Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA on Hold

GA review:

  • ouch! This is a huge can of WP:BLP worms.
  • I added one {{cn}} tag, but in all this article is very well-referenced.
  • The article seems stable and has no {{NPOV}} tags. At least to the eye of someone completely uninitiated in related topics, it seems relatively well-balanced, if skewed a bit in Finkelstein's favor. [The criticisms come later in the article...] Watch out for sneaky little NPOV question marks buried in innocent-seeming adjectives: "meticulous" "groundbreaking" etc. The point of NPOV is not (only) to give equal time to both points of view. The point is this: after reading the article, I should be unable to recognize the viewpoint of its dedicated editors.
  • The most damaging flaw at present is the lede (please read WP:LEDE carefully). It does not summarize the article, and more crucially, it does not give insight into the controversy that Finkelstein is/was involved in. Forex, I read in the lede that he was denied tenure, but had no idea why... so it needs a bit of info from the "Tenure denial" section... There are also crucial bits of info early in the "Praise and criticism " section that need to be summarized in the lede.
  • See here for some potential wikilinks. Most look like garbage, but some seem high-value.
  • There are long, longer and too-long quotes. Please summarize/condense, perhaps moving the full quote to Wikiquote
  • The references are... what format is that? No offense intended, but to me it looks a bit jumbled. I don't suppose that's a fatal flaw at the GAN level, but FAC reviewers should complain (but lately there have been too many FACs and not enough reviewers...). I sorta kinda suspect you're gonna hafta rework them at some point.
  • There are some unnecessarily complex sentences. Here are two examples, please check carefully for others:
  • Finkelstein in his doctoral thesis, by minutely examining all of the sources Peters harvested and the way she used her evidence, concluded that the book, elsewhere acclaimed as a breakthrough into a balanced perspective on Jewish-Palestinian demographics, was nothing more than a what he now calls a "monumental hoax".
  • Finkelstein also had his supporters however. Raul Hilberg, widely regarded during his lifetime as a leading expert among Holocaust researchers, said the book expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.'
  • Drop me a line if you have questions. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The cite and the orphan (2)

Hello all,

Well, it seems that things are not going smoothly at all, unfortunately. :-( Part of this is my fault, via inadvertantly hosing a footnote: I deleted a (1) for the simple reason that my eye did not catch the following (2), and thought the (1) was a stray bit of flotsam from some earlier version of the article. If the cite is accurate, then the (1) could perhaps be restored.. but frankly, putting two bullet points within one footnote is a bit awkward.

I'll make an attempt to investigate this cite, as much as possible. I have absolutley no access to English-language libraries, but do have access to the Internet. ;-)

However, this edit war and subsequent page protection does not bode well at all. Most GA reviewers would automatically 'Fail the article based on point #5 (stability) of WP:WIAGA. I'm hoping this can be resolved fruitfully within the allotted week (less than that, now..) but if not then of course I'll have to fail the GA.

This article has surely seen some extremely diligent editors, and I would definitely want to avoid failing it, if possible. I'll see what I can find now... cheers! Ling.Nut 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm back. Speaking as someone who (I solemnly affirm) has absolutely and positively no horse in this race, I see absolutely no reason for the cited text to remain in the footnotes. However, I do see a compelling rationale for retaining the hyperlinks in the footnote (or footnotes — I envision two separate ones). From a purely logical point of view, the quoted text does not need to be included in the footnote (and in fact is redundant) because it is there for all the world to see on the two webpages offered in the hyperlink in the cite. As per WP:BOLD I'm gonna make the changes now. I hope the editors of this page will recognize that my actions are based purely and what would seem to be well-formed text and footnotes, rather than partisanship of any kind. Cheers! Ling.Nut 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
OK finished now. I also noticed that both footnotes point to the same URL but are formatted differently, plus there is an orphaned (2) in what is now footnote 16. I tried to retain the original formatting, other than linking to the title rather than an unadorned URL... I really have to complain again about the inconsistent formatting of the footnotes. I hate to kick a dead horse, but although this might slide at the GA level, it really needs a complete overhaul, in my opinion. Cheers. Ling.Nut 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lede, folks..

Sorry, one more issue.. the current condition of the WP:LEDE itself is enough to fail the GA. Please see my GA review. Thanks! Ling.Nut 05:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Any better? AvruchTalk 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To all dedicated editors: I reworked the lede; please check!

I am by no means a Finkelstein expert. In fact, I'd never heard of him 'til seeing this article. However, rather than hemming and hawing about how the lede needs this or that, I rewrote the darn thing. PLEASE CHECK. I tried to simply consolidate ideas presented in the article (such as "exchanged charges..."), but am not wedded to my version at all. Ling.Nut 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I'd like to see what Gatoclass, Nishindani and some others think, but it seems reasonable. AvruchTalk 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is still unbalanced; most of it ids about criticism and controversies, and almost half deals with his dispute with Dershowitz. This should, of course, be in the intro; but so should something about Finkelstein's real achievements, his books, and the praise from people like Chomsky, Said and Hilberg. RolandR 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The lede mentions "praise and criticism." If you wanna stick in a Chomsky quote, that might be OK... but a quote from someone less left of center would be more effective, since the lede says Finkelstein has garnered support from across the political spectrum. Secondly, (and I know you're gonna think I'm some detractor of Finkelstein who is being sarcastic, but I swear I am simply and innocently ignorant), what are his real accomplishments? And what are his hooks? And far more importantly, are they mentioned & properly referenced in the article itself? If not, then you should add the info 'cause i would not know what to add. Ling.Nut 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "books", not "hooks", and have corrected above. Hilberg is considerably less "left of centre" than Chomsky, and probably the acknowledged expert in the field, so I will add a statement from him later. Most of Finkelstein's achievements are mentioned in the article: the detailed exposure of the Peters fraud, his critique of the Goldhagen thesis (not covered enough in the article), his identification and analysis of "the Holocaust industry", and his analysis of US coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I'll try to deal with this later. RolandR 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I must agree that there is a little too much emphasis on controversy and not enough on positives in the intro. My tweaks of the current intro were not indicative of some kind of endorsement, but were just intended as a quick fix of a couple of glaring problems that I thought needed fixing while the larger debate continues. Gatoclass 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent, ec with gatoclass) Two of thhose are mentioned in the lede as the "demographic history of Palestine" and "the alleged existence of a Holocaust industry." I know.. the lede doesn't go into as much deatil on those two as you might like, but it's not supposed to. It's a summary of the article.... Secondly, no offense, but if you use words like "fraud" etc. in the lede then not only will this article be unfit for GA, it will be so very POV that it'll have NPOV tags on it indefinitely. :-) Finally, if the Goldhagen thesis is important, then it definitely needs to be added (in an NPOV manner, of ocurse). Cheers! Ling.Nut 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Oh, about the level of detail in the lede, I found a nice little bit of info here: WP:BETTER#Lead section. Ling.Nut 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ling.Nut We pared down the lead to avoid the numerous complications (hypernuancing POV battles of the deadliest sort) arising from its earlier expansion several months ago. Those complications have been reintroduced. To my eyes at least, the lead suggests Finkelstein is a rather erratic critic, posing as a scholar, whose pretensions were unmasked by the University, which denied him tenure. That is the drift, and a serious imbalance, of the most innocent kind, appears to have been created. This will evidently require work, (I’m for trimming, not expansion) and, since I will not be around for some time, I can only provide here, rapidly, some immediate impressions I have had on reading the lead. I'm delighted however to see a Wikipedian with lead expertise around to help us iron this out. To my mind the real work lies later down, in thickening out the analysis of his several controversies.
I A (Text as it stands) ‘A self-described "forensic scholar," Finkelstein's books direct sharp criticism against writers whom he accuses of engaging in Israeli apologetics’
Problem. ‘Israeli apologetics’ is a poor phrasing. It is unfocused and ambiguous. What Finkelstein specializes in is the close examination of primary sources used by writers with a high public or academic profile engaged in defending and justifying what they take as Israel’s immaculate political history in the Middle East and record on human rights etc. His work assumes that there is an objective record, which all may consult, and that this record is systematically, when not ignored, twisted in public debates, academic works and the mainstream media. What upsets him is not the 'defence/apologetics' (he has had high regard for the historical work of an apologist for ethnic cleansing, Benny Morris, because Morris's works are intensely archival, and cast full light on the archival record). He is upset by the way the writers he attacks appear to show contempt for what the sources and records say.
1 B(Suggested alternative) 'A self-described 'forensic scholar,' Finkelstein's books are sharply critical of several prominent writers and scholars, whom he accuses of fudging the documentary record in order to defend Israel’s policies and practices.
2 (A) His critical review of work by Dershowitz led to a long standing and heated personal rivalry between the two that reached its height during Finkelstein's bid for tenure at DePaul.[1]
Problem (i) His review didn’t lead to a ‘long-standing’ ‘rivalry’. One can say 'a long-standing rivalry led to a personal quarrel that reached its height . .', but not that a critical review led to a long-standing rivalry (meaning the rivalry preexisted the critical review by several years). ‘Led’ and ‘long-standing’ don’t stand easily together, in short).(ii) Secondly ‘rivalry’ pitches the altercation as essentially a reciprocal enmity between ‘prime donne’ (prima donnas?), reducing a political debate over technical issues of facts and their representation to one of shrewishly petty personal rivalry. (iii)One should not end this passage by omitting the key factor that Dershowitz personally intervened and lobbied to get Finkelstein’s tenure denied. As the passage runs, with the subsequent passage noting that tenure was denied him, it looks very much as if de Paul acted in an abstract and purely bureaucrartic manner, arriving at its decision in an atmosphere devoid of intense controversy, publicity and lobbying. The latter may not have been a factor in their decision, but it was certainly a very visible part of the context in which that decision was taken.
2. B (Suggested alternative) 'His review of work by Dershowitz led to a protracted quarrel between the two that peaked during Finkelstein's bid for tenure at DePaul, against the renewel of which Dershowitz openly lobbied.(citation needed)'
3.(A) 'His tenure was denied in part because, according to the university president Dennis Holtschneider, Finkelstein's 'unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration.'
Problem. ‘In part’ is meaningless. The lead should give a minimum of information about the fact that Holtschneider’s board of final review overrode 2 lower committees, to avoid the impression the lead abundantly carries, i.e. that Finkelstein is nothing more than an abrasive and intemperately critical chap, who fails to observe the proper criteria for academic competence.
3. B (Suggested alternative, to be precised down) ‘De Paul’s Tenure Board overrode two lower committee recommendations supporting Finkelstein's bid (in the Department of Political Science and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences*). University president Dennis Holtschneider, in explaining the decision, maintained that Finkelstein's 'unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration.'
(*It's more complicated than that the second committee approved with a reservation, and the Dean in reviewing its deliberations, was minded to argue against tenure.)
4.A ‘On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on undisclosed terms’
Problem: Coming after Holtschneider’s remark, this suggests Finkelstein gave up and accepted more or less because he had no defence against those accusations. In fact the resignation was delivered after words to the effect that Finkelstein was a fine teacher at de Pauls had been written into the official de Paul account of the settlement. Adding those words would balance the preceding remark.
4 B (Suggestion) ‘On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on undisclosed terms. The University recognized that Finkelstein had been 'a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher’ while Finkelstein thanked ‘de Paul's honorable role of providing a scholarly haven for me the past six years.’
Buon lavoro a tutti Regards Nishidani 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
p.s. in para 2 these two remarks could be eliminated without damage (obvious, uninformative), or merged for the sake of brevity:-
(a)Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy, attracting a number of supporters and detractors across the political spectrum
(b)Finkelstein and his critics have exchanged charges that their respective views spring from a political agenda.
(39 words)
If retained, something like. ‘Finkelstein’s career has thrived on controversy. His argument that a political agenda dominates much commentary on Israel is shared by his critics, who instance his own work.’
(27 words)
Eliminating them, however, would, in my view, much improve the concision desired, at no substantial loss.Nishidani 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Nisidani, these are excellent observations and suggestions! Pinkville 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This phrase seems problematic/POV: His targets have included Elie Weisel and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz - that is, the use of the word targets rather than, say, subjects... Pinkville 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworked section

Folks - I've made some changes, per suggestions above, to the lede section. Can you take a look? I'd suggest that we might consider slimming down the wording - as long as we can preserve the basic summary information. The lede doesn't have to be 100% qualified as to each point. It is, after all, just the introduction to a fully formed article. I've also removed the emphasis added to the Bartov quote, and removed the scare quotes from the paragraph above it (they weren't cited as quotes). I've added a CN tag to the claim that they recognize his brilliance and grains of truth, as well. It may be simpler and appropriate to remove that part, as I think their general emphasis isn't on his brilliance or truth (as they are criticizing, well, both). 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two more days on Hold

  • I applaud the excellent work that's being done here. I'm hoping the dedicated editors of this article can settle on a lede within the window of two days left on the GA review. Again, I am not knowledgeable about Finkelstein. However, the lede is looking far, far better than it did when I first encountered it. At that time it simply omitted the main points of the article itself! Perhaps that was done in order to avoid conflict among editors, I don't know. But after reading the lede I should know what he has written about (added Zionism, demographic hist. of palestine, Holocaust industry allegations) why it is controversial (added section about politically-charged), etc. I am very, very impressed by the rewrites of my own first draft of the lede. I applaud your work.
  • I'm still unhappy about the gargantuan quotes and the (in my humble opinion) infelicitous reference formatting. But this is GA, not FA. If the editors of this page can settle on a lede, I'll pass the article as GA.
  • Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oops! hiding in plain sight. reverse course .

I had it in mind to go through all the links in the references section and rewrite that section in its entirety (or alternatively, to place a rewrite in my userspace and see if others agreed to its use).

The first link I went to was dead (the Chicago tribune article, "DePaul, embattled professor settle dispute"). I tried to track it down via the 'net, and found it on Finkelstein's own site:

DePaul, embattled professor settle dispute

..and the last sentence jumped out at me in full 3-D:

"Finkelstein has been noted for his support of the Palestinian cause."

Ummmm, don't you think that observation is important to this article? It is given in a reliable source.. I think it should even be in the lede... as that single sentence casts a bright light onto the whole reason why his work is controversial. [Note that my comments should not imply that I am taking any position in the debate; I merely note the debate itself].

I guess I had it in the back of my mind all along that this was true, simply because of his approach to the topics at hand. Seeing it in black print, however, brought it out of my subconscious & to the fore. Sorry to reverse course from my earlier assertions that all was well. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oops again

See comments above, plus: The first reference link does not contain the information which precedes it. There is no mention of Dershowitz writing a letter to contravene Finkelstein's tenure process... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed ref using Chron. Higher Ed. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lede redux, please check

That's my final shot. It cites praise for the rigor of his work. It also mentions the fact that both critics and supporters call his style "polemical," which seems important because Hilberg cited it as a key reason for the attacks. It mentions supporting the Palestinian cause. It provides an accurate cite (albeit not hyperlinked) for the Dershowitz letters. I know that pro-Finkelstein folks would like to see more about Dershowitz, but this is the lede... Ling.Nut (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That may be a black mark, for some. Andyvphil (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I made a very, very minor change to the last bit - inserting a direct quote from the statement by DePaul. Hopefully this isn't a problem. I think the lede is fine, although I've said that about a number of different versions. Basically, I'm not nitpicky. I think any ambiguity can be cleaned up later in the article. In fact, some ambiguity can be constructive if you have space constraints (as we do, in order to keep to the idea of a 'lede'). I think we should let it sit as is for awhile. Actually, I think we should let the whole article sit for a little while. Its in damn good shape (imho, and I'm not a FAC reviewer) and the next big cleanup should be aimed at those ugly references. AvruchTalk 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you've made an excellent attempt, but, unfortunately, the result is very misleading. I'm troubled by not being a Finkelstein scholar, yet I know enough of his work and orientation to understand that the lead - as it is - misrepresents him and his work. In fact, the lead is worse than it was a short while ago... (before Nishidani's suggestions). Let me take one example. The refusal of his tenure was exceptional - that is to say, possibly without precedent [!]- but in the lead this extraordinary measure taken by the higher-ups at DePaul (and with Dershowitz's involvement) is mentioned with an eerie matter-of-factness. I'm not sure, yet, how to address this and other issues... they're very subtle, but they ought to be addressed. Finkelstein is a smallish voice against a large opposition... "Balance" shouldn't mean creating a false equivalency between him and his detractors (e.g .Dershowitz. et al). Pinkville (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You are right that the pursuit of balance should not have the unintended effect of giving undue weight to either side by absolutely insisting that both arguments rec'v equal weight. In the case of controversial people/issues (as we have here), NPOV means that after reading the article, I should not be able to tell whether or not its editors support Finkelstein & his work.
  • I understand your point about "unprecedented." Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a concise quote from a reliable source which says that it is unprecedented. In Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what you know or believe; it only matters what you can cite to a RS. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
specialising in Jewish-related issues I don't think this phrase has any meaning. It would be better to talk about what he specifically has written about. This sentence: His writings, noted for their support of the Palestinian cause[1] have dealt with politically-charged topics such as Zionism, the demographic history of Palestine and his allegations of the existence of a Holocaust Industry. is entirely confused/ing. All these issues are politically-charged, and at the same time, the order is misconstrued. The sentence will require some work. A prominent supporter, Chomsky, has been incorrectly left out of the lead. The discussion of Finkelstein's DePaul tenure process remains problematic. Pinkville (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Add Chomsky's name after the two historians: "and linguist Chomsky". Ling.Nut (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not just "linguist" - in this case it might be more as political theorist, etc. But how about just "Noam Chomsky". Pinkville (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Chimsky? That's an unintentional ha ha I'm sure. But make sure he isn't confused as a historian!!
  • As for "specializing", quote and cite Shlaim: "the study of Zionism.. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and... American attitudes towards Israel and towards the Middle East." Ling.Nut (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just put the whole article in the lede? What does it mean 'the order is being misconstrued'? Do you want the demographic history of Palestine first, Zionism second and Holocaust last? Or are you saying that it should be written in the order it appeared in his career? I'm not sure why that would be important. As for the unprecedented nature of his tenure denial, I'm not sure I understand that either. I would agree obviously that it was unusual in how public it was, and in the prominence of his detractor (Dershowitz) but I'd attribute that to the fact that he picked prominent targets. Tenure denial, itself, isn't terribly uncommon. You also describe it as 'the discussion of...tenure process' but I'd submit that its the intro, not a complete discussion. At this point, I would understand if LingNut feels it necessary to fail the article vs. GA requirements of stability. AvruchTalk 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be unprecedented that he was not allowed to teach an additional year after losing his bid. It is somewhat less unprecedented, I presume, that the President overruled various committees. an try to find a cite to this effect, and tack it on.
    • Oops, "The seven members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure — which voted 4-3 against granting Finkelstein tenure in the political science department..."
  • Speaking purely as an individual, and not with reference to any Wikipedia guidelines etc., I think the article is not in any way aided by mentioning Chomsky's support in the lede. Sure, Chomsky is his staunchest supporter, but that's a bit like saying that the Pope is the staunchest supporter of Catholic doctrine. Chomsky is a linguist, plus an extremely partisan political cheerleader. He is neither a historian nor a bona fide political theorist. [Note that my ABD is in linguistics ;-)] The reason Shlaim and Hilberg are mentioned is because they have tremendous credibility in this area. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't agree about the principle you're not quite expressing. Sounds too much like Nishidani's obtunded credentialism. Lede summarizes article. If Chomsky's support is significant to Finkelstein's story it should be in main and lede in rough proportion to its importance. Andyvphil (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean about Chomsky. But call him a linguist, not a historian or political theorist, unless you can back up the term with a reliable source. I added Chomsky. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, for my part, my contribution is completed. I have no doubt that he lede as it stands needs a bit of touching up to make its text flow in a more professional manner. However, I'm convinced that is serves the purpose that a lede should serve:
  • I think the fact that the tenure denial is described as "controversial" is enough info for the lede. Sure, he wasn't allowed to teach. Sure, that's unusual. But that can be covered in the body, not the lede. I agree with Avruch; we can't put the whole kitchen (including the kitchen sink) in the lede. The aspects of the controversy that were unusual can be placed in the body.. unless you can find a reliable source that describes the tenure denial process as "unusual" or "unprecedented" .. in which case, simply add that particular adjective plus a link to the full ref.. easy. :-) That would be enough; the details are for the body.
  • Please bear in mind: I would have failed the article with the original lede. It simply did not do anything at all to summarize the issues.
  • What little I've done here is all I can do. :-) The time for the Hold is expired. If the lede as it stands is well and truly unacceptable, then the best thing would be to fail the GA for now. I say not that in the sense of "I'll take my ball and go home," but in the sense of "there's always plenty of time to work things out." Failing a GA is truly no big deal. You can hash out the lede and re-nominate at any time.
  • I'll come back here tomorrow to see what folks say. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that every time I look at this article I find something seriously out of whack, so failing GA wouldn't break my heart. But practically everything you've done has been good, with only a few tweaks required, and entirely sane, which is remarkably unusual and therefor surprisingly praiseworthy. Consider yourself praised. Andyvphil (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly much better than it was a couple of days ago, although I still have a few quibbles. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PASS WP:GA

  • Congratulations on a well-written and well-researched article! Now onward and upward — get to work brining it up to WP:FA quality! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lede inserts (both unnecessarily and I think wrongly) that Finkelstein specialises "in Jewish-related issues". This is classic weasel-wording by the supporters of Israel leading directly to their favourite smear - that any criticism about Israel must concern it's (rather limited) Jewishness, and hence that anything critical is likely anti-semitic. I find it hard to accept this isn't fairly clear to every reader.
However, I can and must congratulate everyone on the rest of the article, which treats this difficult subject tolerably well. The most blatant omission I can see is that one member of the "Holocaust Industry" has now been convicted (after a 6-year trial!) for defrauding the victims of millions. Finkelstein is the pre-eminent documenter and critic of this charlatanism - in fact, he's been a one-man band, and has suffered great hatred for it. The "success" of this court case is a real feather in his cap. PRtalk 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)