Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 3

Intro graf

Although Finkelstein is primarily known for his tenure controversy, he is notable for other aspects of his work. Since the second graf goes right into the DePaul imbroglio, I agree with the edit to the first graf. Groupthink 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, the edit which was removed stated, in a polemical way, that 'after two decades of academic teaching and extensive publishing, was denied tenure " - thus framing the controversy using Finkelstein's POV. If you fail to see the POV nature of this framing, try the alternate 'after two decades of unprofessional personal attacks and polarizing personality, was denied tenure" - which is the opposite POV, and I'm sure it will become clear. Isarig 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The disputed passage runs 'who, after two decades of academic teaching and extensive publishing, was denied tenure at the university then employing him.'

Isarig Excuse me but you are using the word 'polemical' in a sense hitherto unknown to me. There is no 'framing' here, in that the text describes the facts, the only two adjectives are 'academic' (neutral) and 'extensive' (POV only if you think his publishing output was not, for that period, larger than the usual output for academics over the same period. Academics rarely get more than one book out over their careers). Your gimmickry of attempting to give the negative mirror of the contested phrase doesn't work, since it has three adjectives 'unprofessional', 'personal' and 'polarizing' and a reference to 'personality' which are value-laden, as 'academic' and 'extensive' are not. If that is the grounds for your edit, it is a POV edit based, as the alternative shows, on private contempt.

I am actually using polemical in the most common sense - that of advancing a controversial argument, which is exactly what your edit did - it advanced the disputed position that F was an exceptional academic, wrongly denied tenure for no reason. The 3 value laden adjectives are, as I'm sure you know, the way DePaul's president described F, and gave them as the reason for the tenure denial. There are 2 POVs on the contorversy - one holds that F is a great academic, wrongly denied tenure (and that is what your edit suggests, by highlighting just that one aspect of his career). The other POV is that he was denied tenure because, among other things, he engaged in personal attacks and was a polarising figure. The first sentence of the lede is no place to discuss the controversy in detail, let alone present it in a one-sided fasion. Isarig 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isarig I'm afraid you are addressing someone else and not me, so please reply to them. I am here simply defending the following words:-

who, after two decades of academic teaching and extensive publishing, was denied tenure at the university then employing him.'

These words strike me as sufficient for the whole intro.

I.e. he was an academic for 2 decades, and then was denied tenure. What you are doing is raising the issues mentioned much further down in the text. When you say 'The first sentence of the lede(sic) is no place to discuss the controversy in detail', you make the same error as Groupthink and Gatoclass), you are mistaking the Ist sentence, which is extremely pared down, for the second sentence which is overly elaborate. All three of you, four counting Anubis, are shooting down the wrong section. It is para 2 that is defective (too long, not para 1) and which displays the faults (too long, too detailed for an intro, and repetitive of the original para 1) you all complain of.

No, I am addressing you, and your arguments. The first sentence, when it includes just the (undisputed) fact that he was an academic and the claim that he had an extensive publishing history, juxtaposed against the denial of tenure, is polemical. Polemics take many forms, and without getting into a debate about the factual nature of the claims made of F's scholarship and publishing, it should be obvious to you that one can advance a controversial argument by presenting things in a factual, but one sided fashion. (as a side note, I find your tone to be increasingly uncivil (e.g. calling my arguments "gimmickry") and condescending. If you are unfamiliar with the term "lede" , look it up, rather than tagging it with (sic), which only exposes your ignorance) Isarig 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You of all people correcting me on spelling? I'm in a comic mood and tickled pink by this gamesmanship, but it is not quite appropriate to the discussion. Come now. Your use of the work 'polemical' is eccentric in the extreme. A polemic (Gk polemos 'war') is an explicit form of rhetorical tractate exploiting arguments and facts to a clear purpose . You cannot use polemic in English of a sequence of facts. You can call that sequence 'tendentious'. You can speak of it as being 'selective'. Use 'polemic' in this way in any high school essay, and your teacher, if he is worth his salt, will chuck the shorter Oxford at you. If you don't see that, the point you raised is meaningless.Nishidani 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not have thought to call out your ignorance of the term "lede" (which has nothing to do with spelling, btw - you simply did not know what the word meant), if you were not so quick to jump on what you mistakingly thought was a spelling error, and condescendingly labeled it with "sic". Your above comment contains nothing but irrelevant personal attacks, so there's nothing for me to respond to. Please don't revert the lede again without getting consensus for your changes on the Talk page first. Isarig 18:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're scrambling pixels to no end.lead: f (Journalism) 'A summary or outline of a newspaper story; a guide to a story that needs further development or exploration; the first (often the most important) item in an issue, bulletin, etc. The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd.ed. vol.VIII p.744 column 2. Link to whatever fashionable internet sources you like for your use of English. My authority is the O.E.D., which registers 'lede' as an obsolete variant of 'lead' in the sense I cite above. I'm older than you by some decades, but am not in favour of the obsolete, despite finding myself more or less so.

I reverted for a very simple reason. Several of you kept tampering with the text while wasting my goodwill on pretending to discuss what might or might not be altered. That is not polite, and in any case the result only messed up the text. I am quite bemused by what I have found to be a chronic habit round here, of people blowing in, reverting a text, altering it, challenging those who have worked on it at some length at every step, and then pleading, when the earlier text was restored in exasperation against the resultant damage, 'Please don't revert the lede (sic) again without getting consensus for your changes on the Talk page first.' If you and the others had done the same, as a common courtesy recognizing reciprocal rights, this tawdry interlude would not have wasted our time. I will exercise exactly the rights and prerogatives I see exercised by others here Nishidani 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink

You write:-

'It's POV pushing because it strongly emphasizes one aspect of his career up-front'

It notes why his career ended, not an aspect of that career, which is perhaps the most significant thing of that career, publicly, and therefore deserves mention in the intro para.1 Secondly, in what sense are you using the word 'POV'? It does not 'strongly' emphasis therefore one aspect of his career. I'm wholly unconvinced, and think the reverts, which surprise me, unmotivated, but will await for the several other editors recently involved, who so far haven't found anything dicky about this innocuous fact, to express their views.Nishidani 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with it except in terms of style - it isn't really well written at the moment, because the line about being denied tenure at DePaul is followed almost immediately by a much more in depth examination of the same event. Perhaps a restructuring of the graf is in order? In any case, with or without that line the import of the tenure denial is expressed at the beginning of the article. No need to throw around POV accusations. Avruch 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to myself, I should clarify that the bit about tenure denial at the top is also written into the intro (2nd small graf) in the style of an intro. The details about the event are towards the end of the article, appropriately. Its a minor issue, might as well leave it as it is now. Avruch 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I note again that the text has been reverted on the grounds that it is a 'redundant repetition'. Again, unfortunately, this is an awkward reason. What is in para 2 can be a 'redundant repetition' (a phrase that is itself pleonastic) of what precedes, but para 1 cannot 'repeat' para 2 anymore than than a cart can drag a horse.

I concur with Avruch's feel for the text. I hope I am not misunderstanding him if I say it is the second para that is out of place not the first, for it has too much detail for an introduction. This is a point Groupthink made, who took out the first remark, brief, synthetic, to the point, as is required in intros., and left in the second which is awkward too detailed. Try to imagine it the other way round-

I myself have never been convinced by para 2, for example, which I regard as too much of an elaboration of what originally sat in para 1. Introductory paras are supposed to be brief, and my brief is that you have challenged the wrong section. All that detail should go in the appropriate elaboration below.Nishidani 08:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with alluding to Finkelstein's failure to secure tenure in the opening sentence or paragraph is that it effectively sidelines a long and distinguished career in favour of a recent headline or footnote to that career. As such it completely misrepresents the subject by making it appear as if Finkelstein is notable merely because of one recent controversial event.

As it happens, I think the intro entirely fails to summarize his importance in any case, but inserting the DePaul fiasco into the opening sentence or paragraph is just adding insult to injury. Gatoclass 08:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass You write:-

'The problem with alluding to Finkelstein's failure to secure tenure in the opening sentence or paragraph is that it effectively sidelines a long and distinguished career in favour of a recent headline or footnote to that career.'

Then I fail to understand your edit. The passage elided reads

who, after two decades of academic teaching and extensive publishing, was denied tenure at the university then employing him.'

This fits exactly your description, alluding, non-polemically, to a long career cut short by denial of tenure (note it does not say, as you evaluate it 'distinguished'). You should be objecting then to the second para., which elaborates, and which, instead, could well be moved to the main body of the text dealing with the St.Paul incident. To note, in this succinct fashion, that his career was 'ended' is simply to note what the controversy about him concluded in. It is not a 'headline', it marks the effective end to his academic standing, and his work as a scholar. It is not therefore marginal, but central. As far as I can see, seveval editors have suddenly converged to take to task the wrong section, and should have, if they have a disagreement, eliminated or shortened para.2., leaving that single phrase, a one line para., non POV, in its place. My original edit on this intro., was prompted by the use of the word 'NF has been' (innunendo = is a 'has been') a political scientist. Straightening that out, led to the other laconic synthesis. I think you are all seeing a POV where one doesn't exist.Nishidani 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference in my view that the subject of the sentence is modified by a passing reference to his decades of teaching, because the subject is still the denial of tenure. It makes it sound as though this were the most significant thing in his entire career, which is nonsense. It also sounds whiney and unencyclopedic, as in "look what they did to him!" So from any angle I look at it, it is unsuitable IMO.

Also I am bemused by your repeated comments that "it marks the effective end to his academic standing, and his work as a scholar." How you come to this conclusion I cannot imagine. Finkelstein is an established and highly qualified expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict, he has held numerous academic and non-academicpositions during his career, and I'm quite sure he has no intention whatever of retiring. Your readiness to declare him a has-been is completely inappropriate in my view, and likewise thereby the attempt to place his denial of tenure front and centre in this article. Gatoclass 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On bemusement. I arrived at it by a consideration of what denial of tenure at a University, not of the first rank, means on an application form for another University position. The precedent, I hope you are familiar with the way appointments are made inside academia, puts a blot on his past, and indeed in successive applications he might proffer, the Alan Dershowitz insinuations, and the campaign that smears him, will find comfort in the words used by St Paul University: 'personal attacks' 'polarizing figure', words which strengthen the hand of those who will oppose his applications on the relevant committees. Princeton already made great difficulties for him, which are well known. He was told, as Hilberg, was told, by a famous scholar, that if he persists in his pursuit of the truth undeterred by polemical consequences, his career was at grave risk. I too regard Finkelstein as 'an established and highly qualified expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict'. He has no intention of retiring, but he has been effectively 'retired', and will have an arduous uphill battle (One can only augur him with the consolation of the dictum of Lucretius ardua dum metuunt, amittunt vera viai from De Rerum Natura Liber 1, 659, as one which sums up his adversaries.) reclaiming an academic position, as anyone in the trade would know. It is one thing to publish books, as Hilberg was constrained to do, with small unrecognized firms, quite another to publish with major academic presses. It is that latter venue which confirms one's public recognition as a scholar, and one now imperilled in Finkelstein's case, unless he secures a formal academic appointment, which is one of the key factors in opening up access to obtaining academic imprints for one's work. In that sense, his standing as a scholar risks the sanction of resistance by universities presses. In wiki, there are many editors who will now have grounds for contesting citations from his work on the grounds that he is no longer recognized in his field as a reliable source and scholar of institutional repute. They must relish the prospect now opened up by the denial of tenure for eliminating him from the Wiki record as 'unreliable'.

Someone else declared him a has-been. I restored the proper 'is'. This is quite a comical exchange. I have no problem in openly avowing the fact that I personally regard Finkelstein as an exemplary man and scholar of powerful, and precisely for that reason, salutary polemical vigour. In attempting to twist my words to make me out as one of the band of sneerers and acolytes of schadenfreude you make your editing position above even more quixotic, in that you would erase a neutral sentence that testifies to the dramatic caesura of a career you define as 'distinguished'. You have reduplicated Isarig's edits, and Isarig, if you check his record, is not one to edit in here in order to guard with studied neutrality Finkelstein's record. To the contrary Nishidani 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

you would erase a neutral sentence that testifies to the dramatic caesura of a career

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a soap opera. "Drama" is not what it is about.

And I'm certainly not trying to "twist your words". I'm simply giving you my interpretation of how a particular edit reads to me.

My use of the word 'dramatic' is here, not on the page. You used 'distinguished'. Adjectives may be thrown in here, but on the page require close scrutiny. What you appear to be doing is throwing out bait to get me to respond, and detect in those responses a POV you can then exploit to invalidate my edits by asserting I have a POV. Your own position is ambiguous, intervening to save Finkelstein's reputation as 'distinguished' and then, at the first opportunity, jumping in to claim that those who disagree with you are 'soapboxing' (a Wiki cliché) Finkelstein's cause.

There is no incompatibility between 'twisting someone's words' and giving your own impression of how you read them. You read (past tense) my remarks in a twisted fashion, inadvertently no doubt.Nishidani 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, this discussion is hopefully redundant now that Groupthink has come up with a compromise edit. Gatoclass 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase you are looking for is 'served its purpose', not 'redundant'. No. The compromise is badly put, I'm afraid, and though I appreciate the effort, that 'resignation' will not stand as a succinct summary of what happened. At this point, unless a better solution is forthcoming, I will press for a return to the ante status quo. The specific text unworried for months by those who have done most work on it, has been subject to a niggling war on what strike me as spurious grounds. Nishidani 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about your point. Are you complaining that "...a denial of tenure and subsequent resignation in 2007," isn't succinct, or is a poor intro because it's succinct? If you're making either of those points, then I disagree with you on both counts. If not, then I'd appreciate a clarification as to why you feel a revert is called for. Groupthink 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In the intro. as Blind Freddie and his dog can see, 'a denial of tenure and subsequent resignation', shorn of all nuance, suggests to the average browsing eye that he was knocked back for a (bid to continue his - ('tenure' is not widely understood)-) job (suspicious eyebrows raised, he must be an incompetent) and, without any other pressures, or circumstances, simply threw in his hat and declared surrender. It is not a 'compromise' but a maladroit attempt to ruin a reasonable intro, erase most of it, cock it with an insinuating POV, and declare unilateral victory for one side in the edit dispute.

You guys have raised a lot of dust on a simple sentence, collectively declaring it inappropriate. The same original text has been challenged both for boosting Finkelstein and for denigrating him. Editors agree to elide because the same set of words, to them, mean diametrically opposed POVs. You guys raised this ruckus and fuss, I didn't. So make up your minds as to what the original text you all object to implies - anti-Finkelstein POV or pro-Finkelstein POV (I now suspect it will be challenged as diabolically both!)- and then return to help the page. In common logic, as opposed to oriental predicate logics of the kind A+ = A- associated with Nishida Kitaro, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either A+ or -A as the reason for questioning the intro as it stood. Nishidani 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Indent reset) First off, I resent that you're not assuming good faith.

Secondly, you're contradicting yourself. You first claim that the intro is now "cock[ed]... with an insinuating POV" and then proceed to make straw-man accusations against those who have changed the intro, claiming that they don't know to which POV they're objecting. If your "we don't know what we're objecting to" premise is true (which it isn't, but let's say it is), then how could we possibly be POV-pushing?

Finally, your "have your cake and eat it too" analogy is a false dialectic. You say: "shorn of all nuance," "maladroit," and "unilateral." Well I say: "to the point," "neutral," and "allows the reader to read on and draw conclusions for her/himself." Personally, I thought this would be obvious, but to drive the point home, I'll add a "see below" link. Groupthink 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink Again, as with Isarig, I draw your attention to the standard use of English words. It is not a matter of 'contradicting oneself' to make a (a) claim (re POV) and then make what you call 'straw-man' accusations about the lack of coherence in the various arguments adduced to sustain that charge of POV. That is simply a sequence of observations, documenting the internal contradictions in arguments by 3 editors, who collectively support the case for revision.

Your second point, raised to underline the first re self-contradiction, is based on a synthetic distortion of what I wrote. I said all of you supported, (with distinct, different arguments individually) the same editorial position. I.e. that a simple neutral sentence is POV, and must be eliminated. You maintained the same editorial suspicion, and supported each other with reverts, while, respectively using grounds which are internally self-contradictory, because Isarig thinks a sequence of facts is 'polemical' (an abuse of the normal meaning of that word, see above), and insinuated, by his inverting what he took to be the POV of the disputed text, that it read as promoting Finkelstein's case (cf.Isarig 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)); you argued it is reduplicative of something said below it, which is a technical impossibility, since a statement preceeding a second statement cannot be call a 'reduplication' of a statement which follows it, (unless we start introducing Dunne's theory of time) (c) Gatoclass said the remarks in the intro. demean Finkelstein's reputation as a 'distinguished' scholar, and thus erases for reasons diametrically opposed to those given by Isarig. I could go on. But you all, with Anubis earlier, who started this off, object on grounds that are not internally consistent and often self-contradictory. The only thing you share is hostility to the simple sequence of facts in the original Intro. So, I repeat, sort out your differences, find some legitimate coherent common ground for questioning that earlier text, and come back and fight for it. Otherwise, this confused sudden assault by four editors on the intro looks decidedly odd. It is certainly no help in the harder task, requiring the reading of several books and dozens of articles, of writing the page to quality level.Nishidani 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. I've tried to assume good faith, but I really, really resent the pretentious, holier-than-thou, pseudo-academic tone that you have chosen to adopt. As someone who considers himself to be an academic (and has the credentials to back that assertion up), I have to say that I'm not impressed with the snippets of rhetoric, philosophy and classicism you randomly sprinkle throughout your arguments. You might be striving for erudite, but you wind up sounding like you utilize the Post-Modern Paper Generator. How about using plain-spoken language where plain-spoken language is called for? Groupthink 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with WP:OWN, since editors on many sites, Hebron, 1929 Hebron Massacre, and today (advice not to butt in from Gatoclass I think) Deir Yassin tell me not to butt in, and other editors complain that people there think they own those pages. I don't own the Finkelstein pages. I own to a sense of responsibility to see that 'distinguished' figures who come in for smear attacks and defamatory campaigns get fair and proper treatment in this encyclopedia.

I happen to have read several of Finkelstein's books and articles, and find people editing here (not necessarily yourself) who show not trace of familiarity with his life or career, or interest in either, but who are very keen to edit the text. I dislike 'groupthink', the habit of ganging in to back one particular edit, as opposed to individual edits which reflect taste, discrimination and knowledge. I have no claim on any text, but neither should anyone else, individually or as a collective block (and like it or not, this sudden appearance after months, of 4 people all attacking in rapid succession the same innocuous intro. struck me as posing a danger to the text, since I've seen that happen elsewhere, and I, for one, am not going to allow this reasonable good beginning, done collectively, to end up like those pages (Deir Yassin etc).

I'm afraid you will have to put up with my pompously orotund fatuously pseudo-erudite style, because it is spontaneous, the result of being educated before dumbing down became fashionable, and the recommended level to which complex arguments must be boiled down so that everyone not really motivated to understand things can kid themselves that they do. If that means I should be reported, by all means, check the Wiki rules and find a pretext. You can complain of everything, but not that I am indisposed to listening closely to what others say, and reluctant to give a full account of what motivates my occasional disagreements. Take a leaf out of Avruch's book. We disputed, he came up with an intelligent solution, and I seconded it, as often is the case when I can sense the informed curiosity and intelligent reasoning of a person who disagrees with me. Nishidani 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first four adjectives, but I'd call your style sophomoric rather than spontaneous. While I agree that recent dumbing-down and anti-intellectual trends are disturbing, I find the opposite extreme, that of the Lacanians and their ilk, to be equally alarming: Namely, the use and abuse of obscurity and obfuscation in place of rational argument. I'm happy to engage in healthy discourse with someone, but I refuse to play silly semantic games. Groupthink 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink, you write: 'I agree with you on the first four adjectives'

Well, thank goodness! You see, it may be extenuating to write at length, but in the end we can concur on issues of substance.

Apropos, 'the use and abuse of obscurity and obfuscation in place of rational argument.' If you haven't read it, you will enjoy the essays in a masterpiece of early criticism of the obfuscation underway since the 60s from French sources, in Stanislaw Andreski, The Social Sciences as Sorcery (1973, from memory) Penguin. There is nothing that troubles me about the difficulties of Lacan or Derrida and co. It is the obsequiousness of disciples, who transform the analytical idiom devised for a powerful individual approach, eccentric or otherwise, into a cliché machine for rewriting everything, that does the real damage.

You write: 'I refuse to play silly semantic games.' Being precise is not a 'semantic game'. I have found myself forced to spend much ink on 'lead/lede' and 'polemical', and was deadly serious in trying to convince the editor to employ English words in their correct senses. I have had to waste much time over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government a day ago because an editor was being beaten into an angle by several posters who refused to accept that 'dictator' was a neutral word to describe Hitler, Stalin and many other thugs of the last century. It required a short number of citations from standard historians of the period to close the argument, which should never have even opened up. Forgive me for my pedantry, but it would never even appear were more reading of books, as opposed to internet tertiary sources, done, and less memorization of the huge Wiki rule book undertaken as an instrument in edit battles. Sophomoronically yours Nishidani 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that link - redundant and again, IMO, smacking of undue weight. Not sure if I like the word "controversial" either - this word rarely has a legitimate use in an encyclopedia IMO, but I've left it there for now. Gatoclass 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that "controversial" is a loaded term easily abusable for POV-mongering purposes, in this case I argue that it fits. Groupthink 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case you are probably right, but I often find myself asking if the word is really necessary on an encyclopedia. IMO, even when it might seem appropriate, I feel the "controversy" can often be discussed without needing to actually employ the word :) Gatoclass 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a matter of "A+ = A-", Nishidami, rather the problem is that the text can be misread in a variety of different ways - which only serves to further underline its inadequacies. Gatoclass 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Gatoclass, in the last 75 years, certainly since Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity, down to the latest works of linguistic and philosophical analysis, of varying trends, through Austin, Derrida, Ricks, et alii., that 'the text (any text) can be read and misread in a variety of different ways' is a commonplace. You prefer 'misread', which favours the mistaken premise that several editors can establish what no single master of language has ever managed to achieve, an unambiguous, straightforward text that resists all attempts to distort its intended meaning(s). It is hard enough to rein in the implications of a well-nurtured text, without encumbering its possible phrasing with riders that aim to stop those incapable of following the general drift of a text from misreading it. If, in our brief dialogue, we have, as both of us protest, been misunderstood, what then of the text we write together. In reading what others write, 'ognuno tende a tirare l'acqua al suo mulino'. Nishidani 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Resetting indent. As a note, it gets more difficult to read discussion if it gets severely indented. I don't think this level of debate over this line is warranted. In any debate its simple to personalize and difficult to stick to the issue - the issue in this case is the wording of one line of the intro. While the intro is important, anyone with any serious interest in the subject will certainly read the article.

I don't think having two introductory paragraphs is a sin, and I am happy to have the mention of the DePaul episode in the second paragraph. Also -- as I'm sure you are aware, the fact of his resignation is not terribly significant. DePaul granted him a years leave which he decided not to accept - as you know, tenure denial typically leads to immediate dismissal. Avruch 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal. Isarig 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to the new language of resignation. My edit is based on the understanding that tenure denial is typically followed by dismissal, as was assured in this case. I'm not attached to the language necessarily, but it is important to distinguish between voluntary resignation of his position and the reality in this situation. Avruch 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's original research, and I've reverted it. However, I have restored the two paragraph version, which is apparently your preference and which is also acceptable to me. Gatoclass 05:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass's mediation seems to me both sensitive and reasonable.Avruch has a point on the implications of tenure denial, but if clarification is required, it is perhaps better left to the expansion below. He is a political scientist, but a highly specialised one, whose work is not in general theory but almost exclusively focused on that one area. Therefore, the only point I think lacking essentially is a specification of his field of research. Gatoclass wrote in the discussion that he 'is an established and highly qualified expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict', which is too long and judgemental, and subject to POV claims. I think it appropriate to round off and stabilise consensually the intro, to specify that qualification, with something alone the lines of:-

'an American political scientist, specializing in Israeli-Palestinian relations/history/conflict, who . .'

With this succinct qualifying parenthesis, the reader has, in the intro. as now basically stabilized, all the elements for contextualising the controversy mentioned below. Regards Nishidani 09:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)