do the same thing to Wiesel

The man is a lowlife, a hothead, and carries on like a small child when someone dares to disagree with him.

[edit] Authorship

This article focuses on the trivial charge that Dershowitz cited primary sources of quotations when he actually learned of these quotations from a secondary source. I call this charge trivial because it is standard scholarly practice. The article did not mention at all (until I added it) the very serious charge that Dershowitz's did not write The Case for Israel. This seems seriously imbalanced to me. What gives?

[edit] Plagiarism

The first sentence of this article claims that Finkelstein has accused Dershowitz of plagiarism. Although this seems like a reasonable claim, I have not actually seen a citation where Finkelstein makes this serious charge. Can somebody point me to where Finkelstein says this?

"In fact Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud which amazingly in large parts, he plagiarized from another fraud." [1]. Cadr 09:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! With your tip, I found the quote in the first sentence: [2] I think it's important to note that Finkelstein has never made this charge in print (as far as I'm aware), and now seems to have backed off. He now asks (rather than states) "Is this scandalous scholarship, or is it plagiarism, or is it both?" [3] Ragout 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but he's only backed off because of the threat of libel. He's called it plaigerism in lots of articles online.
I'm sure you're right that it's the threat of libel that's caused him to back off. Of course, the article should point this out.
I'm not so sure what we should say about the allegation that Dershowitz didn't write the book. That's another area where it's not clear whether Finkelstein's views have changed (after the appearence of the handwritten manuscript) and whether he originally made the accusation seriously or rhetorically. Cadr 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you think Finkelstein makes such strong accusations unseriously, the article should certainly point this out. Perhaps the plagiarism accusation is also unserious. Really, though, I find your accusation hard to believe. What is your evidence that Finkelstein's ghostwriting charge was not serious? Ragout 10:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, regarding the ongoing edits, I'm happy with your new paragraph after thinking about it again. The only thing I'd like to do is to get a proper cite from the Chicago Manual of Style. Does it really advocate citing primary sources exclusively, even when you have only read them via secondary sources?

Ragout 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) My understanding is: cite the primary source if you go look it up, otherwise cite the secondary source. My source on the Chicago Manual of style is here A better quote is from "Writing with Sources." Apparently, Finkelstein relies on the definition of plagiarism from there. Writing with Sources says:
QUOTING OR CITING A PASSAGE YOU FOUND QUOTED OR CITED BY ANOTHER SCHOLAR: when you haven’t actually read the original source, cite the passage as “quoted in” or “cited in” that scholar—both to credit that person for finding the quoted passage or cited text, and to protect yourself in case he or she has misquoted or misrepresented (see “Indirect Source” pages 48–9). Always read for yourself any source that’s important to your argument, rather than relying on an abstract or a summary in another source.

I always got the impression that Finkelstein was never intending to make a serious claim about Dershowitz's not authoring the book, in the sense that he wasn't intending to provide any direct evidence for it. It was presumably just his opinion based on the quality of the book, etc. But I think that's a bit vague to go in the article. I tried to qualify it a bit by adding in the "almost certainly" quotation. Cadr 10:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations.

A recent statistical study [2] has found that about 80% of citations in academic literature are not derived from the originals, but copied from secondary sources. However, the authors of the study do not endorse or defend this practice.

The link given is discussing only scientific papers, not historical ones. I would be quite astonished if 80% of citations in historical works were actually cribbed from secondary sources. john k 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Help! The introduction is swallowing the article! (unsigned comment by User:ragout)

[edit] Is citing sources without reading them "extremely widespread" in academia?

(Note: this issue also applies to Talk:Norman Finkelstein). The main (but not only) point of debate at the moment is about two links that user:Ragout wants to include. They supposedly support the claim he wants to include in the article that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" and, by implication, academic historical writing which is what this discussion is really about.

The first link, [4] is an anonymous web page with uncited information itself. However, from following the links, the claim refers to a single study of citations of a single scientific paper from 1974, not a historical paper.

The second link is subscription-only and should be removed for that reason alone. Ragout has changed it to a non-subscription version in Norman Finkelstein, but it is clear the study only applies to anatomical writing and the actual rate of citation without reading is fairly low (27%) which is not consistent with "extremely widespread".

I not only believe these links are inadequate sources to claim that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" but to use studies like this to make a sweeping claim about academia, a statement which is not in either paper, is an egregious violation of the "no original research" policy. If such practices are "extremely widespread" User:ragout should have no problem finding many reputable sources that say so explicitly. Deuterium 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work required to reach NPOV

I found this article by responding to the RFC; however, I think there is a larger NPOV problem with the article. Overall, the article does not present both sides of the argument in a balanced and an unbiased fashion. The article largely expounds on the accusation of one side, with short explanation of the reaction of the other side, creating an appearance of favoring the accusing side.

I would suggest the following improvements: 1. Summarizing the accusations and expanding the rebuttals could help the article to appear to be more balanced. 2. The intro section currently dives into too much detail too quickly. It could be beneficial to describe the overall conflict, and dive into the details in later portions of the article. 3. It appears that most of the controversy is over the citations, and not about the book itself. It also appears that the accusing side is not saying that the citations are incorrect either, but rather that they were copied from another book. This is an important distinction, and if so, should be explained to the reader to properly introduce the nature of the debate. Currently, the introductory paragraph does not do that.

--CommonGround 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That Peters's book is incorrect is generally assumed - it was widely debunked and has few remaining defenders. So if Dershowitz copied them from Peters it goes fairly far towards debunking them. john k 04:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If this were so, the case against D. could be stated very briefly, don't you think?
No, because Finkelstein is accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism, not of relying on a discredited book. Sir Paul 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course CommonGround is right, this article is not remotely NPOV. My suggestion is to leave the biased stuff in the F's Accusations sections, since F's fans are never going to allow an accurate presentation. For balance, leave D's response in a separate section, without interleaving F's charges between every sentence. There is no need to expound D's response at great length, since D's case is straightforward: F's "evidence" proves nothing serious, and F has ulterior motives and a history of baseless accusations against Jews.Ragout 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finkelstein did say Peters book "discredited", there is no reason for an edit-war.

It's difficult to understand why there is an edit war over Finkelstein calling Peters book "discredited".

This is the exact word that Finkelstein used eg [5].

And the paragraph is intended to be a direct paraphrase of Finkelstein's words - what are people doing changing it? PalestineRemembered 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "a direct paraphrase" of someone's "words"? When exact words are in dispute, please use exact quotations and proper citations. Paraphrasing controversial and dubious and contested claims using POV is not permissible. --NYScholar 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other accusations and replies

Finkelstein has claimed that Dershowitz accused Walt & Mearsheimer of the same thing he was accusing Dershowitz of. I added that in under this section. Could probably be phrased better and maybe moved to an appropriate section.

'Tewfik' removed this, no explanation given, no discussion. Assuming good faith I reinserted the paragraph given that it has immediate relevancy to a section on "Other accusations". Please do follow due process and discuss on talk before removing again.

[edit] Cleanup and other tags added

This article is a mess. It needs cleanup throughout with regard to removing POV and adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wherever possible, primary sources, not the subject's personal website, should be cited as sources in bonafide notes, with proper format for notes citations. The References section needs total cleaning up, see the embedded editorial notes, and the External links section needs to feature only one reference to the subject's own website. The rest of the items need to be converted to proper bibliographical references in the list prior to External links: last name, first name (linked as possible), using dashes for subsequent sources by same author, title of article or book, publication, date of publication, date of access. I don't have time to convert all these problematic references. The article needs work to be done by other editors.

Vigilance is key. See editorial interpolations in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any further discussion on this, and since your concerns appear to be more related to article formatting than content, I'm removing the POV tag.--Gloriamarie 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The current article structure

This also is not effective. It needs a better organization and a clearer and more neutral presentation of topics within the subject (which one would think from the way that it is edited is Finkelstein; it is not; the subject is the controversy. I think that "affair" is an overused word in Wikipedia articles dealing with such controversies--e.g., "Plame affair". The word appears to be misused. It is a controversy and could easily be called that. This is an encyclopedia article, not a POV advertisement for people relating to its subject. Its editors need to be neutral and to stick to facts, not to repeat everything Finkelstein says as if it were fact. What he says is interpretation, not fact. It is his interpretation. Finkelstein's interpretations of Dershowitz's work are controversial and contested (by both Dershowitz and others). This controversy (mostly about two books--one by Dershowitz and one by Finkelstein responding to Dershowitz) needs to be defined clearly and in neutral terms. This is an article that deals with more than one living person; WP:BLP applies to both Finkelstein and to Dershowitz and to any other living persons mentioned in the article. See the linked guidelines in the tags above and on the article page. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable material

The following material needs work or deletion; I've moved it to talk page. It is not neutral point of view. It just repeats Finkelstein's arguments from his own personal website.

<<

[edit] Some similarities between Dershowitz's and Peters' references

Here are two similarities between the books as an example. Far more are featured at Norman Finkelstein's webpage on the matter.

[edit] Similarity 1

The Case for Israel p. 17, "In the sixteenth century, according to British reports, 'as many as 15,000 Jews' lived in Safad, which was a 'center of rabbinical learning.'" (Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.)....
From Time Immemorial p. 178, "Safad at that time, according to the British investigation by Lord Peel's committee, 'contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the 16th century,' and was 'a centre of Rabbinical learning.'" (Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.)
Both excerpts are somewhat misleading and commit the same error....

Palestine Royal Commission Report (i.e. the document that both books cite), "Safad, which according to Jewish tradition contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the sixteenth century, became a centre of Rabbinical learning..." [emphasis added] (Occurs on p.11, not pp.11-12 as cited.)....

[edit] Similarity 2

The Case for Israel p. 20, "Several years later, the same consul attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem to 'the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace,' coupled with an inability of the poverty-stricken Jewish community to defend itself either politically or physically." (Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.)

From Time Immemorial p. 188, "In Palestine, [it] was reported: 'It is a fact that the Jewish Subjects... do not enjoy the privileges granted to them. This Evil may in general be traced...: I. To the absence of an adequate protection whereby they are more exposed to cruel and tyrannical treatment. II. To the blind hatred and ignorant prejudices of a fanatical populace....IV. To the starving state of numerous Jewish population.'" [emphasis in original] (Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.)

>>

All the sources cited need to be checked for notability and reliability and they need conversion to proper citation format as notes. This material read like a regurgitation of Finkelstein. That is not NPOV and one is not supposed to engage in original research either Wikipedia:NOR. This needs better sourcing if it is to be included in the article at all. It was impossible to follow in the original format in the article; see editing history for original material attempted to move here. --NYScholar 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I respect NYScholar's contributions I believe that similarity's between dershowitz's book Peters book need to be included. I feel it is important to show the similarities and I also believe it is intellectually dishonest to delete relevant material. If someone wants to come along and see if he can fix the sources up like NYScholar suggested by all means go ahead. However I think to arbitrarily delete them is wrong. I am now debating this on the talk page so any further attempts to block me from editing now stand as bullying and intimidation.annoynmous 06:01, 5 March (UTC)

In addition to the content angle, such massive amounts of information being inserted in the manner they are is a major stylistic problem that negatively impacts on the ease of reading WP. As an aside, I'm not sure why you think so, but posting to Talk does not mean that you then have free reign to do whatever you wish in the article. TewfikTalk 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Excuse Me! Did I go on a mass edit frenzy and delete a bunch of the stuff that NYScholar added NO! Did alter any of his words or contributions NO! All I did was reinclude the section on the similarities between dershowitz and Peters books. This section has been in the article for a long time before NYScholar decided to delete it. I think that was wrong. NYScholar originally said that this section needed to be redone. Sense no one came along to do it I guess he decided to just delete it. I think the section should remain because it contains relevant information.

There's a lot I could have done to this article and I think I've been remarkably restrained under the circumstances. I resent the notion that I somehow radically vandalised and altered the article. All I did was reinclude something I thought was relevant and I got banned for it.annoynmous 10:55, 5 March (UTC)
You got blocked becuase you reverted something 4 times in 24 hours. Please read WP:3RR. After you are done with that, read WP:NOR - which is what you are doing here. The similarities you list appear to be the result of your personal research, which is not allowed. Isarig 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


This is a flat out lie! This section was in the article long before I ever made any edits to it. Just look at the history section. Jayjg, Isarig is engaging in intimidation tactics because he wants the article his way or no other way. He knows that this isn't my own personal research and that this section was originally deleted by NYScholar. He simply wants to bias this artcle and the one on Kurt Nimmo. Isarig and I have had arguements before and I think it's rather strange that he only took in interest in these two articles when I started contributing to them. I implore you Jayjg remove the blocks on this article and the one on Kurt Nimmo and let me and Isarig work it out on our own.annoynmous 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter who put this in the article first. You have added this material 4 times or more after it had been deleted - which means you reverted 4 times, and broke WP:3RR. There's a reason why I keep encouraging you to read WP:3RR - it is obvious you have not done so, as all of this is clearly explained there. Reading it, and following it, will save you much frustration in your futire editing. Isarig 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, spare me your condescending tone. If anything your the one who should have been banned. I added something and then you reverted it, so why aren't you the one who got banned. It's obvious that because you have friends like Slimvirgin on your side that you were able to shut me out of the debate. Stop hiding behind the rule book and debate me like a person.annoynmous 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do I really have to say this again? Read WP:3RR. I reverted your edit (becuase it was WP:OR), but did not break WP:3RR. You did. That's why you were blocked, and I wasn't. It's really not that hard. Go read the damn page already. Isarig 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your the one who reverted me three times, not the other way around. I added something and you deleted it. Why do these rules only apply to me and not you.annoynmous 05:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the fourth time: READ the damn page already. You will find that "adding" something 4 times is 4 reverts, just like removing something. It is not that hard, and I'll help you with any paragraph you don't understand. But read the page already, this is getting tiresome. Isarig 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read it and it says that reverting another editors edits is violation of this rule, just like you did to me. You just don't like it that I'm throughing you own rules in you face. I may have added something 4 times, but you also deleted something 4 times so why was the decision made to side with you instead of me. I am now discussing my reasons for my edits on the talk page so banning me now seems like a case of bias in favor of you over me.annoynmous 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not revert anything 4 times in 24 hours. Go back and look. No one is out to get you, or to favor me over you. You broke the rule, I did not. Isarig 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Really! Well it sure looks like it on both February 27 and March 3. It's interesting that you reasoning has now changed from "adding is reverting" to "I didn't within a 24 hour period". By the way there isn't anything in the 3RR rule that says adding is reverting.annoynmous 06:06, 6 March 2007

By the way this section isn't original research. It comes from Finkelsteins own website. Original research implies I did it on my own. A cursory examination would reveal that this section is almost as old as the article itself. Had you bothered to look at the history section you would have know that, but no, you saw my name on the edit sheet and decided anything I did had to be reverted. I get the feeling if I had added a missing "the" to a sentence I would have been reverted.annoynmous 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar mistakes

Singular possessive nouns ending in 's' still take an apostrophe and 's' after. Thus, the possessive of Joan Peters is "Joan Peters's." The labeling of "Peters's" with a [sic.] is in itself a mistake, as us using the improper form "Peters'". Apostrophes without 's' are, in the case of possessives, used for _plural_ possessives, such as "The boys' books." Consult any standard English grammar authority and you'll find that. Rayamberg 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Google "Singular possessive nouns" and first up is [6] where you find "3. If a singular proper noun ends in s, add an apostrophe.{e.g.,]Chris' exam scores were higher than any other students". And "Peters's" just looks UGLY to me (and doesn't sound right either). The position in the canon of a "standard English grammar authority" who says otherwise needs to be reconsidered, IMHO. Anyway, provide cites, please, or the [sic]s stay. Andyvphil 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Both ways are generally deemed acceptable. Example: "Some writers become confused when they must make a possessive of singular nouns that already end in s. As usual, you make the possessive by adding ’s to the word; however, some writers and editors argue that the two s’ are redundant and that therefore you can eliminate the second s, ending up with the s’. That is, they argue that there is really no need to include an s after the apostrophe, since the apostrophe already tells readers that the word is possessive. Others argue that you should drop the final s only on words of several syllables but retain it on short words. Since there is no agreement on this difficult problem, you must make your own choice. However, regardless of which option you choose, do remember to be consistent." [7] smb 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As long as I'm not asked to believe Rayamberg that Peters' is wrong, I can live without the (sic)'s (nb the unmentioned but valid extension of the third case at your cite). The implication that Desch is illiterate should be avoided if possible... That extra "s" certainly offends me esthetically, however. There must be statistics on the usage somewhere... Andyvphil 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't articles like this use the past or perfected tense in the main text-- I'm not talking about the quotes but the main text.--Bwthemoose 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky defends Norman Finkelstein

Professor Noam Chomsky defended Norman Finkelstein on the April 17 2007 broadcast of Democracy Now!

[edit] New Source to add to "External Links"

http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez04302007.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Improper synthesis

I removed a section that is nearly identical to what the section in No Original Research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position [WP:SYN] says 'NOT' to do.

Section removed: "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, but neither of these sources calls such presentation "plagiarism."[citations needed]"

What [WP:SYN] says not to do: "If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."


This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

[edit] A list of mistakes?

I think it would be appropriate to add a list of mistakes Finkelstein alleges Dershowitz has made in his book, if such list exists. Currently it is quite difficult to find out what the dispute is really about. Perhaps Finkelstein made a such list himself? -- Heptor talk 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Stockton

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205

I can't find any reference to the Professor nor his work in the text of the debate, nor did I hear any reference to it or him while watching the video of the discussion. Is the supposed citation of his work in the broadcast erroneous, or did I simply somehow miss the reference?

[edit] Chronology

This is a relatively minor question, but does anyone know the chronology of the debate itself? I am confused by what the videos show (since I didn't hear it when it was originally aired); in Part II of the video, Amy Goodman thanks the guests for coming on for a "second day", but in Part I she says that she is going to ask the next guest to wait because she thinks Finkelstein and Dershowitz are more important--implying that she is just extending the show. Also, in the second part both guests are wearing the same clothes, which seems odd if they bothered to come on the show then next day. I'm probably missing something. 71.76.134.116 18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dersh's involvement in finkelstein's tenure

this section in the article is currently written out of chronological order and is confusing. dershowitz's letter to depaul faculty was written (according to his harvard crimson interview) in september of 2006, while the tenure decisions took place between april and july of 2007. any opposition to rearranging the two paragraphs for continuity? Potashnik 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's less confusing to keep the tenure process in one paragraph and Dershpwitz' involvement in another rather than attempt a chronological interleave. But I've added dates to the latter paragraph in an attempt to address your concerns. Andyvphil 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, andy, this version is a lot less confusing. i still have concerns, though, that this section on dershowitz's involvement in finkelstein's tenure denial treats his actual involvement (i.e. his letter to depaul) as an afterthought. that is to say, while the harvard crimson article uses the phrase "lobbying" to describe his efforts in sept. 2006, this article first describes his tenure process, then briefly explains the fact the dersh sent his "dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins," then says it was unwelcome. to me, that arrangement of facts doesn't make sense.

if, as the harvard crimson claimed, dershowitz was lobbying against finkelstein's tenure, i believe this should noted briefly at the outset of this section. here's the harvard crimson article, if you'd like to take a look: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518002Potashnik 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What you really want to look at is http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519265, which contains Finkelstein's allegation that Dershowitz was sending two to three e-mails a day to members of Finkelstein's department and the statement that "Dershowitz said that his only interactions with those involved in the DePaul tenure litigations(sic) came in a [requested] September e-mail to the former chair of Finkelstein’s department." (BTW, Dershowitz is mostly unapologetic, so I'd like something more than the Crimson's paraphrase to decide he actually made that denial.)
I take your point on structure and if I were to attempt a rewrite would begin with Holtschneider's affirmation of the Board decision, his denial of outside influence and Finkelstein's allegation of Dershowitz lobbying. I think. But the bureaucratic history of the denial is complex and I don't want make it unclear... I agree that there is missing information though, so have a go at it... Andyvphil 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing material?

The article mentions nothing of Dershowitz's list of proof for Finkelstein's dishonesty apart from the fact that he made one.
For example a very good claim that should be included is where Dershowitz says: "Finkelstein claims (in Beyond Chutzpah) that in The Case for Israel I never once, I mean literally, not once, mention any mainstream human rights organization. Never a mention of Amnesty's findings, never a mention of Human Rights Watch's findings, never a mention of B'Tselem's findings, none. But a simple check of the index reveals that I repeatedly discuss and criticize the findings of these very organizations."
What Finkelstein actually wrote in Beyond Chutzpah (pp. 92) was: "The most fundamental and telling fact about the chapters of The Case for Israel devoted to human rights issues is that never once does Dershowitz cite a single mainstream human rights organization to support any of his claims." a statement that is undeniably true.
There are a few similar instances where Dershowitz misquotes to prove his case. I was pretty much neutral on the dispute until I looked past the plagiarism. As mentioned in the article Finkelstein himself has always said the plagiarism was of little importance (in fact it is barely mentioned in his book) as the false claims in 'The Case for Israel" are the main issue yet the article concentrates almost solely on the plagiarism which is POV as, if you ignore the plagiarism, Dershowitz relies on ad hominem arguments to support his book and seems to have been unable to prove a single false statement in Finkelstein's. Wayne 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of plagiarism in the book partly because Finklestein had to remove it. If you can cite a list of problems Finklestein has with the book, include it, otherwise it's original research. Bartleby 08:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Dershowitz

Here is the paragraph in question, unaltered, from The American Conservative:

In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues, Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigation-the details of which were not made public-that predictably vindicated Dershowitz.

Here is what I removed:

As Desch acknowledges in his book review of Beyond Chutzpah, "In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigation—the details of which were not made public—that...vindicated Dershowitz" (32, col. 3).[1]

At best, the text I removed was added by an author who misunderstood the article and did not understand the importance of the word "predictably", which was elided in the paragraph in question. In case it is just a misunderstanding, let me make it clear that the word "predictably" is of utmost importance. One must infer that the author places little confidence in the investigation and the conclusion reached. 70.58.99.239 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Desch is an author who sides with Finkelstein, so using his article in the "Support for Dershowitz" section is problematic to begin with. Secondly, the "predictably" only reveals his own suspicions or feelings about the investigation. The point of quoting him there is presumably to reveal that an investigation took place that vindicated Dershowitz, not Desch's opinion of the investigation. Bartleby 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly similar

My understanding is that somethings are either similar or they are not. There are undisputed similarities between the texts (and references), whether these similarities are coincidence or not is what is being disputed. I am unaware of any reasons to include alleged in 'alleged similarities'. Delad (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, 'alleged' functions to confirm policy on WP:NPOV, practically it functions to insinuate that the case is not proven (in court or elsewhere). Menetrez's examination of the evidence is thorough, and one would think few scholars would doubt that, by any norms of textual analysis, Dershowitz did get his quotes from Peters' text, for there is no other way of explaining the minute similarities. Menetrez has therefore 'proven' Finkelstein's case. It was not an 'allegation' (unproven assertion) except in a very loose use of the term (not proven in court) originally, since Finkelstein gave concrete evidence that has now been substantiated in great detail by secondary peer review, and Dershowitz, in his reply to Menetrez, made no effort, unusually for a brilliant defence lawyer, to pull Menetrez's evidence apart. If 'allege' is continually used, even at this point, its function is to assert that Menetrez's analysis is nothing more than a series of 'unproven assertions', which is untrue. To avoid these innuendos and complications I have suggested therefore that the heading read 'evidence given'. Eventually, if Finkelstein and menetrez's analyses are answered by Dershowitz and his allies, we shall insert these arguments in coprresponding order into the section.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Nishidani, that clears it up for me. Delad (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)