Talk:Norman Finkelstein

Added new labels=

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

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

---

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

Who has he been accused by? Just you? Who are these vague 'various groups' who have accused him of Holocaust Denial?

81, Finkelstein says himself that he has been accused in this, albeit in a very propagandaish manner by claiming all those who accuse him are part of the "Holocaust Industry". But he does state he has been accused. The mere fact that there is such controversy around him is even further proof. I didn't say the accusations were true, I just said they were relevant.

No, you did say these accusations are true - see Palestinian refugee revision history. I quote - "I will not allow you to turn this into ... a soapbox for a holocast denier". You have this agenda and deny it. Provide names of these various groups (plural). Surely, there must be dozens of such groups...

I did not say these accusations were true on the encyclopedia. My opinions on Mr. Finkelstein are my right, and you cannot infringe on that. There is a difference between myself saying something and putting it on the encyclopedia, which you should realize 81.

---

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

Mirv, if you look at the edit history you will see that I was the one who said that the ADL were implicated in calling Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, a Holocaust Denier. This was deleted. Leumi's campaign to call him a Holocaust Denier can be seen in every article which mentions Finkelstein. Also, note her blatant lie - "I didn't say the accusations were true" above.

Number one, and for the final time 81, I am male. While that is not particularly relevant, it is an issue of personal preference that you get that right every once in a while. Number two, when I said that I didn't say they were true, I meant that I did not say on the article it was true. What I say off the article is a different story. I'm sorry you misunderstood, and even more sorry you're using it as ammunition in personal attacks. Third, at the time it was deleted because there was no proof, now there is (thankyou again Mirv) and it is back on. Fourth, if you added that in before, why are you now claiming that the accusations are of "dubious veracity" when you yourself as well as admitted they had been made a long time ago. With respect, that reeks of an agenda other than the encyclopediac responsibility of truth.

-Leumi

---

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

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

---

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

no mention of ADLs accusation on the ADLs comprehensive site

The ADL does not list every single document of its on it's site, just as other organizations do not. That they made the accusation has been proved 81.Leumi

This page is inaccuarate.

No it is not. You need to provide proof to make such claims 81. Leumi

If it is inaccurate, fix the inaccuracies -- but please check your facts and provide your references; don't arbitrarily change something that has been proven by careful research and argument. --Mirv

This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism

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

I don't see any "vandalism", but there have been several un-necessary reversions by 168, 81 and Leumi. I'd rather we discussed changes in talk, instead of merely reverting. (Comments in the edit summary are plainly no longer sufficient.)

By the way, does anyone have a problem with any of /my/ edits? If so, I'm willing to bow out... --Uncle Ed 16:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Perhaps praise is a better word? After all, they did give a clear example of him praising it.Leumi 15:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've put in his own words -- he "honored" attacks against Israel. --Mirv 15:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the evidence that they spell out in the letter <—(this constitutes "providing evidence", doesn't it?) is shaky, but shouldn't we let the readers come to that conclusion on their own? Evidence does not cease to be evidence just because you don't think that it's good enough; it may be flimsy evidence, but others may not share your opinion. Don't force your POV on the article; let the words speak for themselves. If the evidence is as bad as you think it is, that will be clear to anyone. --Mirv 16:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I look forward to your article on cheddar deposits on the moon, extortion racket does not equal denial, therefore does not constitute evidence

I said it was bad evidence, didn't I? If I, in an article on France's secret lunar dairy mines, cited my own hunger as evidence proving their existence, then everyone would realize that the article was full of BS, right? If the ADL's evidence is as specious as you claim, everyone will realize it; but to unilaterally decide that the evidence is no good, and therefore should be discounted entirely, is forcing your views into the article. --Mirv 16:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unilateral? But you agree it's not evidence. Descriptions of the smell of France's secret lunar dairy mines, and citing your own hunger as evidence, would not survive on the Moon article.

He did not agree it is not evidence, stop placing words in peoples mouth. He simply stated it was evidence that, in his opinion, is bad. However evidence was provided, and as such it is legitimate. Stop inserting your own POV.Leumi 21:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For crying out quietly, will you read what I actually write? I said that I think it's 'bad' evidence; I did not say it is not evidence. Please try to realize that your standards of evidence are not the only standards out there; some people, including the ADL, think that Finkelstein's arguments constitute "delegitimization", which is, in their opinion, equivalent to denial. My opinion about the Moon is meaningless; the official opinion of NASA -- which is to lunar studies what the ADL is to Jewish affairs: among the foremost authorities in the field -- would be worthy of mention, even if it seems nonsensical. --Mirv 17:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that in a sense the letter is not evidence, as I said on the "affair" talk page, that the ADL isn't using the provocative label of "Holocaust denier" consciously as a smear. Two questions one might ask are 1) Does their sincerity matter to whether we promulgate this extremely serious accusation that no one here seems to believe has a good basis? and 2) Should we perhaps just assume their sincerity, as we do with many accusations, in particular because sincerity is hard to prove or judge? I'm not sure of my own mind about either of these. But possibly relatedly, the first edit I made to the "affair" page is to change a sentence that called Finkelstein's accusation "plagiarism" to an accusation that "Finkelstein called 'plagiarism.'" That's because what Finkelstein would tell you that Dershowitz did--the actual motions he went through and the product that resulted--does not fit what the word "plagiarism" connotes to most people, and doesn't even count as plagiarism to some, for instance me. D has been accused of "plagiarism" in F-speak but in normal English it's hasty and tendentious to give the accusation that label. Likewise, I suspect the ADL is using ADL-speak when they call F a "Holocaust denier"--because I haven't seen anybody quoting F as denying the Holocaust. I'm just saying the same thing Leumi said earlier when he suggested they were using the word broadly. But what if I say I'm using "rapist" broadly or "child molestor" broadly when I refer to the neighbor who I say, by way of justification, that he steals my newspaper? I think it wouldn't be right for the paper to quote my accusation without pointing out that I had not specified any act of molestation or rape, only the newspaper theft. Otherwise, my neighbors name is raked through the mud while my reputation gets a boost for my demonstration of civic responsibility.So with this meditation I think I've answered my own questions at least to my own mind. I think we should give the ADL the benefit of the doubt but if we can't find them saying "he denied in this way" we should say they didn't explain their accusation. If you look at the way the letter is broken into paragraphs and moves from topic to topic, to me it offers no indication that the comments about the book are being offered as evidence for the label "Holocaust denier." Rather the letter suggests that it takes the fact as already having been established. Of course, there's such a thing in this world as bad writing. Maybe they structured their letter badly and weren't explicit enough about what they were offering as evidence for what. And maybe uses "Holocaust denier" in a broad way that made it seem obvious to them that their points about the book pertained to the label "Holocaust denier." Maybe they think everybody uses the term in this same broad way and so the structure of the letter is obvious to them too. Fine. Let's not doubt their sincerity. But then in this interpretation we must acknowledge that they are using the term broadly, just as I was using "rapist" broadly in my neighborhood hypothetical.168... 02:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Plaudits for your most reasonable analysis; it's a refreshing change from the incoherent rants replying to things I never wrote. I am convinced; how's this phrasing: "The ADL called him a well-known Holocaust denier, without providing specific reason beyond (what's already quoted)"; that should repeat what flimsy reason they gave and make it clear that the rest of the reasoning, whatever it is, is nebulous and undefined. --Mirv 03:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RE: "Holocaust denial because of The Holocaust Industry"

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

civility and labelling

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

His edits on the Irgun page make it very clear that he's an Irgun supporter, and the name Leumi is not a coincidence

Thankyou Danny. I did point the bank analogy that out before, but I'm glad you mentioned it as it carries a good deal more weight from yourself. I appreciate you stepping in on that score, and agree that the debate seems to be going fairly civily, which is always good. Thankyou again.Leumi 23:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--

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

OneVoice, can you explain exactly why you have a problem with this text:

a conservative, pro-Israel advocacy group which says it fights anti-Semitism

particularly the phrase "pro-Israel advocacy group"? The ADL itself makes it manifestly clear on its own web site that this is so. See: http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/ -- Viajero 10:43, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Shelley v. Kraemer (334 U.S. 1 (1948)): This case, a landmark in civil rights litigation, established the right of all citizens to own property regardless of race and thereby invalidated the racially restrictive covenants that had historically prevented non-white people from living in certain areas.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483 (1954)): This is the landmark civil rights case that resulted in the desegregation of public schools across the entire United States.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)): This case addessed the validity of the "cumulative impact" or "aggregation" principle for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Commerce Clause, which forms the basis of much civil rights legislation. As a leading civil rights organization, ADL maintained that the rule provided an essential foundation for the basic civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court decided the controversy on other grounds and thereby left the "cumulative impact" principle intact.

Virginia v. Black (2002): The question at issue in this case is Virginia's cross burning law. The statute outlaws the use of a burning cross as a means of threatening another person, but not for other purposes. ADL argues that a cross burning statute does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it punishes only criminal behavior such as intimidation and that the government has the clear power to outlaw serious threats of violence as criminal conduct is not immune from punishment merely because it is disguised as expressive activity.

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

A couple of points:

• "Separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are traditional values that up until the 1970s were pretty non-sectarian, ie they transcended the distinction of conservative/liberal. Old fashioned conservatives like Eisenhower would never have supported school prayer, vouchers, that kind of thing. It was only with the rise of neoconservatism that fundamentalist religious values were reintroduced into the American political discourse. Don't forget the US Founding Fathers were no radicals; they were basically conservative but honored the "separation of church and state" as modern, enlightment values.

• In its early years, the ADL was indeed a prominent civil rights group as the many amicus curiae briefs you refer to indicates. But from the 1960s, as Israel became an increasingly important strategic ally, and began particularly to actively target anti-zionism. It did a lot of spying on behalf of the FBI and CIA activities which I am sure you agree run counter to its image as a "progressive" civil rights organization:

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

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

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

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

So, I am sure you will agree, the ADL may once have been liberal but is a now clearly a fundamentally conservative organization. -- Viajero 20:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

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

The Peters book is widely discredited among scholars. I changed "controversial" to "discredited". I also changed the part about Finkelstein's denial that the Holocaust is "a unique event in history". The quoted section now reads: "a uniquely evil historical event". In Holocaust Industry Finkelstein argues against the tendency to view the Holocaust as the most evil event in human history. He suggests that other events - e.g. the slave trade and slavery, or various colonial encounters - have likewise caused incomprehensible suffering, and there's no tenable way to claim that one instance was "more evil" than another. He also points out the huge disparity between Holocaust reparations paid to the Jewish community and reparations paid to other communities for other instances of genocide or large-scale suffering (in the US, blacks and native Americans are prominent examples). sneaky 07:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've NPOVd the entire paragraph; it followed the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative, which was inventive but not particularly well supported by the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Replaced "and in the view of Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, Finkelstein's charges were received initially with great hostility" with "Finkelstein's charges were initially viewed with skepticism". No need to "NPOV" this by attributing the observation to two interested people. It's a simple observation: the US media were initially uninterested in Finkelstein's critique because critical reaction to the book at the time was almost uniformly positive. As such, Finkelstein's charges were initially viewed with skepticism in the US. In its previous form, the sentence implied that while Finkelstein and Chomsky were saying, "People are being hostile to Finkelstein!", everyone else was saying, "No, please, we're not being hostile - we want to publish Finkelstein's critique!" That implication is false. sneaky 01:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a comment from John Kenney on the subject:

The stuff about Finkelstein singlehandedly exposing Peters seems highly dubious to me. This is the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative. But from looking at the JSTOR archives, what is striking is how a) the book got very little scholarly attention at all; and b) that the reviews are uniformly negative. While the fact that non-specialist mainstream reviewers in the US said good things about it should be noted, the idea that Finkelstein turned things around seems to be a major exaggeration. Of course, it's hard to find anything very conclusive, since nearly everyone writing about the book has such a heavy agenda. john k 03:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein and Chomsky's narrative does not appear to square with the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you think it's merely Chomsky's opinion that Finkelstein's critique was initially received with skepticism? In other words, do you think another interpretation is possible, namely, that Finkelstein's critique was received with open arms? Finkelstein's critique, or anything like it, was not published in any remotely mainstream publication in the US until after British reviewers had torn the Peters book apart, echoing Israeli reviewers, who almost universally characterized the book as a fraud, though perhaps a useful propaganda tool (as Yehoshua Porath commented; Porath reviewed the Peters book for the NY Review of Books). Mainstream journals simply refused to publish it - Finkelstein writes about this in Image and Reality, of which his critique of Peters constitutes chapter 2. I don't see how your post bears on this question. The article attributes the exposition of the Peters hoax "in part" to Finkelstein, not in full; that exhausts the relevance of the "john k" quote. Hey, it's a minor point of course, but I did already address it in my previous post here. sneaky 08:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

Appreciate the comments. I wasn't aware Said had weighed in on this one, but other than that, I agree with most of what you say. Certainly the Peters book was not initially received with skepticism in the U.S. - indeed, it was received with open arms - which partially explains why Finkelstein's critique was initially received with skepticism. But Jayjg inserted the "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky" clause to qualify the statement about the cool initial reception to Finkelstein's critique, not Peters's book. You and I agree that "Finkelstein's charges initially aroused little attention" is a simple statement of fact. In Jayjg's version, this was only a statement of fact "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky". My intention was to make clear that not merely in the opinion of two controversial scholars, but in fact, Finkelstein's critique was initially ignored in the U.S. So I like your proposed language, and I maintain that Jayjg's edit was inappropriate. sneaky 10:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

As John Kenney and others have pointed out, there is no evidence (except for claims from Finkelstein and Chomsky) that Finkelstein's views were met with "hostility" or "skepticism" or anything else. And yet you still insist on promoting this view in the article. There is a huge difference between someone's views being "ignored" and being "met with skepticism". "Skepticism" is the word you inserted into the article. It is edits like this which make claims without attribution that are "inappropriate", not edits that attempt to provide such attribution. If you are going to insist that his views were met with skepticism, then please attribute that view to someone, as I attempted to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

I was using "ignored" as a short-form for "aroused little attention", but you're right, "aroused little attention" is better as it is non-normative. In general though, I believe we are in agreement that either claims of "skepticism" or "hostility" to Finkelstein's views should either me attributed, or (better), removed altogether; is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the point is, the Peters book initially garnered almost nothing but praise in the US, and the mainstream press, including the same journals doling out the praise, rejected Finkelstein's critique and refused even to investigate his claims. Finkelstein writes about all of this in the postscript to chapter 2 in Image and Reality. Do you propose he's lying? Here's what he says: "By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had gone through eight printings (cloth) and received some two hundred notices, ranging from ecstasy to awe, in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a splendid series of columns in The Nation to exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, Atlantic, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax....Yet in early 1985, the disinformation effort began to unravel as Peters's book went into a British edition. The reviews in England were devastating. Oxford's great orientalist, Albert Hourani, denounced [the book] as 'ludicrous and worthless'....The Israelis also got into the act....[T]he chair of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University, Avishai Margalit, derided Peters's 'web of deceit'....Faced with escalating accusations of censorship levelled mainly by the British press, the New York Times finally ran a piece in November 1985. It was placed in the Thanksgiving Day (non-)issue, on the theater page, without even a listing in the index." (Image and Reality, second edition, pp. 45-6) So, "aroused little attention" is fine with me, as I said. But I think it's clear that there was also a healthy dose of "skepticism" (I agree "hostility" is inappropriate) in the US air - unless Finkelstein's lying. And as stated previously, I think it's important to describe the reception Finkelstein's critique initially received without dismissing the account as "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky"; I believe we are all in agreement about that. John, this is an aside, but in my brief experience with Finkelstein's writings (Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality), I've found him to be a careful scholar, "heavy agenda" or not. I wonder if you have any first-hand impressions - feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you like. sneaky 01:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not Finkelstein's findings were met with "skepticism", as you claim. It has been proposed that, in fact, they "aroused" (or better "received") little attention. You seemed to agree with this wording earlier; have you now changed your mind, or do you agree that the "little attention" wording is better? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to Jayjg's post in which he claimed, e.g., "If you are going to insist that his views were met with skepticism, then please attribute that view to someone, as I attempted to do." That's not a view. That's what happened. And that was the issue here: Jayjg's insistence on characterizing a factual statement as the "view" of two controversial academics, thus discrediting the statement in the eyes of most readers, and no doubt confusing the rest. According to Merriam-Webster Online, skepticism connotes "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object". Perhaps Finkelstein's findings were not viewed with "an attitude of doubt" by mainstream US media editors. But what is the alternative explanation? That his findings were accepted, but simply not published until British reviewers started to make some noise? Not likely. Actually, it would be more accurate to say: "Finkelstein's findings were initially rejected by the mainstream US press". Because that's what happened: he tried to get his findings published in mainstream journals and newspapers, and got rejected. I used "received with skepticism" because it sounded more encyclopedic than "rejected". But why don't we dispense with the formalities and use "rejected" instead? I think that language would be most accurate. I also think this doesn't really matter, and "received little attention" is an adequate alternative. But I don't want to lose track of the original issue, which was Jayjg's mangling of the simple sentence informing readers that initially, Finkelstein's critique was viewed with skepticism - actually, rejected - by the mainstream US media. sneaky 06:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You stated a few comments ago You and I agree that "Finkelstein's charges initially aroused little attention" is a simple statement of fact.; have you changed your mind on that? As for his work being "viewed with skepticism", that is an attribution and an interpretation of events, not a simple statement of fact. If there was credible evidence that a number of editors rejected his work saying "I am skeptical of your work", then it would be a statement of fact. In any event, are you now suggesting that the wording should be "his work was rejected by the mainstream press"? Or is the "little attention" wording what you prefer? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't changed my mind. All three statements - "initially aroused/received little attention", "were initially viewed with skepticism", "were initially rejected" - are statements of fact, it seems to me. True, I do not have editors on record saying, "We were skeptical of Finkelstein's findings at first". But according to the cited definition of skepticism, Finkelstein's critique was obviously initially received with skepticism, unless we are to believe that editors accepted the veracity of Finkelstein's findings, but refused to publish them for some mysterious reason - an interesting conspiracy theory perhaps, but out of place in an encyclopedia entry. I would vote for the third statement, because I think it is the most accurate rendering. But they're all factual, and I don't care at this point, so if I'm outvoted by a third editor - john k, perhaps? - then I certainly won't complain. sneaky 07:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You have based your statements on Finkelstein's narrative of the events, and your own interpetation of the motives of the people involved (according to Finkelstein's narrative). Wikipedia:Cite your sources would indicate that you should at least indicate that Finkelstein is the source for the information, and Wikipedia:NPOV/Wikipedia:No original research would indicate that you personally should not be trying to assign motivations for the lack of interest in Finkelsteins' work. My attempts to do just that (both cite the source of the narrative, and/or remove interpretations of motive) have so far met with rejection from you; yet as far as I can tell my edits fall entirely within Wikipedia policy, while yours do not. If we cannot resolve this issue on the Talk: page, the next steps would normally be a Poll or a Request for Comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. Where did I provide my "own interpretation of the motives of the people involved (according to Finkelstein's narrative)"? No one's talking about motives here. We're talking about a simple description of the period of time between when Finkelstein started circulating his critique in the US, and when British and Israeli reviewers tore apart the Peters book, which awoke US editors from their stupor. During that time, US media refused to publish Finkelstein's critique; further, they refused to pursue Finkelstein's findings in any way. As I said above, that's actually a bit more than "skepticism", isn't it - that's outright rejection of Finkelstein's findings. But "skepticism" is not inaccurate, as it connotes doubt, which must be the explanation for the initial response Finkelstein got: if editors didn't doubt Finkelstein's findings, then they would have published or at least pursued them. Your edits just don't make any sense. Using your logic, which "falls entirely within Wikipedia policy", the statement "Noam Chomsky spent time in a kibbutz as a child" must be qualified like so: "According to Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky spent time in a kibbutz as a child." Look, are there any competing theories out there? Is anyone claiming that Chomsky didn't spend time on a kibbutz - or that Finkelstein's findings were not received with skepticism/rejected, i.e., that they were received with open arms/accepted? No. Ergo, it's preposterous to say "According to..." before such statements. Now, that said, I have provided a fairly detailed excerpt from Finkelstein's essay on the matter on this talk page; if you want to simply paste that into the article, and then cite Finkelstein in the standard fashion, I'm all for it. You could even say "According to Finkelstein..." before that excerpt, because in that case, the qualification would be accurate. Perhaps that would be the best resolution: Let's say "According to Finkelstein..." and then paste in that excerpt. What does everyone think? But if you put "According to..." before a basic statement of fact, it gives the impression that it's not really a statement of fact, and that there's a range of opinion on the issue. That's just wrong in this case. sneaky 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

No annoyance intended, John. I didn't realize I was misusing the term. Is the New York Review of Books - which initially rejected Finkelstein's critique outright before eventually commissioning Porath to do a review - not considered a journal? Or the Library Journal, which published a laudatory review of the Peters book by Brandeis president and Chaim Weizmann biographer Jehuda Reinharz in April 1984? It's really an honest question - I'm not clear on the distinction. Also, the book was initially given positive reviews by some US scholars, even if those scholars were writing in the mainstream press, e.g. Walter Reich in Atlantic, Ronald Sanders in New Republic. At any rate, I agree that we should not attribute a motive to the initial rejection of Finkelstein's critique. sneaky 07:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., it appears we are all in agreement then about your statement that Finkelstein's work was met with "skepticism". Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there's no agreement, because you think the "skepticism" statement is an interpretation, meaning that we should not take Finkelstein's word for it - perhaps editors were actually quite receptive to Finkelstein's critique, and they just chose not to show their love by publishing it. In that event one might expect to read that Finkelstein received numerous letters from editors informing him, "We don't doubt that your critique is accurate - we're just not going to publish it. Thanks though. Keep up the good work!" Anyway, I've opined that "initially rejected by the mainstream US media" is the best description of what happened. That's my vote. Let's get John in here and count the votes. sneaky 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

At this point I'm equally baffled. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(1) I think "a manuscript on the subject" refers to Finkelstein's "manuscript" on the Peters book ("the subject"). (2) Agreed. (3) In the chapter from which the passage was excerpted, Finkelstein does not make that broader point. He talks about how some people had to eat a little crow once they realized that they'd endorsed a hoax, but as far as explicitly attributing motives, constructing explanatory theories, etc., he is perhaps surprisingly silent. I wasn't aware that Said had posited "dominance by pro-Israeli elements" as an explanation in his article, but Finkelstein certainly does not do so in his essay. So, the excerpt is not "part of a larger argument" in that sense; actually, it's basically a synopsis of the chapter postscript from which it is borrowed. Accordingly, can we take the excerpt as a reasonably factual account, and preface it with "According to Finkelstein"? Or were there other unclear elements? sneaky 07:34, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

While the quote is clearly Finkelstein's view, it is hardly a dispassionate recitation of facts. Rather, it is filled with his interpretations of the events as they unfolded. He persistently refers to Peters' work as a "hoax", which is a rather overblown and POV phrase for what, in reality, is a sloppy and highly flawed work. He refers to the range of positive reviews as ranging from "ecstacy to awe"; again, surely a POV phrase, and one which the reviewers themselves would no doubt refute. He claims that "The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence"; but what evidence does he provide for that claim? Was he in the editorial meetings in which the decisions were made? Finkelstein's POV narrative may well be a "reasonably factual account" of Finkelstein's perceptions, but it falls short of being a neutral account of the facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which is why we should say, "According to Finkelstein, [excerpt]." Or, how about this, guys: "Finkelstein's critique initially roused little attention. According to Finkelstein, [excerpt]." Does that seem reasonable? A few responses to Jayjg's comments: (1) Have you read Finkelstein's critique of Peters? Merriam-Webster says that one meaning of hoax is "something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication". Without a doubt, Peters' account relied on "fraud" and "fabrication". It was therefore a hoax. Nothing POV there. In fact, it is (pro-Israel) POV of you to object. (2) Do you propose Finkelstein is lying when he says those periodicals "refused to run any critical correspondence"? Editorial meetings are obviously irrelevant. If Finkelstein is lying, then those periodicals must have run critical correspondence during the period in question; if he's not lying, then they didn't run it. I'm not aware of anyone ever having suggested that Finkelstein lied about this, other than you. (3) You insist on dismissing the excerpt a "POV narrative" based on "Finkelstein's perceptions". However, no one - other than you - has questioned Finkelstein's version of events. "POV" suggests that there is some dispute. Clearly there is none here among informed observers. Of course, to be absolutely certain, we could read through every issue of those periodicals for the period in question and see if any critical correspondence was printed. But I assume you agree this is an impossibly high standard. sneaky 02:43, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

(1) Peters' account relied on all sorts of things; it ignored facts, made sloppy arguments and selective use of sources, used actual information in quite dubious ways, etc. However, the books most critical reviewers (aside from Finkelstein) didn't, as far as I am aware, go so far as to describe it as a "hoax", no doubt because of the overblown and POV nature of that word. Also, please note that though I obviously did not express any "pro-Israel" POV in my comment, in general it is quite all right to express POV on Talk: pages, though not, of course, in articles. Regardless, it is irrelevant; please focus on article content, not on your continuing crusade to focus attention on me and your misperceptions of my actions. (2) I propose that the periodicals in question did not run correspondence that Finkelstein considered critical. "Refuse" is another POV word intended to invoke the notion of some sort of willful conspiracy of silence on the matter. (3) Your assumption that people agree with Finkelstein's narrative simply because they do not comment on it is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ex silentio. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Massive POVing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have been reminded that edit warring is harmful (see [7]). And yet you continue. I find this disturbing. Even more disturbing is that you are now out-sourcing your edit-warring (see User_talk:Jpgordon#Various_issues, User_talk:Willmcw#Norman_Finkelstein). - Xed 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

File:SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon incident.PNG

SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon incident

Actually most of the edit-warring happens with Jayjg/SlimVirgin as a team. See this last example:

• Jayjg's revert #1
• SlimVirgin's revert #1
• SlimVirgin's revert #2
• SlimVirgin's revert #3
• Jayjg's revert #2
• Jayjg's revert #3

That is the reason why an affected editor created the SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon username. That editor wrote: ""SlimVirgin violates Wikipedia rules: on Civility and 3 Reverts. SlimVirgin dishonestly violates 3R with jayjg and a tag-team...." It should be of no surprise if SlimVirgin shows up here too. --Vizcarra 20:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing documentary evidence of Jayjg's shocking behaviour. I had not realised the situation had degenerated to such a degree. - Xed 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

I would be happy discussing article content. But it seems you are not – and have reverted to edit warring and even attempting to out-source your edit-warring. You are reminded again that edit warring is harmful (see [8]), and yet you are now out-sourcing your edit-warring (see User_talk:Jpgordon#Various_issues, User_talk:Willmcw#Norman_Finkelstein). Please stop this unsavoury behaviour. - Xed 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Norman Finkelstein

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

Good examples of breaches of POV

How about this: changing

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

I'm not following, which portions are POV?

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

certainly isn't. It is a fact that he's been called such by the ADL. "Predictably" is certainly POV, I give you that. --Vizcarra 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Then why did you insert it? And why did you insert "devastating"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't insert it, I reverted the removal of important information including that word. But either way I just removed it. --Vizcarra 00:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In other words, blind revert-warring without actually reading the material? How about "predictably"? How about "meticulous"? How about the use of the term "Zionists" without qualifications? How about the presentation as fact of Finkelstein's opinion in the "Holocaust Industry" section? How about some citations for the Schwarzneggar thing (and since when can the governor of California ban the publication of a book, anyway?) How about the removal of the factual information about the books publication? How about the removal of Leon Wieseltier's quote? All of this is, as Jayjg noticed, utterly POV. I do believe you are fighting this simply because you're annoyed at Jayjg and feel a need to oppose him, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • <<In other words, blind revert-warring without actually reading the material? How about "predictably"? How about "meticulous"? How about the use of the term "Zionists" without qualifications?>> It is a work in progress.
      • <<How about the removal of the factual information about the books publication? How about the removal of Leon Wieseltier's quote?>> I did not see a source. Did you see one?
      • <> Your belief is wrong though and... How is this remark improving the issue? Why are we getting personal instead of discussing the content of the article. --Vizcarra 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Shrug. You started that back when you brought up my name a couple sections back. If you get to impugn my motives, I get to question yours. Regarding Wieseltier, I think the cite on Finkelstein's own website should suffice. Just to clarify things -- was the original anon contributor you? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • How can I question your motives before you got involved? I brought up the previous incident before you came in here to provide your POV on the matter.
        • Thanks for the source, you are welcome to include it, notice that I commented out the quote waiting for a source, instead of deleting it. I can do it myself if you'd like me too. Off of willingness to resolve the matter amicably.
        • Which anon contributor? --Vizcarra 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The one whose edits you were blindly reverting. (If it were you, then of course it wasn't blind reverting, and any comments I've made to that effect were unfounded.) As far as questioning my motives, everytime you've brought up that troll account, it impugns me, Jay, and Slim. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I wasn't blindly reverting.
            • The user that created that account and others agree that Jayjg has been involved in POV-pushing and like (I will quote you) "Likewise, a contribution being ... POV is exactly what any editor here is supposed to keep an eye on". So, it was a preventive measure, so nobody gets involved in edit-warring. --Vizcarra 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
              • • Um, lesse, you blindly reverted in egregious POV and edit-warred as Xed's meatpuppet in order to stop people from POV pushing, edit-warring and acting as meatpuppets? LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Fisher quote

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

I know I've read it before, but I can't remember where. I'm sure I'll be able to find it. --Ian Pitchford 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Just do a Google on the text. It's been reprinted a thousand times, and was the subject of a small controversy with Finkelstein participating. The matter may be worth a paragraph. -Willmcw 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Additions by I Speak Only Truth

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

• Please provide sources for these statements. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 06:16

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, plagiarism is defined as using another person's work without attribution. Dershowitz copied quotations wholesale from Joan Peter's work, including transcription errors, without proper attribution so it's arguably plagiarism. Deuterium 00:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He copied, for example, Mark Twain's work, and attributed it to Twain. This is not at all plagiarism. Suppose (as I would guess is true) Dersh was familiar with Twain's writings about Palestine for decades, but that when he went to quote Twain, he copied the passage from Peters instead of Twain. Again: not plagiarism. And it's not just my opinion, it's just the definition. Ragout 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Plagiarism is defined as copying another person's work without attribution. Dershowitz copied Joan Peters work and did not attribute it. "Work" is not limited to meaning actual prose but can include _ideas_ and _selections of quotations_. This can clearly be argued to be plagiarism and it would be POV for Wikipedia to take one side of the debate. Deuterium 05:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dersh made perfectly clear that he was relying on Peters' work: he cited her numerous times. Plagiarism includes copying ideas without citing them, but Dersh cited Peters. It's simply a fact that Dersh didn't commit plagiarism, and the article has much too much discussion of the bogus charges that he did.

Plagiarism includes copying "selections of quotations?" That's a new one to me (especially when many of the quotations at issue appear in dozens of books). Reference? Ragout 05:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, plagiarism includes copying any ideas or work. Why would you think that quotations, unlike everything else, do not constitute "work"? That's an extraordinary point of view considering how much effort can go into finding and presenting relevant quotations.

"To cite from a secondary source is generally discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite" [see Chicago Manual of Style 17.274].

And Finkelstein claims that Dershowitz did not actually examine the works he cited, presenting the strong evidence that Peters' typos were copied and incorrect editions were cited.

That's hardly strong evidence. But whatever the truth of this charge, it doesn't amount to plagiarism. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dershowitz did not indicate the quotations were originally cited by Joan Peters'. Deuterium 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The CMS says he shouldn't. You (& F.) say Dersh copied Peters' "ideas" w/o citing. But which ideas? None are named. Is Peters' use of ellipses supposed to count as an "idea?" When a charge is made but no supporting evidence is presented, it is not POV to state "no evidence supporting the charge was presented."

The CMS says he should have read the original sources. Finkelstein, for various reasons (i.e. that Peters' typos were copied and incorrect editions were cited), believes he did not.

Quite true -- but this isn't plagiarism. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to quoting Harvard's definition of plagiarism from WWS, as you've done in the article. But the article doesn't mention that he did cite Peters! It makes it sound like he lifted the quotes from Peters but never acknowledged that he relied on her work!

Not correctly or completely.

Then name some *idea* that Dersh borrowed but didn't cite! Or anything that actually supports charges of plagiarism! Better yet, show me where F. has offered anything that actually supports his charges! Not: the elipses are in the same place.

The quotations. He presented the quotations as original research when there is strong evidence that he did not read them at all. This is presenting another person's work as yoru own, which is arguably plagiarism, particularly when they form a large part of his argument. Deuterium 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will add in this crucial fact, but the article is drifting back towards "he said, she said," which isn't an accurate description of the world, and makes this section excessively long. Reading this section over, I see that one place to cut is F.'s evidence that Dersh. lifted quotations from Peters. There's no need for such a long discussion, since Dersh acknowledges it. I'll wait to cut this to give time for discussion. Ragout 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The plagiarism claim has been taken seriously by the mainstream media and the academic world and has been presented as a serious debate and has _not_ been presented as a cut-and-dried issue where one side is correct and the other is wrong. There are at least two mainstream book reviews cited that agree with Finkelstein's argument. Wikipedia should merely report both sides of the debate and not draw conclusions as to whether or not Dershowitz plagiarized, since that point is contested. Anything else is POV and OR. Deuterium 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, linking to ambiguous and inconclusive scientific papers to claim that Dershowitz's style of plagiarism is "very common" in academia is definitely original research and inappropriate; if it is "very common" as you claim it to be, it should be easy to find a mainstream cite that says so clearly and definitively. I warmly suggest you review the "original research" policy. Deuterium 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

These papers are neither ambiguous nor inconclusive. And of course there are many people I could quote stating that F.'s accusations don't amount to plagiarism [10].. I'm not going to do so because the section is already excessively long.

BTW, The "original research" policy is intended keep out crackpot theories, not to prevent knowledgeable people from contributing. Ragout 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I enquire as to your expertise regarding plagiarism? What do you know that everyone else does not, considering there is still ongoing debate about Finkelstein's claims? Deuterium 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, there is little ongoing debate, except in a few fringe publications. F. is mostly ignored. Perhaps because he make wild, unsupported charges.

Also, can you explain how the pages you link to actually prove your claim that Dershowitz's style of plagiarism is "very common" in academia? [11] doesn't even say this, and I can't access your second link. Is it subscription only? Deuterium 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So you cut these without even looking at them? "Read before you cite" was put in the Dershowitz-Finkelstein page by someone else. That page (and the article it's based on) shows that errors in bibliographies are copied by later authors, perhaps suggesting that the later authors did not read the original article. The study claims that 80% of references in bibliographies are copied from earlier articles. The second study (This link should work) also shows high rates of errors in references. It even shows that 10-20% of references do not support the point they are claimed to support.

I did read the one I could actually access. So why are you trying to include a cite that users can not access? Both articles are academic, obscure, full of jargon and apply to other fields of research (e.g. anatomy). Deuterium 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, citing the scientific literature is hardly "original research," anymore than citing a newspaper article is. Ragout 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Using obscure scientific articles to support a particular argument in an ongoing, two-sided public debate is most certainly original research, as anyone familiar with the orginal research rules will tell you.

Again, if it's such a common practice you can use a mainstream, unequivocal, cite to support this, preferably from someone who is actually commenting on the debate. Deuterium 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is _definitely_ in violation of the following Wikipedia:Original_research: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:...it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". Deuterium 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read what you write? "without attributing the analysis...to a reputable source." I cited two reputable sources: academic journals. So it's not Original Research. And now that I've fixed the url, users can access the abstract.

Finkelstein Ignored in Mainstream Media & Academia

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

I think there is a lot to be said for this standard about what should be in a Wikipedia article. The attention given to particular arguments should often reflect the amount of attention paid by the mainstream media and the academic world. Since F.'s charges are not taken seriously by either the mainstream media nor the academic world, at least in the US, they should not be given much attention in the article.

The mainstream media in the US has long since stopped paying attention to Finkelstein. F. and his supporters have complained about this numerous times. As Deuterium acknowledges, the most prominent place F.'s Beyond Chutzpah has been reviewed is the the National Catholic Reporter and the American Conservative. This is not "mainstream media," these are fringe views from low-circulation journals. These magazines represent the views of pro-choice Catholics and anti-war conservatives (no kidding). Hardly "mainstream media!"

F's Beyond Chutzpah has not been reviewed in any academic journal that I'm aware of, and certainly very few. (unsigned comment by User:ragout)

There are a plethora of mainstream reviews of Beyond Chutzpah, see here. The reviews are both postive, negative and ambivalent which show that there are two sides to the plagiarism debate. If you were correct that it was an open-and-shut case and Finkelstein was simply wrong, then there shouldn't be an argument at all and the media should be unanimously disagreeing with Finkelstein. It is not, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Deuterium 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

F. says they're reviews, but many of them are not, they're articles. I see 3 reviews that could arguably be called mainstream: Christianity Today, Tikkun, and the Jerusalem Post (perhaps some of the articles or reviews in foreign languages are mainstream, but I don't know). Only one of these even mentions plagiarism (JPost). F. has not been reviewed in any large US newspaper.Ragout 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you've just broken the Three-revert_rule. It looks like I just broke it too (Oops).Ragout 03:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly haven't as I've only reverted twice and the versions I've reverted too have been different. Deuterium 03:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Really, you have: it's 3 reverts max in a 24-hour period, not in a day. And partial reverts count the same as a complete revert. Ragout 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I really have not. Even using a loose definition of "revert" I've only done it two times. You're the one who's violated the rules. Deuterium 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium's violation of the 3-revert rule:

1st revert 03:08, 5 April 2006

2nd revert 10:22, 5 April 2006

3rd revert 22:06, 5 April 2006

4th revert 22:23, 5 April 2006

Do you ever admit that you're wrong? Ragout 07:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1st and 2nd "reverts" you cite are clearly not "reverts" at all. Please read Wikipedia:Revert, thank you. Deuterium 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has now made the eminently sensible ruling "Deuterium violated 3RR as well. Given the extreme lameness of the violations they're both blocked for 123 minutes. —Ruud 16:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)". So I hope you will take your own advice and read the 3-revert rule. Your habit of getting into conflicts with other editors, literally every day, is not good for Wikipedia. Ragout 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

no next war, please!

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

Well, I see that in 2003 Mirv said,

But possibly relatedly, the first edit I made to the "affair" page is to change a sentence that called Finkelstein's accusation "plagiarism" to an accusation that "Finkelstein called 'plagiarism.'" That's because what Finkelstein would tell you that Dershowitz did--the actual motions he went through and the product that resulted--does not fit what the word "plagiarism" connotes to most people, and doesn't even count as plagiarism to some, for instance me. D has been accused of "plagiarism" in F-speak but in normal English it's hasty and tendentious to give the accusation that label.

This is exactly the point I'm making. No one even tried to refute Mirv, just as no one has even tried to refute me.

As it stands, it's as if an article said "Abe has accused Bill of attempted murder, and documented the charge in a book. Bill has denied the charge," and elaborates no further. This would hardly be NPOV, if the documentation showed only that Bill got several speeding tickets. That situation is exactly analogous to the current state of the article. F. has charged Dersh. with academic high crimes, but provided only evidence of trivial errors, at best. So, the article needs to be fixed.

By the way, it seems that the 2003 debate led to the ADL's unsupported charges being relegated to a single sentence, with a long rebuttal. That ought to be the outcome with Finkelstein's unsupported charges too. Ragout 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy and Excessive Length in Dershowitz Section

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

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

Latest on Dershowitz-Finkelstein

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

2. Someone has written:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

(copied from SV's talk page)

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

Sorry Ragout, I don't follow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You cut the following passage, claiming it was OR:

"If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted....Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[14]"

This is just an attempt to describe what these two reputable sources say about the topic at hand (plagiarism). Hence, I don't see how this is Original Research.

I'm not necessarily unhappy with your edits (which is why I commented on your talk page rather than here) but I'm not convinced this is OR.Ragout 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a classic example of OR. You'd need to cite a source for that exact argument. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOR, and I don't see why this is OR. For example, from WP:NOR: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research'" So I repeat: citing the definition of plagiarism from authoritative sources is not OR. Nor is it an "argument."

Note also that the article does cite a source for that "exact argument": Freedman. Ragout 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I added the full quote from him. But where you had summarized the argument, you didn't quote anyone or attribute the argument. An unattributed argument is OR. If you read the policy page, you'll see that it says that explictly. And of course it was an argument. X says A and B is not plagiarism. Dershowitz did A and B. Therefore, Dershowitz did not plagiarize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not accurately summarizing the quoted section (and your X,A,B claim is a classic logical fallacy, which does not appear in the quoted section). The section quoted does not say that Dersh plagiarised or that he didn't plagiarise. It says: if Dersh did A it is not plagiarism. If Dersh did B it is plagiarism. It is a way of putting forth the definition from two very reputable sources.

Let me ask you, would this be OR if "Dershowitz" was changed to "a writer"? It sounds like you think that would be fine, since it would simply be quoting the "exact argument" from "Writing with Sources." Ragout 05:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would still be OR; in fact, it would be even worse. Any arguments you make or position you strike up must be made by sources in relation to the topic of the article. You must find a source that says: "Dersh did not commit plagiarism because ... and furthermore the Chicago Manual of Style says ... and the dictionary defines plagiarism as ..." You are not allowed to go off and do your own research about what various people think plagiarism is, at least not for this article. Please read the policy page. No published synthesis of published data is allowed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This section of the article is about charges of plagiarism. Hence the definition of plagiarism is "directly related" to the topic of the section (if not the entire article). I see nothing in the OR policy that defines "directly related," so please don't tell me for a fourth time to read the WP:OR page.

And citing the definition of plagiarism does not equal a synthesis. I note that it's only on the Nth iteration of this discussion that you raise this new claim. So it must not be obvious, even to you. Please elaborate.

In general, I think your interpretation bends the intention of the OR policy to the point of unrecognizability. "The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves. However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analyses or interpretations of published material, and their idiosyncratic syntheses of published material, where the syntheses serve to advance positions the editors may hold." The definition of plagiarism from WWS is not my "crank" or "idiosyncratic" view. It's widely agreed upon, including by Finkelstein, who cites WWS himself.Ragout 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point occurs to me. You claim that I have gone off and done my "own research about what various people think plagiarism is." This is not true. Instead, I have consulted the sources (WWS & CMS) that have been cited by Dershowitz, Finkelstein, and other participants in the debate. Ragout 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't keep arguing the same point. All I can ask you to do is read the policy carefully. The type of synthesis of published data you were presenting is not allowed. If you're right and it's relevant, find a source who has made the argument. If you can't find a source, let that tell you something. This is a moot point now anyway, because I included the source's argument that dealt with your point. If you did consult those sources, then quote them or attribute it. Don't claim the point for yourself. And the above is not my interpretion of OR. It's what the policy explicitly says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly tell me to read WP:OR, and make claims about what the policy "explicitly says." As best I can make out, your main point is that the quote from WWS and CMS isn't "directly related" to the article. But you haven't quoted a passage from WP:OR that supports your position. That should tell you something. Ragout 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

There has to be some reasonable arbitration as to the facts. If you simply quote Freedman's argument without citing CMS, you are abdicating the responsibility to be objective. If you quoted someone as arguing the world was flat, and I cited NASA's evidence to the contrary, would this be OR?

From WP:NOR: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." [unsigned comment by 129.137.207.104]

I completely agree (& I cited the same WP:NOR passage earlier). SlimVirgin's notion of OR results in "Republicans say the earth is flat. Democrats disagree." Ragout 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Well, except that it's a strawman, since there is far more support for the claim that the earth is not flat than just that. Regardless, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what "The TRUTH" is; instead, we quote what reliable sources have said on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Further: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources"

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

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

Of course it's original research; you simply cannot make up arguments to refute or support arguments you see in an article. Instead you must find reliable sources which make that argument for you. It's quite basic: something is original research if it "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." This, of course, is exactly what has been done here, introducing an argument using the Chicago Manual of Style which purported to support an argument made in the text. And I don't imagine a new editor with 6 edits really has the full grasp of WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But the Chicago manual of style has been referenced in the dispute between Dershowitz and Finkelstein, so it's not OR to find the relevant section of the manual of style, quote it, and see if it supports the claims of those who cite it. Cadr 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is - you are using a primary source to try to "refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position", which is what the WP:NOR policy specifically forbids. It's as if the Catholic Church said that a certain verse in the Bible meant ABC, but you went to the Bible yourself and said "however, the verse actually says XYZ, so the Catholic Church is wrong". Again, you don't go about trying to make cases for one side or the other; instead you just quote the cases others have made, as per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've looked at Ragout's recent edits, and he doesn't do anything of the kind. He just quotes the CMS policy on citing via secondary sources, which has been referenced by at least one party in the dispute. Can you give me a link to a diff where what you consider to be Ragout's OR is introduced/removed from the article, because I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to any more. Thanks. Cadr 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein claims Dershowitz was plagiarizing; Dershowitz says he was not. Ragout added this argument to the page "Dershowitz says that Finkelstein is simply accusing him of good scholarly practice: citing references he learned of in Peters' book after having first consulted the original sources. If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.[15]" Ragout is constructing an argument regarding the veracity of Dereshowitz's claim, then citing primary sources to support his argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The CMS has been cited in the dispute already (see [16]). I don't see any real argument in the edit. One could rephrase it a bit to make it less argumentative: "Dershowitz denies Finkelstein's accusation that he did not consult the original sources. The practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual is to cite the source actually consulted, but neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources 'plagiarism.'" I really don't see how that could violate OR. Cadr 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CMS was cited in the dispute already; but that doesn't give us carte blanche to start quoting it to make up our own arguments. "If Dershowitz's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual" is nothing but an analysis of and argument about claims made by Dershowitz; classic original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out in my previous comment that the "If...then" wording makes it sound more argumentative than it actually is. Would you have a problem with my paraphrase? Cadr 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to make the point at all. You have to find a source who makes it with reference to this dispute. And there is one, and I added a quote to that effect yesterday, so why do you want to add it twice? Or have I misunderstood? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)