Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 5

GA on Hold

GA review:

• ouch! This is a huge can of WP:BLP worms.
• I added one {{cn}} tag, but in all this article is very well-referenced.
• The article seems stable and has no {{NPOV}} tags. At least to the eye of someone completely uninitiated in related topics, it seems relatively well-balanced, if skewed a bit in Finkelstein's favor. [The criticisms come later in the article...] Watch out for sneaky little NPOV question marks buried in innocent-seeming adjectives: "meticulous" "groundbreaking" etc. The point of NPOV is not (only) to give equal time to both points of view. The point is this: after reading the article, I should be unable to recognize the viewpoint of its dedicated editors.
• The most damaging flaw at present is the lede (please read WP:LEDE carefully). It does not summarize the article, and more crucially, it does not give insight into the controversy that Finkelstein is/was involved in. Forex, I read in the lede that he was denied tenure, but had no idea why... so it needs a bit of info from the "Tenure denial" section... There are also crucial bits of info early in the "Praise and criticism " section that need to be summarized in the lede.
• See here for some potential wikilinks. Most look like garbage, but some seem high-value.
• There are long, longer and too-long quotes. Please summarize/condense, perhaps moving the full quote to Wikiquote
• The references are... what format is that? No offense intended, but to me it looks a bit jumbled. I don't suppose that's a fatal flaw at the GAN level, but FAC reviewers should complain (but lately there have been too many FACs and not enough reviewers...). I sorta kinda suspect you're gonna hafta rework them at some point.
• There are some unnecessarily complex sentences. Here are two examples, please check carefully for others:

• Finkelstein in his doctoral thesis, by minutely examining all of the sources Peters harvested and the way she used her evidence, concluded that the book, elsewhere acclaimed as a breakthrough into a balanced perspective on Jewish-Palestinian demographics, was nothing more than a what he now calls a "monumental hoax".
• Finkelstein also had his supporters however. Raul Hilberg, widely regarded during his lifetime as a leading expert among Holocaust researchers, said the book expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.'

• Drop me a line if you have questions. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The cite and the orphan (2)

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

OK. I'm back. Speaking as someone who (I solemnly affirm) has absolutely and positively no horse in this race, I see absolutely no reason for the cited text to remain in the footnotes. However, I do see a compelling rationale for retaining the hyperlinks in the footnote (or footnotes — I envision two separate ones). From a purely logical point of view, the quoted text does not need to be included in the footnote (and in fact is redundant) because it is there for all the world to see on the two webpages offered in the hyperlink in the cite. As per WP:BOLD I'm gonna make the changes now. I hope the editors of this page will recognize that my actions are based purely and what would seem to be well-formed text and footnotes, rather than partisanship of any kind. Cheers! Ling.Nut 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK finished now. I also noticed that both footnotes point to the same URL but are formatted differently, plus there is an orphaned (2) in what is now footnote 16. I tried to retain the original formatting, other than linking to the title rather than an unadorned URL... I really have to complain again about the inconsistent formatting of the footnotes. I hate to kick a dead horse, but although this might slide at the GA level, it really needs a complete overhaul, in my opinion. Cheers. Ling.Nut 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The lede, folks..

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

Any better? Avruch^Talk 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Looks pretty good to me. I'd like to see what Gatoclass, Nishindani and some others think, but it seems reasonable. Avruch^Talk 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is still unbalanced; most of it ids about criticism and controversies, and almost half deals with his dispute with Dershowitz. This should, of course, be in the intro; but so should something about Finkelstein's real achievements, his books, and the praise from people like Chomsky, Said and Hilberg. RolandR 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I meant "books", not "hooks", and have corrected above. Hilberg is considerably less "left of centre" than Chomsky, and probably the acknowledged expert in the field, so I will add a statement from him later. Most of Finkelstein's achievements are mentioned in the article: the detailed exposure of the Peters fraud, his critique of the Goldhagen thesis (not covered enough in the article), his identification and analysis of "the Holocaust industry", and his analysis of US coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I'll try to deal with this later. RolandR 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I must agree that there is a little too much emphasis on controversy and not enough on positives in the intro. My tweaks of the current intro were not indicative of some kind of endorsement, but were just intended as a quick fix of a couple of glaring problems that I thought needed fixing while the larger debate continues. Gatoclass 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

PS Oh, about the level of detail in the lede, I found a nice little bit of info here: WP:BETTER#Lead section. Ling.Nut 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut We pared down the lead to avoid the numerous complications (hypernuancing POV battles of the deadliest sort) arising from its earlier expansion several months ago. Those complications have been reintroduced. To my eyes at least, the lead suggests Finkelstein is a rather erratic critic, posing as a scholar, whose pretensions were unmasked by the University, which denied him tenure. That is the drift, and a serious imbalance, of the most innocent kind, appears to have been created. This will evidently require work, (I’m for trimming, not expansion) and, since I will not be around for some time, I can only provide here, rapidly, some immediate impressions I have had on reading the lead. I'm delighted however to see a Wikipedian with lead expertise around to help us iron this out. To my mind the real work lies later down, in thickening out the analysis of his several controversies.

I A (Text as it stands) ‘A self-described "forensic scholar," Finkelstein's books direct sharp criticism against writers whom he accuses of engaging in Israeli apologetics’

Problem. ‘Israeli apologetics’ is a poor phrasing. It is unfocused and ambiguous. What Finkelstein specializes in is the close examination of primary sources used by writers with a high public or academic profile engaged in defending and justifying what they take as Israel’s immaculate political history in the Middle East and record on human rights etc. His work assumes that there is an objective record, which all may consult, and that this record is systematically, when not ignored, twisted in public debates, academic works and the mainstream media. What upsets him is not the 'defence/apologetics' (he has had high regard for the historical work of an apologist for ethnic cleansing, Benny Morris, because Morris's works are intensely archival, and cast full light on the archival record). He is upset by the way the writers he attacks appear to show contempt for what the sources and records say.

1 B(Suggested alternative) 'A self-described 'forensic scholar,' Finkelstein's books are sharply critical of several prominent writers and scholars, whom he accuses of fudging the documentary record in order to defend Israel’s policies and practices.

2 (A) His critical review of work by Dershowitz led to a long standing and heated personal rivalry between the two that reached its height during Finkelstein's bid for tenure at DePaul.[1]

Problem (i) His review didn’t lead to a ‘long-standing’ ‘rivalry’. One can say 'a long-standing rivalry led to a personal quarrel that reached its height . .', but not that a critical review led to a long-standing rivalry (meaning the rivalry preexisted the critical review by several years). ‘Led’ and ‘long-standing’ don’t stand easily together, in short).(ii) Secondly ‘rivalry’ pitches the altercation as essentially a reciprocal enmity between ‘prime donne’ (prima donnas?), reducing a political debate over technical issues of facts and their representation to one of shrewishly petty personal rivalry. (iii)One should not end this passage by omitting the key factor that Dershowitz personally intervened and lobbied to get Finkelstein’s tenure denied. As the passage runs, with the subsequent passage noting that tenure was denied him, it looks very much as if de Paul acted in an abstract and purely bureaucrartic manner, arriving at its decision in an atmosphere devoid of intense controversy, publicity and lobbying. The latter may not have been a factor in their decision, but it was certainly a very visible part of the context in which that decision was taken.

2. B (Suggested alternative) 'His review of work by Dershowitz led to a protracted quarrel between the two that peaked during Finkelstein's bid for tenure at DePaul, against the renewel of which Dershowitz openly lobbied.(citation needed)'

3.(A) 'His tenure was denied in part because, according to the university president Dennis Holtschneider, Finkelstein's 'unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration.'

Problem. ‘In part’ is meaningless. The lead should give a minimum of information about the fact that Holtschneider’s board of final review overrode 2 lower committees, to avoid the impression the lead abundantly carries, i.e. that Finkelstein is nothing more than an abrasive and intemperately critical chap, who fails to observe the proper criteria for academic competence.

3. B (Suggested alternative, to be precised down) ‘De Paul’s Tenure Board overrode two lower committee recommendations supporting Finkelstein's bid (in the Department of Political Science and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences*). University president Dennis Holtschneider, in explaining the decision, maintained that Finkelstein's 'unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration.'

(*It's more complicated than that the second committee approved with a reservation, and the Dean in reviewing its deliberations, was minded to argue against tenure.)

4.A ‘On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on undisclosed terms’

Problem: Coming after Holtschneider’s remark, this suggests Finkelstein gave up and accepted more or less because he had no defence against those accusations. In fact the resignation was delivered after words to the effect that Finkelstein was a fine teacher at de Pauls had been written into the official de Paul account of the settlement. Adding those words would balance the preceding remark.

4 B (Suggestion) ‘On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on undisclosed terms. The University recognized that Finkelstein had been 'a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher’ while Finkelstein thanked ‘de Paul's honorable role of providing a scholarly haven for me the past six years.’
Buon lavoro a tutti Regards Nishidani 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. in para 2 these two remarks could be eliminated without damage (obvious, uninformative), or merged for the sake of brevity:-

(a)Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy, attracting a number of supporters and detractors across the political spectrum

(b)Finkelstein and his critics have exchanged charges that their respective views spring from a political agenda.
(39 words)

If retained, something like. ‘Finkelstein’s career has thrived on controversy. His argument that a political agenda dominates much commentary on Israel is shared by his critics, who instance his own work.’
(27 words)

Eliminating them, however, would, in my view, much improve the concision desired, at no substantial loss.Nishidani 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nisidani, these are excellent observations and suggestions! Pinkville 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Reworked section

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

Two more days on Hold

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

oops! hiding in plain sight. reverse course .

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

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

DePaul, embattled professor settle dispute

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

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

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

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

oops again

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

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

lede redux, please check

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

Looks good to me. That may be a black mark, for some. Andyvphil (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a very, very minor change to the last bit - inserting a direct quote from the statement by DePaul. Hopefully this isn't a problem. I think the lede is fine, although I've said that about a number of different versions. Basically, I'm not nitpicky. I think any ambiguity can be cleaned up later in the article. In fact, some ambiguity can be constructive if you have space constraints (as we do, in order to keep to the idea of a 'lede'). I think we should let it sit as is for awhile. Actually, I think we should let the whole article sit for a little while. Its in damn good shape (imho, and I'm not a FAC reviewer) and the next big cleanup should be aimed at those ugly references. Avruch^Talk 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made an excellent attempt, but, unfortunately, the result is very misleading. I'm troubled by not being a Finkelstein scholar, yet I know enough of his work and orientation to understand that the lead - as it is - misrepresents him and his work. In fact, the lead is worse than it was a short while ago... (before Nishidani's suggestions). Let me take one example. The refusal of his tenure was exceptional - that is to say, possibly without precedent [!]- but in the lead this extraordinary measure taken by the higher-ups at DePaul (and with Dershowitz's involvement) is mentioned with an eerie matter-of-factness. I'm not sure, yet, how to address this and other issues... they're very subtle, but they ought to be addressed. Finkelstein is a smallish voice against a large opposition... "Balance" shouldn't mean creating a false equivalency between him and his detractors (e.g .Dershowitz. et al). Pinkville (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• You are right that the pursuit of balance should not have the unintended effect of giving undue weight to either side by absolutely insisting that both arguments rec'v equal weight. In the case of controversial people/issues (as we have here), NPOV means that after reading the article, I should not be able to tell whether or not its editors support Finkelstein & his work.
• I understand your point about "unprecedented." Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a concise quote from a reliable source which says that it is unprecedented. In Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what you know or believe; it only matters what you can cite to a RS. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

specialising in Jewish-related issues I don't think this phrase has any meaning. It would be better to talk about what he specifically has written about. This sentence: His writings, noted for their support of the Palestinian cause[1] have dealt with politically-charged topics such as Zionism, the demographic history of Palestine and his allegations of the existence of a Holocaust Industry. is entirely confused/ing. All these issues are politically-charged, and at the same time, the order is misconstrued. The sentence will require some work. A prominent supporter, Chomsky, has been incorrectly left out of the lead. The discussion of Finkelstein's DePaul tenure process remains problematic. Pinkville (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Add Chomsky's name after the two historians: "and linguist Chomsky". Ling.Nut (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not just "linguist" - in this case it might be more as political theorist, etc. But how about just "Noam Chomsky". Pinkville (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Chimsky? That's an unintentional ha ha I'm sure. But make sure he isn't confused as a historian!!
• As for "specializing", quote and cite Shlaim: "the study of Zionism.. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and... American attitudes towards Israel and towards the Middle East." Ling.Nut (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we just put the whole article in the lede? What does it mean 'the order is being misconstrued'? Do you want the demographic history of Palestine first, Zionism second and Holocaust last? Or are you saying that it should be written in the order it appeared in his career? I'm not sure why that would be important. As for the unprecedented nature of his tenure denial, I'm not sure I understand that either. I would agree obviously that it was unusual in how public it was, and in the prominence of his detractor (Dershowitz) but I'd attribute that to the fact that he picked prominent targets. Tenure denial, itself, isn't terribly uncommon. You also describe it as 'the discussion of...tenure process' but I'd submit that its the intro, not a complete discussion. At this point, I would understand if LingNut feels it necessary to fail the article vs. GA requirements of stability. Avruch^Talk 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• It may be unprecedented that he was not allowed to teach an additional year after losing his bid. It is somewhat less unprecedented, I presume, that the President overruled various committees. an try to find a cite to this effect, and tack it on.
  • Oops, "The seven members of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure — which voted 4-3 against granting Finkelstein tenure in the political science department..."
• Speaking purely as an individual, and not with reference to any Wikipedia guidelines etc., I think the article is not in any way aided by mentioning Chomsky's support in the lede. Sure, Chomsky is his staunchest supporter, but that's a bit like saying that the Pope is the staunchest supporter of Catholic doctrine. Chomsky is a linguist, plus an extremely partisan political cheerleader. He is neither a historian nor a bona fide political theorist. [Note that my ABD is in linguistics ;-)] The reason Shlaim and Hilberg are mentioned is because they have tremendous credibility in this area. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree about the principle you're not quite expressing. Sounds too much like Nishidani's obtunded credentialism. Lede summarizes article. If Chomsky's support is significant to Finkelstein's story it should be in main and lede in rough proportion to its importance. Andyvphil (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see what you mean about Chomsky. But call him a linguist, not a historian or political theorist, unless you can back up the term with a reliable source. I added Chomsky. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• OK, for my part, my contribution is completed. I have no doubt that he lede as it stands needs a bit of touching up to make its text flow in a more professional manner. However, I'm convinced that is serves the purpose that a lede should serve:
• I think the fact that the tenure denial is described as "controversial" is enough info for the lede. Sure, he wasn't allowed to teach. Sure, that's unusual. But that can be covered in the body, not the lede. I agree with Avruch; we can't put the whole kitchen (including the kitchen sink) in the lede. The aspects of the controversy that were unusual can be placed in the body.. unless you can find a reliable source that describes the tenure denial process as "unusual" or "unprecedented" .. in which case, simply add that particular adjective plus a link to the full ref.. easy. :-) That would be enough; the details are for the body.
• Please bear in mind: I would have failed the article with the original lede. It simply did not do anything at all to summarize the issues.
• What little I've done here is all I can do. :-) The time for the Hold is expired. If the lede as it stands is well and truly unacceptable, then the best thing would be to fail the GA for now. I say not that in the sense of "I'll take my ball and go home," but in the sense of "there's always plenty of time to work things out." Failing a GA is truly no big deal. You can hash out the lede and re-nominate at any time.
• I'll come back here tomorrow to see what folks say. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that every time I look at this article I find something seriously out of whack, so failing GA wouldn't break my heart. But practically everything you've done has been good, with only a few tweaks required, and entirely sane, which is remarkably unusual and therefor surprisingly praiseworthy. Consider yourself praised. Andyvphil (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly much better than it was a couple of days ago, although I still have a few quibbles. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PASS WP:GA

• Congratulations on a well-written and well-researched article! Now onward and upward — get to work brining it up to WP:FA quality! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede inserts (both unnecessarily and I think wrongly) that Finkelstein specialises "in Jewish-related issues". This is classic weasel-wording by the supporters of Israel leading directly to their favourite smear - that any criticism about Israel must concern it's (rather limited) Jewishness, and hence that anything critical is likely anti-semitic. I find it hard to accept this isn't fairly clear to every reader.

However, I can and must congratulate everyone on the rest of the article, which treats this difficult subject tolerably well. The most blatant omission I can see is that one member of the "Holocaust Industry" has now been convicted (after a 6-year trial!) for defrauding the victims of millions. Finkelstein is the pre-eminent documenter and critic of this charlatanism - in fact, he's been a one-man band, and has suffered great hatred for it. The "success" of this court case is a real feather in his cap. PR^talk 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"citation needed" for Democracy Now! interview quote re:Turnspeak

I suck at wikipedia but the quote appears to come from this interview at roughly 22:40 - 23:20 :

Hopefully someone smarter than me can edit in the reference appropriately. Apologies if I did this wrong.98.224.242.9 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops this is the reference: http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/24/scholar_norman_finkelstein_calls_professor_alan98.224.242.9 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press... Hezbollah

I'd like to note that the paragraph beginning The Associated Press reports that Finkelstein recently said that the Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah represents "hope", which is found in the Praise and criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship section, isn't an example of praise or criticism and has nothing (visibly) to do with his scholarship. If this bit of trivia is worth keeping at all, it should surely go elsewhere in the article. Pinkville (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press reports that Finkelstein recently said that the Islamist group Hezbollah represents "hope." "After the horror and after the shame and after the anger there still remain a hope, and I know that I can get in a lot of trouble for what I am about to say, but I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland," Finkelstein told reporters.<ref> [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942454.htm U.S. academic Finkelstein meets top Hezbollah official in Lebanon ]</ref>

I've moved the passage here... On further reflection I realised that there's really little of value in the passage at all (at least as it stands). The introductory sentence merely repeats what is in the quote, no background is provided for the quote itself or the position Finkelstein is represented as holding, and the link is a dead link. If this is to be returned to the article, it needs much more work. Pinkville (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two would be appropriate, the quote was prominently featured in a Daily Star piece on his visit and picked up by Ha'aretz. It is not "criticism" of course. Um, actually it seems to be featured already, now that I look, under a section "Political activity" which is devoted solely to the one quote. That's awfully strange given that Finkelstein has been politically active since 1982! <eleland/talkedits> 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should add more, but I don't believe it is that simple. Almost all his academic activity was highly politicized, so in this context, political activity would probably mean meeting with or promoting political interests directly, and Finkelstein probably didn't do a lot of that. Depends on how you look at it. --Akvak (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it back in since it appeared sourced and relevant but will deferr to others about where or of it should remain. I will not add it back again, thanks, --Tom 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the passage (as it stands) amounts to nothing more than trivia and doesn't really deserve to be included - though I can imagine it as part of a lengthier section on a related issue (e.g. Finkelstein's lecture tours? etc.). Such a quote, with virtually no context or background, doesn't say anything noteworthy. What else has he said about Hezbollah? about other Islamist groups in the area? and what were the circumstances that led to this quote?, etc. These are the sorts of questions that beg to be addressed in any text that would include this quote. Glad the link was fixed - though the original Haaretz article isn't much to write home about... Pinkville (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay out - Pinkville is correct that it doesn't add anything of particular note to the article. It might be something that is considered controversial, if it gets a reaction that indicates it is, but in the mean time it is one of however many thousands of press quotes he is given that we don't include. I would like, personally, to maintain a high standard of inclusion for content in this article to hold on to the GA status for as long as possible (losing it is inevitable, IMHO). ^Avruchtalk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Caution to editors involved in RfAr for Israel/Palestine

Please do not bring the broader conflict here. This article is tangentially related, and if it becomes a new focus of activity from the group of folks involved in the questionable conduct related in the RfAr it will be pointed out in evidence and could subject you to additional (more severe) restrictions based on spreading the fire. ^Avruchtalk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein in interview with Lebanese Future TV: "Israel has to suffer a defeat".

This article seems to be so caught up with Finkelstein's hysteria and desire to portray him as a serious scholar of great merit, that it fails to catch the basic flaws in his polemics. This interview of Finkelstein is a case in point: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1676.htm He not only intimidated and tried to shut up his Lebanese interviewer (who attempted quite plainly to tell him that as a visitor to Lebanon, he was essentially interfering in the internal affairs of the Lebanese by so blatantly issuing polemics expressing solidarity with Hizbullah), he also presented opinions as though they were facts and made numerous factual errors. He presents a slogan "Never forgive and never forget" as though this were some kind of slogan of the Jewish people, yet this is a perversion of the truth, as the usually quoted line is , "We can forgive, but never forget", as shown in this article on the website of the Jewish Defense League, not exactly known for its docility: http://www.jdl.org/misc/forgive.shtml He also presents "the Communist resistance" as a distinct object of particular veneration during the struggle against Nazism in World War II, which is a clear attempt to stack the deck. The Red Army was heroic in its defense of the Soviet Union and defeat of Nazi Germany after Operation Barbarossa, but what about before?, and what about its post-war occupation of Eastern European "satellite nations"? Winston Churchill, an avowed anti-Communist, spearheaded a virtually lone struggle against Nazi Germany at a time when the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were adhering to their infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. When the Wehrmacht marched into western Poland and ignited the War, the Red Army merely adhered to their side of the bargain by marching into Eastern Poland and claiming it for the Soviet Union. Communist parties outside the Soviet Union towed Stalin's line by adhering to "neutrality" and denouncing the declaration of war by Britain and France as "imperialist". This policy resulted in the Communist party being banned in France in 1939. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRcommunist.htm On a somewhat tangential note, it might interest Finkelstein, who rails vituperatively against Zionism, to note that the Jewish fighting organizations that led the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the ZOB and the ZZW, were Zionist in orientation, and that initially the non-Zionist socialist Bundists and Jewish Communists objected to the setting up of armed Jewish resistance, for fearing of creating a rift with the rest of the Polish population, until ultimately they were absorbed into the left-wing Zionist ZOB. Getting back to my original point, Finkelstein also displays a rather unjustifiable position, rather alarming for someone who is considered a great scholar, when he says "I do want to express my solidarity with Hizbullah", immediately followed by "I don't care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don't know much about their politics." But if those "politics" are based on the elimination of the state of Israel, or on the directives of the Iranian Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guards, or on importing the Iranian Islamic Revolution and imposing its dogmas on the Lebanese majority that are not privy to it, or on initiating a cross-border military attack against Israel without the approval or consent of the Lebanese government, then on what account does Finkelstein consider Hizbullah a "resistance organization", as he puts it? The Lebanese interviewer pointed out, in response, that Hizbullah could be considered as such before 2000, but then, "In 2000, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon. There was a rift within Lebanon betwee the internal political players on the issue of the future of the weapons and the issue of the resistance...You are now taking sides. After all, you say you are only visiting Lebanon, but you don't see the ramifications of the July war for the people." to which Finkelstein responds curiously that she is "closing her eyes", and Israel began "planning for a new war right after they were forced to leave in 2000. They found their excuse, their pretext, in July 2006. But there was no question among rational people that Israel was never going to let the Hizbullah victory go by.", to which the interviewer responds, "The war could have been avoided." It is not that Finkelstein ignores the fact that Israel did not allow numerous Hizbullah cross-border incidents and provocations to descend into a full-scale war between 2000 and 2006, but rather that his comments betray his real attitude, i.e. THE NEED FOR A PERPETUAL WAR AGAINST ISRAEL UNTIL ISRAEL IS DEFEATED, EVEN IF IT IS ACROSS A RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY SEPARATING TWO INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATIONS. The interviewer pops the big question, "Is there no other way than military resistance?" , to which Finkelstein gives his "piece de la resistance": "I don't believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn't want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could. So I am not saying that I want it, but I honestly don't see another way, unless you choose to be their slaves". And finally, "There will be a leader who comes to power in Israel, who is willing to make the concessions after the conditions have been created, namely, Israel has to suffer a defeat." It is now possible to read Finkelstein like an open book. This is not about Israel living in peace on one side of the international Blue Line border, and Lebanon on the other, and everything being hunky dory. Such a border already exists. Neither is this about a minor border issue dispute, like the Shebaa Farms issue, as Finkelstein never even brought it up. This is about what Fidel Castro called "the war of ideas", and it is clear that Finkelstein harbors a deep-seated hatred against Israel and everything it represents to the extent that he is willing to see the territory of a neighboring country, which Israel does not occupy (as confirmed by the UN), be deployed as a spring board and a launch pad for a perpetual war against Israel, until it is "defeated", in order to execute an idea, HIS idea, regardless of the ideas of the Lebanese people themselves, and regardless of the ideas of the striking arm which he is goading into waging this war. But of course, conveniently, he will not be the one involved in the execution and realization of this glorious idea, and the inevitable death and destruction it will lead to across the board. This is not scholarship, and the Wikipedia article should stop trying to sugar coat Finkelstein as some sort of great guru or scholar. This is indoctrination and preaching of incitement, and Alan Dershowitz should be commended for confronting him in debates and taking him to task for his endless polemics. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Davidson (talk • contribs)

Speaking of polemics, don't forget to sign yours. Pinkville (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to "Never Forgive, Never Forget", this jewish journalist seems to contradict what you're saying when she says the advice "never forgive, never forget" was from her upbringing in an article unrelated to Finkelstein. Is she lying too? You seem to be using an interview as an attack on all the work he's produced throughout his professional career. Furthermore, you're commending Alan Dershowitz, a man who's constantly tried to smear his opponents by calling them anti-semites, holocaust deniers, etc, for the slander he's committed against Finkelstein. Coeus (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, we can get Norman to cosign, because much of my "polemic" is based on quotes that come directly from him. But then again, I am not claiming to be a scholar in the field, nor seeking tenure on this subject, nor am I accusing him of plagiarising his work simply because I oppose his point of view. J.D. Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.28.112 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support of Hezbollah

Hey guys, I added a section to this about his declared support for Hezbollah. I don't have too much experience though with adding sections and for some reason the bullets got under my paragraph. Anybody know how to separate those bullets into a separate section? Also, we need some more in the section I just wrote, including reactions, etc. Thanks a lot

Brad Kgj08 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't necessarily a catalogue of recent events. The article attempts to be a considered biographical piece, representing each piece of his life with due weight (see WP:WEIGHT). This stuff that has happened in the last few weeks does not deserve an entire section to itself. If it can be incorporated into an existing section, or a new section with a wider scope, then that would be fine. This is a GA-class article... While it isn't guarded with the intensity of an FA, it'd be nice to keep it high quality and well supported anyway to maintain its recognition. Avruch ^T 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about recentism. However, I think we do need such a section to record his support e.g. for a two state solution and for violent resistance to Israel. It happens that the items cited up to now are recent, but that isn't the same as recentism. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need an entire section for one view, or for events that have just barely occurred. If there is going to be a political activity section, which is potentially reasonable if he is politically active on a regular basis, then it should include more than just this incident and it should probably be proposed here before adding it into the article. I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but I do not want the section as is part of the article and I suspect I'm not the only one among regular editors of this article. Avruch ^T 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I similarly dislike the section as it currently stands. The point form is ugly and, in fact, the section says nothing about his political activity; a small selection of quotes probably isn't the best way to summarise his political activity - or even his political views (which is closer to where the current section is leading). Pinkville (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you either. But I only fact-tagged the two state solution thing within the last hour and would have rather that it was left there a bit longer to see if someone could come up with a WP:RS.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your intent, and I don't think its a very problematic violation of WP:BLP, but it is technically controversial and unsourced and as such its traditionally removed and reinserted only when cited. Avruch ^T 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Brad.

I've now incorporated your point into the bullet lists. If you had edited the political views section you would have a seen an asterisk before each item. That is the way bulleting is done.

Please also note that it is against Wikipedia to editorialise. You can't just claim Finkestein is a traitor; you need to find a reliable source mentioning Finkelstein being denounced by a notable person and report that the person called him a traitor. Similarly, if you want to show that Hitler was evil, you can either quote various sources that describe him as evil, or you could record the facts that he ordered the invasion of many coutries and in the Holocaust he caused the deaths of approx 6m Jews and 5m others. Then you can let the readers decide he was evil. It is also against Wikipedia policy to carry out WP:Original Research which includes connmecting the dots in arguments. So you can't go, Finkelstein gave his support to Hezbollah, Hezbollah killed lot's of Finkelstein's compatriots, people who support organisations that kill their compatriots are traitors, therefore FInkestein is a traitor; you have to find a reliable source that shows those dots being joined by someone else. I hope this helps.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not make any more conclusions/assumptions other than what the article mentioned. I should have maybe included the quote from the article about treason. I certainly never said anything conclusively as to whether or not it was treason. Also, support of Hezbollah is a huge deal. Virually ever supporter of the KKK will have a mention of that in the first paragraph of their wikipedia page. Supporting a terror organization is an extremely important fact to note. It should not be made to look like a minor point at the end of an article. This needs to be in the first paragraph. Hezbollah is a terror organization devoted to killing thousands based on a radical ideology. Support of this group is an extremely important piece of biographical information that should be mentioned in the initial paragraph. The same would be done with any right wing hate group in this country (KKK, Westboro Baptist, etc.) I wouldn't at all be surprised if in the next year we see this man actually tried for treason for his support for Hezbollah. If this man is about to be tried for treason (how often does this happen?), then isn't his support of Hezbollah extremely important to note? After all, this could end up being what puts him in prison for life (or even what puts him to death). -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the Hizbollah line you added to the opening section - placing the phrase there gives it undue weight - particularly as Finkelstein's support for Hizbollah is nuanced and not at all fulsome. Pinkville (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said. His support of Hezbollah could put him in prison for the rest of life, if not, get him killed. I think this is an extremely important biographical fact. Kgj08 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things could get him killed or put him in prison for the rest of his life or otherwise negatively affect his life. A recent example: the infamous denial of tenure at De Paul. The point is, his "support" for Hizbollah is qualified, and should be contextualised. It isn't support for Hizbollah, per se, it's support for people's right to oppose invasion and attack. Whatever he's said about Hizbollah (or any other organisation) ought not to be added as a key feature of his career/life in the lead - it's just one example of his overall political-intellectual approach and thought. Pinkville (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay if you think that Hezbollah fights for justifiable reasons, then when you read that, you'll think of Finkelstein as a supporter of a good cause. But if there are readers who think he supports a terror organization, then they will draw that conclusion about him. People can draw their own conclusions from that. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other organization in the world except for Al Qaeda. Americans might wish to know that little bit of information. You do recognize that this could get him tried for treason? This goes a little bit past a "political-intellectual approach" fact. Kgj08 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks - apart from Finkelstein, of course. And this isn't about Hizbollah. As for Finkelstein's impending trial for treason, let's not waste time with speculations as to what could or might happen in some even darker world than the one we presently inhabit - we're writing an encyclopedia article about what is - at least I hope we are. In fact, read the Fox News (!!??) article again, or better, listen to the Lebanese TV interview itself (it's linked on the article page). He doesn't at all say that he supports Hizbollah - he says he feels "solidarity" with them:

"I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, and I'm not going to be a coward or a hypocrite about it. I don't care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don't know much about their politics and anyhow, it's irrelevant. I don't live in Lebanon. It's a choice that the Lebanese have to make: who they want to be their leaders..." (transcribed from Future TV)

Hardly a ringing endorsement. "Solidarity" is a very different issue than "support", and saying that he "[doesn't] care about Hizbollah as a political organisation contradicts the assertion that he supports them. Pinkville (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Political activity" section

Ah, just a reminder of the 3 revert rule... let's not spin out of control. Having looked again at the cited source - and the interview itself, the assertion that Finkelstein supports Hizbollah is simply inaccurate and shouldn't appear in the article for that reason above any other. Pinkville (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article discusses how he is an expert on Israeli-Palestinian affairs... you don't think that he knows about the politics of Hezbollah? That line at the end was bs. But the fact that he "WANTS to express solidarity" suggests that he stands by them and what they stand for. -Brad 128.175.121.46 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't assume anything about what he knows of Hizbollah. Of course, we can include anything notable and citable that demonstrates what he does know. Expressing solidarity with a people - or a group - does not necessarily mean that one "stands by them and what they stand for" - stands by them, sure. But one may sympathise with a resistance movement without supporting its political or religious, etc. programme. Unless Finkelstein says something more on the subject, there's not enough information to draw any conclusions or to coherently deal with the issue in his biography. Pinkville (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and one of the things I noticed about that MEMRI piece is that it appears to be heavily edited - and not just the video, but the transcription as well. In such circumstances, it's easy to take one or two comments out of context and use them to give a distorted picture of the speaker's views. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Notice that the Fox News excerpts further cut what Finkelstein said, so that the quote above ended with, I don't care about Hezbollah as a political organization. I don't know much about their politics and anyhow, it's irrelevant, leaving out the reason why Finkelstein's thoughts about Hizbollah are irrelevant - that he doesn't live in Lebanon and that Hizbollah's political standing in the country depends on the Lebanese. Of course, Fox News goes on to quote him out of context several times more, and even to completely misrepresent what he said about the Resistance and Communists in WWII... par for the course where that Media Organ is concerned. That source should probably be removed as fatally inaccurate. Pinkville (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I myself have been tempted to take this rambling material out, but have not acted, because while it looks poor compared to the rest of a reasonably chiselled article, clearly it tries to record information of some interest. To avoid an edit war, I suggest we vote, and I hope most of those who have a record of editing on the page to produce a relatively good article participate, vote whether or not to relocate here the gallimaufry of recentist data patched into the article, so that its merits can be discussed. User:Avruch has bannered it under Wikipedia:Recentism, and I too at a glance thught it violates WP:Undue, and at the least it does require the kind of severe controlled editing to concise paraphrase much of the article has achieved. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's move it to the talk page - or vote to move it to the talk page - or whatever. Mind you, I think it can be removed immediately - first, because the quotes have nothing to do with the section heading: Political activity; second, because the information/quotes are decontextualised, vague, and (without more context and further research) trivial; third, because the sources are verifiably faulty (e.g. FoxNews's fractured transcribed excerpts, MemriTV's edited clip of the interview, etc.); and fourth, because the material fails the tests of Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:Undue. Pinkville (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed - it does not accurately reflect his comments, is not representative of the full history of his political activity (assuming there is such a history) and focuses only on events in the last two months which don't need to figure significantly in an article about the entire life of an individual. Avruch ^T 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the focus should be on improving rather than deleting the section. Yes the quotes are recent, but the article has been prone to recentism for at least a year with the whole tenure business. He may or may not get a new post somewhere. But what he does with his enforced sabbatical period is of interest, especially when it involves touring parts of the Middle East. His meeting with representatives of Hizbollah is also an indication of how he is viewed outside academic circles, as is his gaining air space on various Arabic channels. Also his positions on the matters mentioned in the section (support for armed resistance to Israel, wariness about the Tehran conference and how he would be used) are useful in helping people understand his position.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of deleting anything. The suggestion is to remove to this page a poorly worked, badly sourced patchwork of material. I will now do this if it has not already been done. A formal vote hasn't been taken, but old hands familiar with the page seem to agree that it is simply not up to snuff for presentation there in this form, and need extensive review and reworking, perhaps by the originator of the edit. Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Text removed for reworking

Political activity

• Finkelstein has reluctantly supported a Two State Solution as a "necessary step" towards resolution of the conflict. In an interview with Jelle Bruinsma in Groningen on 6 December 2007, he stated:

  No, I do not support a two-state solution. I don't support states. I remain an old-fashioned communist, I don't change my views so radically. I see no value whatsoever in states. If the borders were to disappear between every state in the world, I think it would be a much happier place. I don't support it, in the sense that I support it as a principle. I support it in the sense only that in terms of trying to reduce the suffering and the harm of the Palestinians (and, actually, to prevent Israel from self-destructing), it seems to me a necessary step towards trying to create a better world, a more humane world.

• In January 2008 in an interview with Lebanese Future TV, Finkelstein said, "leaders come last. There will be a leader who comes in to power in Israel who is willing to make the concessions, after the conditions have been created - namely, Israel has to suffer a defeat".
• In January 2008 Finkelstein made a lecture tour of Lebanon during which he met with high-ranking leaders of Hezbollah and defended the organization saying that Hezbollah represents "hope."
• On January 20, 2008, an interview with Finkelstein was conducted in Arabic in which he announced his support for Hezbollah. "I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, and I'm not going to be a coward and a hypocrite about it," Finkelstein said to the interviewer.
• After that, in the same month, he made a series of lectures in British univerisities to present his points of views. Among these views he suggested that Palestinians should destroy the separation wall by picks and hammers and say "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said this wall has to be dismantled".
• In February 2008 in an interview with Al Jazeera English he described Israel as a lunatic state and said: "(Israel) has gone berserk. The whole world is yearning for peace, and Israel is constantly yearning for war."
• Finkelstein rejected an invitation to participate in Tehran's Review of the Holocaust conference in December 2006.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a Great Guy

Why isn't there a more balanced praise section for Norman? The people criticizing him, like Dershowitz, have been proven to be frauds. In Dershowitz's case, the 33-page report by Frank Menetrez showcased how Dershowitz copied Joan Peter's garbage book to the extent where he even had HER errors.

Not to mention that the criticisms listed here are all ad hominem. No one of them provides a counter-argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this article is controled by Finkelstein's supporters. Why not get it over with, eliminate the criticism entirely, and publish ten thousand words of praise for the Great Finkelstein?68.111.71.197 (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Since I visited this page a year or 2 ago it seems highly biased people (obviosuly in favour of Finkelstein) have taken control of this page and removed various legitimate academic criticisms of his work. I remember one in particular of a Professor of History Marc Saperstein. Others have suffered a similar fate. The only ones which remain are where Finkelstein has had huge run-ins with the authors and issued extensive rebuttals, thus conveniently explaining away the original criticsm of his work as sour grapes. This page is highly biased, selective, and full of only partial truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.65.97 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than complaining, why don't you guys contribute to the article if you find that it's missing something of importance. You do know this article is free to be edited right? As long as the edits pass Wikipedia guidelines then there would be no reason to remove them. If there is anything in particular that you feel shouldn't have been removed then please point it out. Please be specific in regards to the "various legitimate academic criticism". Look at the article history and point out what has been taken out without reason. C'mon people, this is an open process. Coeus (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein's Support for Hezbollah

I find it incredibly surprising that Mr. Finkelstein's comments in support of Hezbollah, which he himself has posted on his website, have been kept from this article. Whether you agree with him or not, this is extremely controversial (given that many Western nations - including my own of Canada) have listed Hezbollah as a banned terrorist organization. I have added the section "Support for Terrorism" - and the citation is from Mr. Finkelstein's own website. It is my hope that, in an enthusiastic effort to shield the public from Mr. Finkelstein's controversial statements, his supporters will not remove this relevant content from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlaggen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. If you have added it again, or do so, it will most likely be removed again. Per our policies on articles about living people, found here, material added to this article that is contentious, controversial or likely to be challenged must be referenced appropriately. Additionally, strict scrutiny (not in the legal sense) is applied to the inclusion of material on this article to ensure that it adheres to other article policies - such as verifiability and undue weight. Avruch ^T 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At minimum the title was highly POV, we can't have a section title that says "support for terrorists". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. But perhaps it is time to work on this material. Approached with equanimity it shouldn't take long to find a neutral and synthetic note on his Lebanese tour. Finlaggen and Amoruso have a point, and the fact that this material so far hasn't been worked into the text only tends to give rise to a suspicion that somehow there is a concerted attempt to 'cover up the shocking truth'. But to avoid editing skirmishes and revert wars, the proper place to do this is on the talk page. In the preceding section I carved out a text that gave undue weight to recent opinions, as if they were somehow scandalous. I should like to have it noted for the record that I did not excerpt that material from the text in order to exclude it, but because it was too lengthy and poorly framed, and required careful and consensual editing, towards a neutral synthesis. Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In February when it was proposed (see above) it was a recent event that some were trying to cover with the same prominence as other whole categories of Finkelstein's life and work. There might reasonably be a way to include some information about the tour of Lebanon in an existing section - it certainly doesn't need paragraphs to itself. Avruch ^T 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. How about altering the title to read "Solidarity with Hezbollah" - which is in fact the precise wording that Finkelstein himself uses. In terms of accurate referencing, I did provide the website link to the entire transcript in question (on Mr. Finkelstein's own website).

As many have said, sections like this tend to be ephemeral and weigh too much to incidental matters. A brief synthesis of work already done (checked against the sources) along the following lines, under a section Recent Views,might runs, for example, something like this:-

Finkelstein has supported, reluctantly as an old-fashioned communist, since he is opposed to states, a Two State Solution, as a measure to relieve Palestinian suffering. He has argued that some form of defeat is necessary for Israel as a precondition for the emergence of a leader ready to make what he thinks are the necessary concessions for a peaceful settlement. He has expressed his support for Hezbollah as representative of 'hope',, and dialogued with some high exponents of that movement in a recent tour of Lebanon. He favours a Palestinian movement to dismantle the Israeli West Bank barrier, on the grounds that the ICJ has ruled it is illegal. He has defined Israel as a ‘lunatic state’, out of touch with a world that yearns for peace. He declined to participate in the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, to which he had been invited.

Just a suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks to me like a fine assembly of the controversial points, which invites the reader to either investigate further or move on. PR^talk 09:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least someone replied! I would appreciate it if Avruch could give us an opinion as to whether it might be included or not. His judiciousness on these things has been a guide for me, and I hope for all.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that this section was continuing. At the moment, much of the article is focused on Finkelstein's published work and its criticism and support, as well as the DePaul controversy and (most recently) the deportation from Israel. Including his un-published views would be a step in a new direction for the article. The paragraph above is more finely structured than a bullet point list of publicized (but not "published" per se) political statements, but ultimately I think we'll be listing views that are presented without a common thread because we're not using a reliable source that synthesizes these views into a whole with meaning. Does that make sense? We could trial it in the article and see what others think, although I'd like it if the first sentence there could be rewritten. Its a little awkward (understandably so, of course, given the way he expressed his view). Avruch^T * ^ER 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, over some months, from memory, I recall several editors complaining that the article was pro-Finkelstein, and ignored, or covered up, the dastard side of the record. A good many notes were made, several edits, there was a list of them, wasn't there?. I just thought it proper to suggest a solution (since the material had been ignored) to sum up the 'controversial' recent declarations that are put against his account, and which some wanted registered) by extreme synthesis. As you say, it smacks of recentism. I don't have a position either way, as with the point below. I won't touch my proposal, in any case, but just leave it in here in case editors come back and complain about the article's failure to cover things. If anything it can serve as a reserve template, to be added to, as things occur in his life, for the future. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

lead

the lead paragraph of this article is way to long. can the resident editors please shorten it. thnx. ephix (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've made a go at shortening the lead as requested. The problem is now, however, that what remains makes far too much, as lead material, of both his loss of tenure and his deportation. If my edit were acceptable, then it follows those two paras would also have to be pared down, with part of their material reintegrated into the appropriate sections.Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If my edit is acceptable, then the further edit required to keep the lead short and balanced (in terms of content weighting for relevance) would look something like this:

Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, after a controversial campaign to have him dismissed, and subsequently resigned after a private settlement with the university, which stood by its decision but praised him as a 'prolific and outstanding teacher' On May 23, 2008 Finkelstein was declared persona non grata by Israel and deported from the country.

Were this also acceptable, the relevant original paras. in the lead could then be relocated down the page. These paras are:

- Tenure controversy -

(1) Amidst considerable public debate, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year. Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to derail Finkelstein's tenure bid. On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms. An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, and asserted that outside influence played no role in their decision. The statement also praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."

- Expulsion from Israel -

(2) On May 23, 2008 Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because, according to unnamed Israeli security officials, of suspicions that "he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel". Finkelstein was questioned after his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv and placed on a flight back to Amsterdam, his point of origin. Officials said that the decision to deport Finkelstein was connected to his anti-Zionist opinions and criticism of Israel. He was banned from entering the country for 10 years.

Well, pretty ambitious, and perhaps unnecessary? The tenure denial passage in the lead could simply be dropped and removed, since the body of the article has covered it in great detail. That leaves a section to be introduced with the details of the deportationNishidani (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead was long compared to some other articles, but the detrimental effect of a long intro is minimal in my opinion - its just a stylistic issue, outweighed by the value of having a cogent summary in the article and the history involved in hammering out an introduction acceptable to all the regular editors. If its clear that we shouldn't return to the prior version (which I think we should if only because so much effort went into it) then I think I'd remove the persona non grata issue from the intro, at a minimum, and see about broadening the review of the article without adding too much in length if possible. Avruch^T * ^ER 15:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sensible. I see Gatoclass also was worried by the experiment's second part. I, for one, take you both as authoritative on this, and won't touch it further. I was trying to be responsive to the editor who complained. Still,Avruch, you do have a point about the persona non grata issue. Not for me to mess with now, having proved only that I can be a nuisance.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No nuisance at all. Condensing the lead is a worthy goal, but it might be difficult given the work that went into constructing it. Maybe if we try to condense one paragraph at a time on the talk page? I'll post the first paragraph here, and a suggestion for condensing it.

• Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8 1953) is an American political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues, especially the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A graduate of SUNY Binghamton, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

• Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8 1953) is an American political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish related issues including the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finkelstein, who earned his Ph.D. in political science from Princeton University, has held various faculty positions - most recently he was an assistant professor at DePaul University from 2001 to 2007.

Slightly shorter, we could probably do something similar with the other paragraphs. Thoughts? Avruch^T * ^ER 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the other paragraphs need more than compression. As the lede stands, can't see the wood (NF is an outspoken critic of Israeli policy and the use of the Holocaust to promote her interests; consequently he has been embroiled in several controversies with academics and others who hold opposing views) for the trees (loss of tenure and deportation).--Peter cohen (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that can at least partly be explained by the fact that this is a biographic article that seeks a scope greater than summarizing his views and the associated controversy. We don't want to unbalance what makes him prominent (his work, the critics, the controversy) with biographical details, but certainly the key details should be included in the lead as significant to his life if not why he's notable. Avruch^T * ^ER 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein doesn't actually write about the holocaust, but rather about its political use. I think we should reflect this in the intro; perhaps it should say "issues including the aftermath of the Holocaust", or something similar. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Avruch's précis looks pretty good to me.RolandR has a point. Perhaps if 'including the politics of the Holocaust heritage' were inserted, Roland's point could be accommodated to what is a classy, because stylistically neat and succinct, reworking.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to changes to the lead, including those suggested by Avruch above. There is nothing wrong with the lead as it stands, and it was the result of considerable consultation not so long ago. The lead is brief enough to be quickly read, and detailed enough to give a good overview of the subject. It's fine as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has raised issues with the lead, and the majority of contributors to this thread see to see scope for improvement. In the changes carried out yesterday we have lost a paragaph from the lead, so what you are defending i any cse not a long-sanding version. I repeat that the last two paragraphs are trees - mere incidents in NF's life - and not the wood - that he is an outspoken critic of Israel, in particuar of her conduct towards the Palestinians, and of the us of the Holocaust in pro-Israeli discource. This is not mentioned at all in the current version of the lead.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to be looked at again (closely). Of course there must be mention of his analysis and criticism of Israeli policies re: Palestinians and of the Holocaust Industry, and I believe that a very brief mention of the tenure situation and deportation can be integrated into a rewritten lead. The latter two should not, as they do now, take up two paragraphs, but I do think they are significant examples of the repercussions of his work/criticism of his positions, etc. and so ought to be in the lead. Pinkville (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is appreciated by all that a huge amount of difficult work went into the page, and especially the lead. The only responsible way to go about this is to put in suggestions here, and achieve consensus before editing. Perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to revert to the page as it was before I fiddled experimentally with it, and then discuss possible changes.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how much was involved. I agree with your suggestion. Pinkville (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

thesis - Time Immorial

Who is the author of the thesis chapter. If he has read the thesis, how comes he doesn't know its title? Admittedly this makes me a little hesitant about the content. But I haven't looked closer into this but something confuses me here. Anyway I'll add the real thesis title with a link. Is that OK? Once you know it is easy to find.

Could the the "1984: Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial" entry under bibliography really be his master thesis? 91.0.103.188 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my first idea, but he wrote his MA thesis in 1980. I read somewhere—probably in Beyond Chutzpa--that From Times Immorial caught his attention while researching for his thesis. But after I read his Palestine memories, I decided to start with the thesis. I will return to Beyond Chutzpa after. Chomsky writes [[1]] that with the subject of his thesis he was heading for trouble. Anyway, that his thesis was about 'From Time Immorial' is simply false, but maybe I shouldn't interfere? At least Avruch thinks so. Below a passage from his Abstract:

The thesis is divided into two parts. In Part I, I discuss the manner in which the national idea was conceptualized in post-French Revolutionary Europe. I argue that the central postulate of modern nationalism is the ideal coextensiveness of nation and state. I further argue that, at the most general level, the crucial distinction to be made is between nationalisms in which the nation is viewed as a projection of the state (liberal nationalism) and those in which the reverse relationship is postulated (organic nationalism). In Part II, I argue that the Zionist discourse on the Jewish Question and the anti-Semitic discourse it mirrors and responds to are embedded in the latter, antiliberal variant of the national idea.

I conclude that (1) the conflict with Palestine's indigenous non-Jewish population was prefigured in the exclusivist notion of a state of the Jewish nation. (2) the Zionist analysis of the Jewish Question misapprehended and mystified the nature of modern anti-Semitism, and (3) the Zionist prescription for the Jewish predicament, namely, a state of the Jewish nation, cannot be reconciled with democratic discourse.

In his 'Image and Reality" he partly returned to his thesis. Maybe I will offer a suggestion here, once I finished reading all his books and I will be a bit more careful about my spelling and grammer ;) Maybe I should add: I probably wouldn't have touched his books, hadn't I witnessed some of the Finkelstein hunters, and that was really disgusting to watch. But now I am curious, and I like his style, and I understand his anger LeaNder (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could the the "1984: Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial" entry under bibliography really be his master thesis?

...but he wrote his MA thesis in 1980.

It was - as both this article and other sources (e.g. Chomsky's essay) state - Finkelstein's doctoral thesis, not his master's thesis. There's no chronological conflict, as far as I can see. Pinkville (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is not a "Jewish-related issue"

While the Holocaust is a Jewish issue, the Arab-Israeli conflict isn't. As its name implies, it is a conflict between Israelis and Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TippTopp (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

looking at the lead

Here's a small change to the first paragraph (with more suggestions for the lead to come).

Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8 1953) is an American political scientist and author, focussing on aspects of the political legacy of the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A graduate of SUNY Binghamton, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

The above addresses TippTopp's point, which seems valid to me. Pinkville (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Others?Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's valid about Tip Top's point. The Israel-Palestine conflict is clearly a Jewish-related issue. I like the first paragraph as it is. Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of a good many Jews who don't really care much about Israeli politics or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Are we to imply that Finkelstein's critical attention to this issue is ineludibly bound up with his Jewishness? In part this is true, in his case, but in his memoir, it is also part and parcel of his horror, growing up as an American, at the Vietnam War. I do not think it salutary to ethnicize perspectives. Finkelstein's critiques, like those of so many other critics of that area, draw on a long tradition from the Enlightenment that is, just that, a humanistic perspective in the Western tradition to which we are all, whatever our 'ethnicity' and feelings about it, heir. I recall him saying he personally has little interest in Israel, rarely been there, and in several trips, only went there in order to visit the West Bank. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict may engage a large majority of Jews, but it is not intrinsically a 'Jewish-related issue', unless one embraces the rather dangerous equation of the interchangeableness of 'Israeli' and 'Jew'.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

...Any more than it's a Muslim-related issue (or Christian, for that matter). And well said, Nishidani. Let's keep "Jewish-related issues" to those that have a bearing on the religion or culture of Judaism, or to historical events (e.g. the Holocaust, the explusion of the Jews from England in 1290, etc.) where Jewishness is at the centre. Pinkville (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning that his primary field of interest is in Jewish related matters doesn't seem to me "to imply that his critical attention is bound up with his Jewishness". It just says what it says, I don't see any such implication there. But if push comes to shove, I don't think it would be so outrageous to assume that his background as the child of Holocaust survivors, with a mother who was implacably opposed to Israel, has had a lot to do with his field of study. So either way I don't see a problem. He is in many ways primarily a critic of his own people. And I certainly don't think that's occurred just by accident. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

One of his primary fields of interest is Palestine and Palestinians, who are not Jews. I could again underwrite much of what you say. It is a matter of nuance. One can be primarily a critic of one's own people (I dislike phrasing like that. I don't think the contingencies of birth destine one to have an ontological link to all people of similar ethnicity. I can't use that wittingly of my own ethnic background, but perhaps it's just my idiosyncratic scruple), and have no interest in others, or sympathy for the other one's own people are seen to maltreat, oppress or wreak violence on. Finkelstein, for one, certainly has very strong empathy with the Jewish 'other', and it is this that makes me personally wary of the phrasing in question. Still, the point is not momentous.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a clumsy phrase, but in my defence it was very late at night when I wrote that.

Getting back to the subject, while I personally think it's self-evident that he's a "specialist in Jewish-related subjects", I am not particularly wedded to the phrase or the notion. Basically, I just think that the current intro paragraph does the job. I am not completely opposed to change, but if changes are insisted upon, then I do at least want to try and ensure that the changes are an improvement rather than the reverse.

Pinkville's proposal above is in my view, far worse than what we currently have. The phrase "focussing on aspects of the political legacy of the Holocaust" is so turgid and clumsy that my eyes are glazing over before I even get to the end of it. Do you really want to inflict boredom and irritation on the reader in the opening sentence? And what does the phrase mean in any case? Are you any the wiser for having read it? Apart from which, it is ambiguous and just basically inaccurate. Does it mean that Finkelstein "focusses on aspects of the political legacy of the Holocaust and of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or just the former? You and I probably know what is intended, but what is the average reader to make of it? And does Finkelstein really spend a great deal of time "focussing on aspects of the political legacy of the Holocaust", or did he just happen to write one particular book on the subject? Long story short, since we don't currently have a proposal that is better than the existing text, I'm in favour of sticking with the latter. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My readiness to consider Pinkville's suggestion lay in his alteration of 'Jewish-related issues' (despite bristling at 'focussing). If the specific point were acceptable, then we could, as with the spelling, adjust it, I thought. A person who specializes in 'Jewish related issues' is problematical because it gives the impression that Finkelstein would embrace the proposition (to rephrase Terence's famous remark) Judaeus sum: iudaeae gentis nil a me alienum puto. In reading Finkelstein, I have never gained that impression that he would accept this ethnic-restrictiveness to his identity as a scholar, and to the scope of his human interests. Many 'Jewish-related' matters would not prepossess him as objects of curiosity. The point may seem a piddling cavil. I have these sorts of problems with lexical tone all over wiki I/P articles, and rarely raise them in order to avoid extenuating bunfights. But if I see others who twig to what has niggled my sensitivities, I am happy to contribute my impressions. What I thought might emerge from Pinkville's suggestion was something along these lines.

Our text

'specialising in Jewish-related issues, especially the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict'

Pinkville's suggestion

"focussing on aspects of the political legacy of the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict '

Possible adjustment

'specializingin/focusing on/ the politics of the Holocaust legacy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict'

I won't press this. I didn't mind the earlier text, which had a huge amount of work put into it, and requires great caution and respect. I feel indeed rather guilty for my having meddled with it, in response to one poster's complaint over length. Nonetheless, entertaining a reflection or two on a little fine-tuning around the margins can't be harmful. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And here's a suggestion that addresses the ambiguity issue raised by Gatoclass and points raised by Nishidani:

"... specialising in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the political legacy of the Holocaust.

specialising and focussing... I'm one of those Canadians who uses a number of British English formations... Actually, one would expect this article to use American spelling, but does it exclusively? There may be a mix; we'll have to check. Pinkville (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like it. I think it's too narrow. What about antisemitism for example? Hasn't he had a fair bit to say about that? Isn't that fundamentally what A Nation on Trial is about - challenging the notion that the Germans were a people brimming with hostility to Jews? Isn't that book about the causes of the Holocaust, rather than its "legacy"? What about his repudiation of "New Antisemitism"? Is that about "the legacy of the Holocaust"?

I just feel that, in the absence of any obvious alternative method of referring to all these different strands of his work, that "Jewish related" seems pretty much as good as anything else. I suppose there might be a better alternative out there somewhere, I just haven't seen one or been able to think of one. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one dropped 'legacy' and just kept 'politics of the Holocaust', that particular issue could be sidestepped? I see him as a humanist in the great Haskalah tradition. Note that he is defending even in the case you raise, Germans against a generic charge made by Goldhagen, just as he defended Palestinians against Dershowitz and Joan Peters. It is his passionate analysis of the political use in some Jewish circles of an ethnic-exclusive approach to Germans and Palestinians that worries me about 'Jewish-related'. He consistently sides with 'them' in the 'us/them' logic. This is a delicate point, I know. It almost looks as though one wants to underplay the intensely Jewish experience as a scion of victims of thed holocaust that in good part underwrite his work. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I tried that. But now that I go back and re-read the intro again, I too am beginning to feel that the intro needs work. With the addition of the Israeli travel ban, I'm inclined to think there is too much negative info in the intro and it needs to be trimmed down a bit one way or another. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed the third paragraph, but I'm thinking the intro could now use an additional paragraph citing some of his achievements so that we don't have two longish paragraphs of negative info there and only one positive, which is a probable breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:BIO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a way of mentioning the deportation and tenure issues in the lead without imbalancing the whole thing, but it will take a little time to prepare the draft. Would you mind waiting to see? Pinkville (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't promise to wait, but you are welcome to have a try if you like. Chances are I won't be finding the time to do much editing on this page for at least the next day or two anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably enough time for me. Cheers! Pinkville (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be interested in seeing a reworking by one or other of you. The WP:UNDUE thing fits with my woods and trees analogy in the section above where we discussed the lead. At least there is now a mention in the third paragraph of his anti-Zionist views, but I think it needs to be higher. Looking at what Nishidani has said, the key thing about Finkelstein's work is that challenges political views about Israel and the holocaust that are mainstream within the Jewish community.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (sig added later)

In the antediluvian world of my youth (raised in the Commonwealth) the rule was to double a final 's' only if the vowel preceding it was stressed, which isn't the case with 'fòcus'!Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky. By the time I was in high school, half the teachers couldn't spell themselves, let alone teach somebody else! Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

semi-protecting

I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet this persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible link

Checking through all the links in the vitriolic Frontpage piece by Steven Plaut which depaulicize has attempted to showcase in the lead, I found the following link informative, David Klein, 'Why is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach?'. Perhaps editors might look it over and consider its merits for inclusion. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See my report at ANI, where I note that depaulicize is clearly yet another clone of the Runtshit/Truthprofessor/Zuminous/Borisyy serial vandal. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Clown, clone, same difference. Thanks Roland.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by User:208.89.209.153 make it clear beyond any possible doubt that this is indeed another manifestation of the Runtshit serial vandal. RolandR (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with this link. It's published in a verifiable academic work. Pinkville (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}}

The protection of this article is indefinite yet the protection template has an expiration date (28 September). A recent Twinkle glitch, I gather. At any event, the date should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the article should not be indefinitely fully protected. The protection placed on 21 September, to prevent defamatory attacks, should be removed now. But, given the nature of the constant vandalism, it would be appropriate to put the article under indefinite semi-protection. This would allow serious, logged-in editors to work on it, but would prevent the drive-by vandalism by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts which has marked this and related articles. RolandR (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the template. Please go to Requests for unprotection and ask there next time. Vandalism once or twice a day isn't enough for full-time semi protection in my mind. I'll keep watch so inform me if I'm being too lenient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not request unprotection; I only wanted the misleading expiration date to be removed from the template. (One note... Why is there this strange code above? I thought people simply used {{tlx}} to "invalidate" the template.) Waltham, The Duke of 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally subst it for no reason. I also seem to have misunderstood your request. Either way, indefinite full protection isn't necessary and from the looks of it, the vandalism has finally died down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Waltham, The Duke of 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)