Talk:Norman Finkelstein

"Jewish only on his parents' side"??

Not sure what that passage could mean -- and the link doesn't work, so it's not clear how I could check it out. Any thoughts? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well - the meaning is rather clear - ""I don't think he is a Jew. He's Jewish only on his parents' side" - Dershowitz (per the quote) said he doesn't think Finkelstein is a Jew, yet he recognizes that Finkelstein's parents were/are Jewish - it's a play on "his father/mother's side is Jewish" - in saying so Dershowitz is not questioning Finkelstein's lineage but rather Finkelstein himself (in belonging to "the tribe", "the nation", religion, or however you wish to define Judaism).Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

The section on 'The Holocaust Industry', last paragraph contains a typo: 'banjs' should be 'banks'. 2001:981:F5FF:1:1F1:98E4:925B:7D86 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Philip Cross (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Orthography comments when quoting (aka "sic")

While reading the article in Charlie Hebdo shootings section, I have noticed the following quote has been marked with [sic] - (sic being a note indicating that there is a spelling or grammatical error in the quote):

"But of course, Streicher shouldn't have been hung [sic]"

By adding [sic] to hung indicates, according to the author of this section, that the past participle hung of the verb hang is erroneous. Well, I'd like to invite the author of this section to verify reputable sources of English grammar about the proper conjugation of the verb hang. He/she will easily and quickly find that hung is a correct form of past participle of the verb hang and is as acceptable as the other form of the participle hanged in the context of how it was used by Finkelstein. Here is one example: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hung-or-hanged There are other similar overzealous uses of sic notations. Here : "Israel has come out of the boils [sic] of the hell" - here, "the boil" is the same as in "water at boiling temperature" ("the water comes to the boil"). And here: "'hoaxters' [sic]" - "hoaxer" and "hoaxter" are are both used and can be used in my opinion interchangeably (for example, see the use of word "hoaxter" here: Hoaxters, a 1952 American documentary. 2607:FA48:6EDA:1C10:65B9:A6FC:34BE:3978 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

New section: Opinion of David Irving

The new section, Opinion of David Irving {diff}, relies heavily on a Jewish Chronicle article by Lee Harpin and a Times of Israel blog piece by Kevin Berk[1].
The Jewish Chronicle, to its detractors a highly partisan purveyor of hasbarah, has recently been the object of heavy censure by the Independent Press Standards Organisation, a major cause being some articles by Lee Harpin.[2][3][4][5][6][7] As a result of those articles, libel damages were paid to Audrey White.[8][9][10]
Doing Google searches, it is hard to uncover any reason why Kevin Berk should be accorded any significance. In particular, his only contribution to the Times of Israel appears to be the one blog piece cited.
Taken together, one article from a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source and a blog piece from an insignificant-seeming author, it is hard to see why the new section is worth including and how it obeys the WP:BLP requirement to write conservatively. That the sources are both hostile to Finkelstein raises questions about the neutrality of the section.
    ←   ZScarpia   10:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Raise your issues with the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle and The Times of Israel elsewhere. A Community Securities Trust article also confirms Finkelstein's comments in the video. A publication Wikipedia considers RS which has never lost a libel action quite possibly does not exist. Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

To repeat: "Taken together, one article from a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source and a blog piece from an insignificant-seeming author."

Regarding reliability, see WP:RS#CONTEXT MATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context." That means that it is appropriate to raise the appropriateness of using, as I wrote, a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source for the material in question on the current talkpage.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out to anybody apart from a very green newbie that any reliability attached to The Times of Israel doesn't extend to its blogs. Material sourced from those may only be used to state facts about what the author has written, not state what the author has written as fact. There should be a point, such as notability of the author, for inclusion. In this case, the author doesn't appear to have any significance other than that he has written a single blog article for The Times of Israel.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, The Times of Israel blog item was removed nearly a fortnight ago by DSQ. The Jewish Chronicle and Community Security Trust articles remain straightforward RS, as I indicated before. Philip Cross (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

(Note: moved Phillip Cross's previous comment as, in it's previous location it appeared as a reply to DSQ rather than me) To my knowledge, nobody has ever explicitly tested the reliability of the material sourced to The Jewish Chronicle or Community Security Trust at the RS Noticeboard. If not, your "indication" that they are "straightforward RS" is rather grandiose. They certainly aren't listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. Your comment ignores my point about the "context matters" aspect of the source reliability policy. Even if a source is considered generally reliable, that doesn't mean that its reliability is universal; it is subject to context, the effect of which is presumably is determined by discussion attempting to establish a consensus position. Also worth noting is the policy that, though any material included should be verifiable, verifiability doesn't mean that the material has to be included.     ←   ZScarpia   09:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said on 9 August above: "Raise your issues with the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle and The Times of Israel elsewhere", meaning RS/N. Checking your edits, you have not done that. Substitute CST for TOI, and take the issue to the appropriate place as I suggested more than three weeks ago. No one has said in reliable sources that Finkelstein's description of Irving as a "very good historian" has been misconstrued or the same opinion of his dismissal of Richard Evans work. Philip Cross (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Points:

• I raised a question about whether the newly introduced section on Finkelstein's views on David Irving was worthwhile, it being based on a pretty shoddy polemic in the highly partisan Jewish Chronicle, whose writer has, at my count, been on the losing end of several libel prosecutions, and a blog piece by a relative unknown.
• You inaccurately construed this as a questioning of the general reliability of the two sources and told me to raise the issue elsewhere.

• Even so, it should have been obvious that the blog piece wasn't reliable for statements of fact about anything but the author's views, and the author being pretty unknown, those views were not worth including anyway.
• Framed as a question about reliability, I am not be bound to raise that in the context of the current subject, as you insisted several times, ignoring the context-related aspect of source reliability, at the RS Noticeboard. The current talkpage is an acceptable place.

• Things have now moved on. Currently cited sources are:

- The same shoddy Jewish Chronicle article.

- An unattributed Telegraph View piece which probably counts as a Leader (in Wikipedia terms, opinion).

- An unattributed article on the CST website.

• Source-wise, I wouldn't say that the above are "great shakes".
• Regarding the CST, it is a prominent organisation whose statements on certain subjects are are worth noting, but why exactly should its website, particulary an unattributed article on that website, be considered reliable in Wikipedia terms (meaning, for example, that it is known for fact-checking and exercising editorial oversight over what it publishes) for statements of fact about the Labour Against the Witchhunt event? What sets it apart from other organisations such as thinktanks or government bodies whose statements are worth noting but would not be considered reliable for statements of fact?

• You wrote: "No one has said in reliable sources that Finkelstein's description of Irving as a "very good historian" has been misconstrued or the same opinion of his dismissal of Richard Evans work."

• As with Wikipedia reliability policy, so with representing what has been written or said fairly: context matters. All of the cited sources appear to quote selectively. None of them supply any context.

• As far as LabourAgainstTheWitchhunt's "Campaign For Free Speech!" go, that organisation has posted a YouTube video of the online discussion here, from which the fairness of the reporting may be judged. Articles about the campaign have also been posted on the group's Facebook page, including one on the 02 August about Kevin Berk's Times of Israel blog piece.

• As far as The Telegraph leader's statement that, in "The Holocaust Industry", "significantly, Mr Finkelstein defends David Irving against his accuser, Deborah Lipstadt" goes, the fairness of that statement may be judged by referring to the book itself.

• The sole reference to David Irving in "The Holocaust Industry" is in a single short paragraph Chapter 2:

- "Not all revisionist literature — however scurrilous the politics or motivations of its practitioners — is totally useless. Lipstadt brands David Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial" (he recently lost a libel suit in England against her for these and other assertions). But Irving, notorious as an admirer of Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism, has nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an "indispensable" contribution to our knowledge of World War II. Both Arno Mayer, in his important study of the Nazi holocaust, and Raul Hilberg cite Holocaust denial publications. "If these people want to speak, let them," Hilberg observes. "It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that's useful for us."

• References given for the content of the paragraph are: Arno Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (New York: 1988). Christopher Hitchens, "Hitler's Ghost," in Vanity Fair (June 1996). (Raul Hilberg).

• A note is attached:

- 'For a balanced assessment of Irving, see Gordon A. Craig, "The Devil in the Details," in New York Review of Books (19 September 1996). Rightly dismissing Irving's claims on the Nazi holocaust as "obtuse and quickly discredited," Craig nonetheless continues: "He knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.... His book Hitler's War ... remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second War and, as such, indispensable for all students of that conflict .... Such people as David Irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views."'

• The gist of the paragraph, then, is that "revisionist literature" may not be, for various reasons, "totally useless".
• David Irving is used as an example.
• Lipstadt's opinion of Irving is quoted.
• Gordon Craig's written opinion from 1996 is then outlined, that despite Irving's major faults, he has made an indispensable contribution to the the history of WWII. This is expanded on in the note, where the nature of that contribution is explained, that Irving wrote "the best study we have of the German side of the Second War."
• Arno Mayer and Raul Hillberg's use of revisionist literature is also mentioned.

• After reading what Finkelstein actually wrote, I doubt that an open-minded and reasonable reader would judge The Telegraph leader's statement, that "Finkelstein defends David Irving against his accuser, Deborah Lipstadt", is fair. Finkelstein quotes Lipstadt's opinion, but he doesn't make any comment or pass judgement on it.
• Neither Finkelstein's judgement of Irving or that of Gordon Craig, who he bases his own on, could be considered anythin but a restricted endorsement.
• Finkelstein's judgement did not come out of thin air, but was based on what author's such as Craig, Mayer and Hillberg wrote. If Finkelstein is to be condemned, then so should those authors.
• If (and it's by no means certain) Finkelstein disregarded What Richard Evans said in court and subsequently wrote, then his accusers can be said to have done the same with regard to Gordon Craig.

• Since reading what "The Holocaust Industry" says contradicts the statement made in the quoted Telegraph leader, on neutrality grounds I propose that one of two alternative actions is carried out:

• Either the quotation from the Telegraph leader is removed.
• Or the relevant sections in The Holocaust Industry are quoted in the article in order to allow readers to make up their own minds about the Telegraph's claims.

• I recommend that the LabourAgainstTheWitchhunt video is watched in order to check the fairness of the claims made in the other sources.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ZScarpia, especially on his points about Kevin Berk. He's written once blog post - that's it. His opinion is hardly relevant on contentious issues. I've removed it anyway, as it's not suitable sourcing for a BLP. I also agree re: Harpin, but that probably needs more discussion. Perhaps the section needs a tag

.....--DSQ (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tony Greenstein, one of the goup responsible for organising the Campaign For Free Speech meetings, discusses them, including Norman Finkelstein's contributions, in a recent article on his blog (scroll down to the 'Campaign for Free Speech' section). In it, he quotes from the assessment of Irving as a historian in section 13.7, 'Irving the Historian', of the judgement given at the conclusion of the Lipstadt-Irving libel trial. It is relevant here (I have tacked on the text of 13.8):

"My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5). But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime."

    ←   ZScarpia   14:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)