Jump to content

Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

google "censorship"

Regarding this material[1] please don't add this original research, and do not edit war on the article page. I'll revert in a moment. The discussion is centralized at Talk:Censorship by Google. Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No Archives?

Hi, I have the Archive navigational box top here, but no archives are listed. Anything wrong? -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Formatting problem. Avruch T 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thx -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Visit to Lebanon and barred from Israel

There should be a description regarding his visits and connections with Hezzbolla (there is some stuff on his page). Any case, the place for these things is the general section and not following the bibliography. Mashkin (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice you agree with me it should not be in the intro. Neither should it be called "Deportation" - agree again. Nice to meet you. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Roland?

What on earth is going on here ? There's plenty more, too. That's the gist of the IP edits from the last few months. Vile edits from a bunch of IPs in different ranges. Enigmamsg 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Runtshit RolandR (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Are the IPs being tracked and blocked? The article history has a ton of them. Enigmamsg 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The last two were blocked five years as proxies, so I guess it is being handled. Enigmamsg 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein Jewish or Not

For List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists article list we need info on if Norman Finskelstein is jewish or not. If he is not he will be removed from the list. Do anyone has proper knowledge on this issue. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes he is Jewish. Pinkville (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you mean, is he a practising Jew, then as far as I know he is not; he is an atheist. But if you mean, is he ethnically Jewish, then he has written extensively on this, and on his parent's experience of the holocaust. This appears in countless books and articles, and is not denied by any of his detractors. RolandR (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the info, then as an ethnically jew, he stays on the list. Also can you people review the List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists article, and add remove irrelevant info. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation of name

Possibly, an IPA pronounciation of his name should be added. He pronounces it (in Yiddish) something like "finkel-shti:n" (in the beginning of the trailer of the film about him he pronounces it himself). Garry Losser (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

American Association of University Professors

The language in the article regarding American Association of University Professors ("AAUP") is misleading, due to omissions regarding the nature of AAUP. The articles implies that AAUP represents a plurality or majority of American university professors, where instead, Wikipedia's own article on AAUP indicates it is a very minor organization, representing only 5% of American university professors, as of 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.18.172 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a point but we should find a proper word to state it. Since American Association of University Professors "At present, the Association’s day-to-day operations depend almost exclusively on the dues of its forty-five thousand members. It has no general endowment fund; its dedicated funds are restricted and worth less than $1 million combined." [2] 45 thousand is not a small number either. Kasaalan (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilberg

The article implies that Hilberg has generally praised Finkelstein's writings. Actually, all Hilberg said was that Finkelstein was right about the Swiss bank controversy, specifically that the banks were pressured to pay far more money than they could reasonably be thought to owe Holocaust survivors based on dormant accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.172.198 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Hilberg praises Finkelstein by saying he would among those who 'in the end, triumph'. The only disagreement is w/ Finkelstein's style. Hilberg was a friendly acquantence of Finkelstein's. They had a correspondence and blah blah. In fact, I'll add the quote from Hilberg praising Fink, cuz it IS relevant. This article is taking the POV of Fink's detractors, simply judging by how much space is given to them, over his supporters.

From Time Immemorial

The "from time immemorial" section of this page effectively implies that census and demographic information supports the assertion that the Arab/Jewish population of pre 1948 Palestine actually reached close to 50/50 proportions. The demographic data for this period contradicts this implication. In 1922, the first British census of Palestine shows a population of 757,182, with 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian. Prunesqualer (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Barred from entering Israel

The article kind of implies that Prof Finkelstein was trying to enter Israel when he was stopped and deported. He strenuously denies this, and said :-

"Let’s be clear on a certain point. I was not entering Israel; I have no interest in going to Israel. I was going to see my friends in the occupied Palestinian territories. And Israel blocked me to go and see my friends in the West Bank."

(Source - http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=164483&bolum=8) Title: - "Norman Finkelstein: Israel is committing a holocaust in Gaza".

Can the article reflect that he was trying to enter the West Bank, and not Israel ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.122.129.137 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And then in the same section it goes on to state:

"A few months later, Finkelstein indeed visited southern Lebanon and conducted meetings with Hezbollah officials.[62] He said: After the horror and after the shame and after the anger, there still remains the hope. And I know I can get in a lot of trouble for what I’m about to say, but I think that Hizbullah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland, they are fighting to defend the independence of their country, they are defending themselves against foreign marauders, vandals and murderers and I consider it to be genuinely to be an honor to be in their presence."

I would like to point out that source 62 specifically states that he met with the families of Lebanese killed by Israeli bombs. You cannot call the visit to a place of a massacre simply a meeting with Hezbollah. Without this specifically mentioned in the source it is wrong to assume that a visit to Southern Lebanon was as such.

The essential point, which we Chomskyians know well, is that a descriptively adequate grammar may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a descriptive fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSirgento (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Could someone translate the previous comment into English, please. RolandR (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Room for something a bit more qualitative in lead?

I think it would be useful to include a brief mention of how NF approaches his subjects in the lead section. There's no indication there that he is a critic of Israel, is anti-Zionist or that he considers that the Holocaust is abused for propaganda purposes, nor is there a mention of his writings often being polemical. The reference to Dershowitz makes it sound as if the dispute between them was mainly an academic tiff, when it was political too. This wouldn't be the case if we make clear NF's political stance as Dershowitz's being an opponent woudl them imply the political.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 "Finkelstein is credited by Avi Shlaim, Adam Shatz, Noam Chomsky and others with exposing Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial as a "fraud" and "a monumental hoax"' is now in the introduction before his accomplisments as a author. While some of this critisicm should be mentioned in the introduction, the majority of this information should be moved to a section called 'critisicm of Norman Finkelstein'. --Sleepyhead (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DePaul Official Statement

According to the documentary "American Radical", in 2007, DePaul's dean, Charles Suchar, stated that he opposed the tenure bid because of Norman's "personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz" and others. This runs counter to the official statement from DePaul, strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure and asserted that outside influence played no role in their decision. So perhaps Suchar's comment ought to be included in the preamble in order to give the reader a more accurate picture of the situation. PJ 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobsson (talk • contribs)

Also, regarding statement "...DePaul students staged a sit-in and hunger strike..." is openly misleading. It seems to imply as if ALL students of DePaul staged a sit-in and a strike, when in fact only a small minority of them did. I propose to fix this inaccuracy with a small addition of the word "some" so as to read:

"In June 2007, after two weeks of protests, some DePaul students staged a sit-in and hunger strike in support of both professors denied tenure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlivingston17 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

The article is locked. Can someone add his most recent book? Details are here: http://www.orbooks.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.241.116 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The section, "Statements on Israel and Israelis"

This is just a list of adjectives apparently taken from a single interview. There's no context given to these words. I really cannot think of a way in which this list is relevant to the article. So, it seems to me that the point of this section is simply to characterize Norman Finkelstein as hateful and irrational. Bluemonkee (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and removing cited material without sufficient reasoning

  • Editor shows little understanding of BLP policy. There is nothing "POV" about the edit other than the user doesn't like it.
  • more complaints of "POV" issues. There is nothing POV about the statements made by mainstream organizations. Finkelstein is one of the most controversial academics in the USA. The introduction does not represent Finkelstein accurately. For example:

Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to derail Finkelstein's tenure bid

  • "Derail" is a challenging word. I personally think the tenure issue should be mentioned without citing Alan Dershowitz or any other critic. He was controversial well before the teneure scandal, devoting an entire paragraph and deleting criticism/reception to support with "POV" does not make sense.

He is most known for his harsh opinions towards Israel, not a doctoral thesis on some bogus hardcore Zionist book.

The only good edit is this one where on accident I linked to the wrong wikipedia article.

I really wish edits would go to talk before removing cited material because they disagree with the content. I won't say it is censorship, but it certainly is not encyclopedic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The removals all look plausible. New additions may be removed in good faith per WP:BRD, in which case it is up to the person proposing the additions to establish consensus. The reasons given, WP:BLP and WP:POV, seem sound. Some of the proposed material is WP:SYNTH not stated explicitly in the sources, opinion, and/or not WP:RS. There's probably some stuff in there that could fly if people feel it belongs, other stuff isn't as good. The point that the article is unduly deferential to Finklestein and downplays the extent of his controversy and antagonism towards Israeli policy is duly noted, some of that stuff in the article ought to be reworded. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you give specific examples? I don't see any SYNTH in the edits. I should say the original editor has been hounding me to articles I edit. Ross entered the article and reverted all my contribution under claims such as "POV" and "BLP-violation." I am not convinced this is good faith as you say. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(before edit conflict) Also, I agree that "derail" is too colorful a word. A more neutral thing to say is that Derschowitz' active opposition to Finkelstein's tenure nomination received considerable attention / was a cause for controversy. I think the lede gives too much emphasis to Dershowitz and too much to the tenure decision. Finkelstein would have had tenure problems with or without Dershowitz. The run-ins they had with each other are a very noteworthy part of Finkelstein's biography, though, and are well-covered in the article. I just wouldn't give this small part of it so much attention in the lede. (after edit conflict) The first of the additions characterized F's position justifying the kidnapping, and some other things, and I could not find those exact points made in the cited transcript. They seemed to be more of an analysis of his position based on his writing, not anything he or a third party covering him said outright. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Your right, he doesn't say kidnapping - he says "capture." But they were kidnapped according to everyone else. Can you be more explicit on the other issues? I made sure everything included was cited thoroughly and corroborated by Finkelstein's own words. It's pretty obvious Ross just removed every I wrote and didn't care to actually look at the edits. Finkelstein described Israel as a "vandal" state and I added that, but Ross removed it claiming "POV" or ambiguous complaints of BLP violations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is troubling. I don't know how Ross can claim my edits violated policy when he totally distorts the opinion of Finkelstein and then injects his own personal view of the conflict. "self defense where Israel violates International Law?" How absurd. My edit was far more neutral and contained an explicit, cited statements from Finkelstein, not uncited attributions like Ross' revisions. If anybody is violating NPOV it is obviously Ross. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I am not hounding anyone. If you check the article history you will notice I have been a major contributor to this article and as such have it on my watchlist, I have also been editing all the articles that Wikifan12345 says I have been following him to far longer than he has. Also I will point out that Wikifan12345 is a single purpose account with whom I have recently had a disagreement with in another article over my using Finkelstein as a source, and which I suspect may have prompted him to edit here. Wikifan12345's edits all warrant close examination of their relevance, reliability and POV as would anyone elses edits in an article that has recieved Good Article status. It is up to him to get consensus for his new edits if they are disputed. My edit comments had as sufficient reasoning as space allowed and rather than delete all Wikifan12345's edits as he claims I did leave several untouched and moved another (unaltered) to another section. I will now explain the disputed edits in more detail.

  • Wikifan12345's edit implies Finkelstein condones suicide bombings. The source is very clear he is supporting their legal rights not all their actions. As such it was a BLP violation so I reworded the claim to match what the source was saying. The deleted sentence consisted of two statements. The first lacked notability and also lacked context to inform the reader why Finkelstein took this stance. The second statement lacked notability.
  • This was another Wikifan12345 edit that gave a short, out of context criticism of Finkelstein by Alan Dershowitz followed by, what seemed to be if you had not read the source, a disconnected quote 300% longer than the statement itself calling Finkelstein a "discredited academic" and accusing him of "trivialising" the Holocaust.
  • I moved this edit (unaltered) from the lead to the "Statements on Israel and Israelis" section. A statement made by the ADL condemning Finkelstein and using inflammatory language is hardly appropriate for the lead considering Finkelstein is one of their main critics.
  • "Derail" is long standing in the article and is the word used by references. Citing Alan Dershowitz is appropriate because he was a major part of the denial of tenure incidents notability.
  • I deleted this edit from the lead as the subject is already mentioned in two other paragraphs in the lead, and is also out of context as it carries the implication that Finkelstein violated "professional ethical norms" without mention that this violation was only an excuse to not grant tenure, not an actual violation. Wayne (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ross, your last edit on this article was more than 1 year ago. Then, after my latest edit, you reverted the contribution 10 minutes after submission. Is this a all a coincidence Ross?
  • This link says absolutely nothing about suicide bombings. I attributed the statements directly to Finkelstein. You reworded the edit according to your own idea of who Finkelstein is and claimed my edit was "POV." Now you say it lacks "notability" and violates "BLP."
  • There is nothing out of context about what Dershowitz is saying. He is responding to direct statements made by Finkelstein, where he expresses gushing support for the attacker. Whatever Dershowitz said after, describing him as a "discredited academic" (debatable) and "trivializing the holocaust" (debatable) is irrelevant. Whether Dershowitz is right or not doesn't matter, he is an extremely notable figure and probably Finkelstein's biggest enemy.
  • I agree, "derail" is long-standing in the article but that doesn't mean it should stay in the article. Alan Dershowitz was a major player in the denial of tenure, but "derail" is way too hyperbolic. Finkelstein's rejection was not solely predicated on Dershowitz. The section places way too much focus on Dershowitz and fails to represent the organization that was actually responsibility for revoking the tenure.
  • How is this out of context? Claiming true statements are "out of context" is suspect. There is no "out of context" policy on wikipedia.
The real problem with your edits are the ambigious and vague summaries, and whole-sale deletion. In fact, you removed almost every contribution I made to the article and probably wouldn't have tried to justify your edits had I not started a discussion. I really think my original edits should be restored temporarily so we can sort everything out. It is generally looked down upon to remove paragraphs of reliably-cited information, and then demand a discussion to put it back in. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Being reliably sourced does not mean that an edit is immune to deletion. Standard WP practice when a lot of new edits are disputed is to revert them all and discuss here for consensus to put any or all back which is exactly what you are arguing for on the HAMAS article, not the other way round as you now argue here. "ambigious and vague summaries" are always a problem with the character limit Wikipedia imposes for summaries but my expanding and clarifying the summaries here has made no difference anyway has it? I will expand my reasoning further but you seem to have your mind made up and have made no attempt to justify your edits or even to compromise.
  • What does how long ago I last edited the article have to do with anything, all this says is that the article has been reasonably stable. I dont edit just for the sake of it. I looked at your edits as soon as I noticed them in my watchlist as I do for many articles, why is this suspect? Should I treat you differently from other editors just because we have had a disagreement in another article?
  • The link may say nothing about suicide bombings but it does say Finkelstein supports all their actions which includes suicide bombings. If you read the article you would notice the focus was on Israel violating International Law and his support for the organisations responding to those violations, not support for their actions per se.
  • The edit is out of context because the source (a blog) assumes Finkelstein expresses solidarity because he is copying Ann Coulters editorial style in reporting the attack. The source itself doesn't even go as far as saying Finkelstein supported the perpetrator or expressed anything at all. Along with the following paragraph it implies Finkelstein condoned the attack and deaths that resulted. The entire edit is WP:OR and little more than an attempt to portray Finkelstein in a bad light and quite likely Libel as well.
  • All I can say here is that I disagree, as do most editors.
  • As you said, "the article contains criticism from journalists, academics, and organizations" so why is adding "Finkelstein has been criticized by numerous organizations, journalists, academics, etc" without a reference in yet another section not repetitive?
  • It is out of context because Finkelstein did not actually violate "professional ethical norms" so the claim has no place being in the lead which already had two mentions of tenure denial. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, you're grasping. I was very explicit in my post and you failed to tackle what I said. "Standard WP practice when a lot of new edits are disputed is to revert them all and discuss here for consensus." Wrong. If the edits in question are supported by reliable sources, you don't revert every contribution in a reactionary fashion with ambiguous summaries and demand a discussion. I could just as easily revert all of your contributions under the same rationale.
I made an inference that you were following me around, you said you edit this article and I pointed out that you had not edited this article in over a year. And while this article may be on your watchlist, it was edited more than a hundred times without a single contribution made by you. Then, after my edits, you show up 10 minutes later and remove every single one. So either you are following me as an editor (not against policy) and have me on your watch list, or are simply hounding me. I'd like to assume good faith, so let's focus on the article content for now.
You are right, the original link said nothing about suicide bombers, and neither did my edit: Finkelstein for expressing solidarity with the perpetrator. Your edit: Finkelstein has expressed support for the legal right of the Islamist movements Hezbollah and Hamas to act in self defense where Israel violates International Law. Finkelstein says nothing about Hezbollah and Hamas having a right to act in "self defense" where Israel violates international law]. You wrote that as an editor and nothing in the source supports it. That is in fact a BLP violation, falsely attributing statements or beliefs to another person. Although I'm sure Finkelstein has said Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis in self defense at some point, but as an editor I can't include that because there is no source to support it. In my edit, I wrote "Finkelstein has expressed support for the militant Islamist movements Hezbollah and Hamas." This is a true statement, anything less and we might actually offend Finkelstein for not representing his POV accurately. You also removed my contributions there. I'm guessing that was simply part of your sweeping-reverts because the information came straight from Finkelstein himself. I don't know why you removed the Dershowitz cite.
No, nothing is out of context. The original source says Finkelstein violated the code of conduct and "ethical norms" according to the American Association of University Professors. The letter was very explicit.. The current intro is highly amusing, it totally understates the laws Finkelstein violated and makes it seem as if his denial of tenure was because of Alan Dershowitz. "Praised" Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher?" For starters, Denise Mattson is a simple spokesperson for DePaul. It is not an "official statement." After reading the long reports authored by the organization that revoked Finkelstein tenure it is pretty obvious he is anything but a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher" according to DePaul. It's a cheesy sentence, and was merely a cordial press release.
It's very obvious you removed my edits without actually reading them and the sources provided, and now are trying to justify the deletions. I'm totally okay with reverting an edit, but reverting every single contribution without any discussion is very hard to accept as good faith. I always try to seek out an understanding before removing entire paragraphs of reliably-cited material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I support Wayne's reversions. Most of your edits were dubiously sourced, to op-eds in rightwing attack mags or blogs, and other quotes were cherry-picked. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Prove it. Wayne's current edits are predicated on mostly the same sources. Again, editors should read the article and rationales before commenting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not have you on my watch list and I invite any admin to check if you have doubts. I also did not blanket revert all your edits. I checked them individually, left two, reworded another two and moved a fifth to another section. I deleted only those I believe had problems. I'm sorry you dont understand why I deleted them but others apparently do and I'm at a loss as to how to explain it any more clearly. Out of context edits can be very damaging so you must be very careful if English is not your native language. Denise Mattson was speaking on behalf of DePaul and the press release was an official statement. The lead is very clear that Dershowitz was only one of several aspects of the incident (notable as the most reported) and not the cause of the tenure denial. I am interested in what laws Finkelstein has violated though so could you explain? Wayne (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No, Denise Mattson is an official that works for DePaul. The "press release" was a cordial good bye to Finkelstein. The officials who were responsible for booting Finkelstein are the sources that matter, not some irrelevant memo. I listed before Finkelstein, according to the committee that revoked his tenure (9-3), violated the academic code of ethics all professors must follow as members of American Association of University Professors. Now, I think I've provided sufficient rationale for my edits and you seem incapable of justifying yours, so I hope to restore the ones that really matter. The first edit of course should be here. That is simply OR on your part and the source linked doesn't support it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a wall of text :(. Sorry, I've been too busy to help out but I see everyone's talking, which is a good thing. On the minor point regarding "derail", that term does indeed deserve some deference because it's in the sources and it's been in the article a long time. My opinion is that after giving it that deference, it still ought to go. It's just too colorful and active as a verb. We look to sources for the facts, not for their style of writing. Newspapers are not encyclopedias, and we are not a newspaper. The press, even such a stodgy publication as the New York Times, needs to use active verbs to sound relevant. The same article refers to "blasting" emails, or something like that. Elsewhere in that paper, a hot day is referred to as a "furnace", and their way to describe how hot it is involves talking about little children jumping into public fountains, not simply telling the temperature. It isn't encyclopedic for us to use those flourishes, and in the context of the encyclopedia it does impart a point of view. It's a metaphor, not a fact. Finkelstein's nomination was not a tram that fell off a track due to Derschowitz jimmying up a slug of metal on the rail, it was an administrative procedure that resulted in his not being confirmed to an academic position, during which time Derschowitz lobbied directly for that result. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
And Dershowitz wasn't the only member of the anti-Finkelstein lobby. I changed "derail" to "deny." I still think the Dershowitz cite should be moved down to the pertinent section regarding the dispute with Finkelstein. The intro should be brief and focus more on his historic accomplishments/history. Finklestein was huge well before the DePaul scandal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
"Now, I think I've provided sufficient rationale for my edits and you seem incapable of justifying yours, so I hope to restore the ones that really matter." Are you being serious? Not a single editor has supported your edits. Just because you feel you are right does not trump consensus which is the point of bringing it to the talk page in the first place. Please accept the consensus and move on.Wayne (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There are only two editors here Wayne. You are the one that removed reliably-cited material under very vague and general rationales. Your explanations are very unconvincing. Claims of "POV" are worthless and have almost become a cliche on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent edits

  • (i) I trust that this requires no further explanation: [3].
  • (ii) This edit is inaccurate on two counts. In the first instance, the source letter in question is from Dennis Holtschneider, the academic administrator who oversaw Finkelstein's appeal, and not from the University Board on Tenure and Promotions. In the second instance, while the words, "professional ethical standards," do appear in the letter, they are made in a general manner and are not specifically directed against Finkelstein. Whatever one may say of Holtschneider's general views concerning Finkelstein (and these are more nuanced that the aforementioned edit suggests), this is an inappropriate quotation. (I have retained the change in wording from "derail" to "deny.")

I should add that we need to be particularly cautious when using primary sources, so as to avoid selective or misleading quotations. CJCurrie (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: apparently, I do need to explain this situation further. In the original (primary) source, NF expresses a personal opinion about the legitimacy of kidnapping soldiers while pointing to the broader context in which the action occurred. If we are to mention this situation in the article (and I am by no means convinced that we should), then we should provide readers with the proper context. CJCurrie (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Further update: I've also removed this. My reasons are twofold:
(i) The statement is inaccurate. Dr. Rubinstein is responding to Finkelstein's review of The Holocaust in American Life, not to The Holocaust Industry (which had not been published at the time the letter was posted).
(ii) More generally, I am not certain that a letter to the editor makes for the best possible (or the most notable) source material in this instance. CJCurrie (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Like I said numerous times and proved quite easily, the original edit, which was restored more than 5 times, was blatant original research. Finkelstein made no reference to self-defense or international law, not once. Second, counter-punch is a highly unreliable source, so I included a cite directly from Finkelstein's own site confirming statements. I don't see anything dishonest with my edit, and I unquoted "right" as he never says that, but does support the "capture" of the two soldiers. He also accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians and lying about Hezbollah's use of human shields and hiding weapons in civilian areas, I don't know why that was removed. I agree primary sources should be used sparingly, but we can't let counter-punch remain unchallenged. the original source says Finkelstein's "scholarship" did not meet "DePaul's standards." The letter also goes on to the facualty handbook, and infers what Finkelstein is guilty of. I wish editors would stop reverting edits they don't like. I agree, the historian was not explicitly referring to the Holocaust Industry, but I didn't know where else to put the criticism since the article is formatted so horribly. Please restore the edit and move it do a different section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) I did not write the original wording, and I've changed it in response to your concerns.
(ii) Counterpunch may not be a particularly reliable secondary source (it's rather like FrontPageMag in that sense, albeit coming from the opposite vantage point), but it can be used (with care) to cite the opinions of authors who write for it. The current wording is representative of NF's stated opinions.
(iii) You did, in fact, unquote the word "right," but you left it within the article. This isn't good editing practice, particularly as NF did not make the statement that you attribute to him.
(iv) I did not accuse you of dishonest editing; I said the material was not factually accurate. I stand by this statement.
(v) I've retained NF's statements pertaining to Israel targeting civilians and Hezbollah not using human shields.
(vi) If we are to use Holtschneider's letter as a source (and I'm not convinced we should), we should reflect the nuanced language therein.
(vii) I am not going to restore Rubinstein's comments, although I am prepared to find and include some further criticism of The Holocaust Industry from a credible journal. Mind you, I'm not convinced that there's any compelling need to change the section as it is currently written.

CJCurrie (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove his support for the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers? He was very explicit in that regard. His support for Hezbollah is far more pronounced and blatant than solidarity with Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced that NF's personal opinion, delivered as an aside in a lecture (and taken from a primary source), is particularly relevant to this article. It would be far more relevant to mention NF's more general comments on Hezbollah's motivations for carrying out the action, although my concerns about the source apply here as well. CJCurrie (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is it not relevant other than the fact that you are not "convinced?"

Support for Hezbollah and HAMAS

I'm not happy with a blanket statement that NF supports Hezbollah and Hamas as it carries the implication that he supports everything they do, both good and bad. The article is clear that he supports their seeking peace and I have reworded the sentence to match exactly what the reference is saying.Wayne (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Their seeking peace." What? Your original rewording was pure original research and was not supported by the source. Finkelstein supports Hamas and Hezbollah, more specifically Hamas and Hezbollah's policies towards Israel and Zionism. He has stated on numerous occasions he doesn't care for the philosophies of Hezbollah but expresses "solidarity" with its position towards Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to struggle with your bizarre interpretations but I'll continue to assume you are acting in good faith. It appears it could be a problem with your lack of understanding of the English language so I'll quote directly from the source (that you yourself supplied) the main points NF is making. I have no problem with you suggesting a rewording as long as it keeps to what the source is saying.
  • the reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict ... in order to defeat the peace offensive, they (Israel) sought to dismantle Hamas.
  • they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border
  • We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel
  • Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict
  • The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.
  • the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law
  • It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.
Now it is up to you to show how the following edit is OR when it is no more than exactly what NF is arguing.

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas actions in seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel and condemned Israel's refusal "to abide by international law (and) to abide by the opinion of the international community" to settle the conflict.

Wayne (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking a series of statements and morphing it into a sugar-coated sentence. Finkelstein has said openly has supports Hezbollah and Hamas militancy against Israel and totally rejects Zionism as a political movement. Israel must suffer a defeat to lead to peace in the Middle East.. Now, your original edit was simple OR and your own words trying to replace Finkelstein's real feelings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
How can it be cherry picking when I have taken one sentence from almost every paragraph in the article. Wayne (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Because Norman Finkelstein has never said those things in that order. The implication is Finkelstein is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah to achieve a "diplomatic solution." This is gaming semantics. Finkelstein has been more than clear about what he believes. The primary source trumps the unreliable counter punch editorial. Also, beginning with "condemned israel's refusal to abide by international law" is our place as editors to infer. Israel's "refusal" is dubious at best. Better to quote Finkelstein explicitly, instead of selecting the most rosy buzzwords to sugar-coat what he really is saying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that the entire counter punch editorial is written by Finkelstein dont you? What is this primary source you keep mentioning that is detailing what NF belives better than his own words? Whether Israel's "refusal" is dubious is irrelevant as this is what NF is actually saying (ie: a quote by NF). BTW..there is nothing dubious about it, are you saying Israel has complied with the International Court?
Throwing my hat into the ring on one point: quoting an expert saying that Finkelstein's hypothetical material support of terrorism is a crime is silly. Anyone's material support of terrorism is a crime under US law. I'd say remove on NPOV grounds as overly prejudicial without adding any real information. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section per BLP and BRD, as it is not adequately sourced. Editors' own interpretation of Finkelstein's statements as a primary source, and a Fox News headline and article by which somebody opines that he's endorsing murder, hardly serve to characterize his position. It may be true that he supports Hezbollah, but if so we need some reliable, neutral, third party significant sourcing for that. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, editor's own interpretation of Finkelstein's statements is not sufficient. Fortunately, the original edit which you revert was based solely on Finkelstein's own words. Fox News is an RS and Richard Miniter is a notable figure. He is not "somebody." And what he says, while inflammatory, is not our role to dispute. He does support Hezbollah, he is very open about this and has dozens of essays on his own website professing his love for Hezbollah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've rephrased the original edit and added additional sources from Finkelstein's own site claiming support. I do think it is imperfect, but again so is much of this article. Hezbollah/Hamas policies are widely understood and the article must reflect that. I removed the Miniter cite from FX NEWS, but kept Finkelstein's comments and added protesting during 1982 Lebanon War. RolandR removed the entire contribution in a reactionary fashion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Delisting article

Clearly the article has a lot of problems - formatting, borderline plagiarism from primary sources, and questionable editorial judgement. IMO I don't think this article meets the standards for Good article status. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned I suppose we could go back to the September 6 version but I feel the article has not deteriorated irretrievably since then.Wayne (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Influences

I'm not familiar with the policy on those types of edits. Do you base simply off what Finkelstein claims? Has he explicitly described himself as influenced by Gandhi or merely supported him? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What's happening with this article?

According to this log page this article has been vandalized with insertions of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)" more than 150 times in the last 2–3 months. Can someone explain what is going on here? I don't know if there is any connection, but the situation appears to be the same[4] at another page which happens to be on my watchlist, George Galloway. There is nothing on either talk page or otherwise in the article histories (at least that I can easily spot) which explains this extreme situation __meco (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See this page. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if that's the scenario I can imagine what's going on that we're spared from enduring. __meco (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That's astonishing. Alarming, too. Has anything been done outside of Wikipedia to establish who this person is? Wikispan (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think many people have a good idea who is behind this. The problem is proving it. RolandR (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hizbullah and Hamas

This is an accurate representation of what Finkelstein is saying. He states:"I don’t care about Hizbullah as a political organization" before saying Hizbullah the political organization is irrelevant as its the Lebanese peoples right to defend their country from foreign occupiers. He then gives the analogy of WWII. Following this the interviewer says the anology is an accurate representation for pre 2000 but what about after Israel withdrew to which Finkelstein replies that it still applied. The rest of the edit is almost word for word from the reference you yourself supplied. Wikifan12345, I have tried to work with you and yet again you try to keep the article as negative as possible. Please do not twist the edit in your revert comments again.Wayne (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? This is your original rationale: added the rest of what he is saying in the references provided for ballance.
Okay, let's look at the edit in question:

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas, comparing his support for the rights of the Lebanese and Palestinian people to that of World War II support of the Soviet Union against the Nazis whilst not supporting the Stalinist regime itself. He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts.

Finkelstein makes no comparison between the rights of Lebanese and Palestinians to that of support for the Soviet Union. You as an editor developed that analogy, we call that original research.

This is what Finkelstein says:

My parents went through World War II. Now, Stalin’s regime was not exactly a bed of roses. It was a ruthless and brutal regime, and many people perished. But who didn’t support the Soviet Union when they defeated the Nazis? Who didn’t support the Red Army? In all the countries of Europe which were occupied – who gets all the honors? The resistance. The Communist resistance – it was brutal, it was ruthless. The Communists were not… It wasn’t a bed of roses, but you respect them. You respect them because they resisted the foreign occupiers of their country. If I am going to honor the Communists during World War II, even through I probably would not have done very well under their regimes… If I’m going to honor them, I am going to honor the Hizbullah. They show courage, and they show discipline. I respect that.

This sentence: "He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the section. Nothing at all. It isn't balance, it simply obfuscates the essence of the section. Is this so challenging? How long have you been editing wikipedia Wayne? You should know by now how BLPs work and the basic rules of editing policy.

Many editors get blocked for stuff like this if they do it habitually.

I suggest you restore my edit and hold of on any "balancing" until you find a shred of policy to support such edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You know very well I self reverted the above edit in question to correct the synth that it applied to Hamas as well as Hizbullah. I even tried to compromise with you by removing mention of the rights of the Lebanese that Finkelstein said was the comparison for the analogy he gave. The edit as it stands now is fully supported by the very same sources you provided to support your edit implying that Finkelstein supports terrorism. The last sentence is relevant and has everything to do with the section that you yourself created as he is talking about his views on Hizbullah and Hamas (that have the right to use legal means to resist) which by some strange coincidence is the title of the section. I have tried very hard to assume good faith with you and have avoided reporting your disruptive behaviour in the interests of trying to encourage your cooperation but it is getting very difficult to deal with your constant POV pushing and refusal to work with editors to improve articles. If you do not modify your behaviour you may run into an editor less tolerant than me and end up permabanned from Israel-Palestine articles. Please try to cooperate. Wayne (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the status quo version. Disputed changes really need to be worked out and gain consensus on the talk page, not as a dispute between two editors (at least not here, where there are plenty of people watching the page). Wikipedia has no deadline so we can afford to discuss this for a few days. This isn't the best place to discuss editor conduct and POV - let's figure out what the page should say. The most obvious issue with the proposed change is that it works in as a stated fact a rhetorical statement that the US and Israel are not part of the international community and do not abide by international law, which is a disputed claim (and thus, it would be POV to adopt it as fact). If that's Finkelstein's position in making his statement we should qualify it as such. I note there was also some concern about whether the Soviet Union comparison is adequately sourced, which I haven't looked into for myself. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As RolandR just noted, the status quo version was only a day old. "Finkelstein supports Hamas" needs good support, and has none - - the counterpunch article cited does not support it. The Soviet comparison is a matter of getting acceptable wording. Clearly Finkelstein makes the comparison, and it is clearly is a necessary qualification for a "Finkelstein supports Hezbollah" statement. The international law statement is qualified by "He has called for" - one can argue about connotation and wording, but it is not making a disputable statement in Wikipedia's voice.John Z (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
John Z and Wayne are both very, very wrong. Finkelstein tacitly supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Goldberg refers to Finkelstein as a Hezbollah supporter. I was of course happy to meet the Hizbullah people, because it is a point of view that is rarely heard in the United States. I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them (Hezbollah)..
Finkelstein is openly defending Hamas policies here. Really, Finkelstein has made no effort to deny accusations that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah, in fact - he is rather proud of it. This is fine, but editors seem to want to white-wash the reality of Finkelstein's beliefs with absurd analogies that aren't even his own statements. John Z, no "re-wording" can justify original research. The balancing was simply reactionary editing, the syntax is god-awful and the original source makes no reference to the rights of Palestinians and Lebanese in contrast to Soviet Union/whatever. The mention of international law is also irrelevant and has nothing to do with Hamas/Hezbollah. BLPs follow much stricter rules than other articles, the edit needs to be restored for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's meant by a day-old status quo. I've restored the October 8 version, save for a few technical fixes that were made since then. The material added since then: (1) says that Finkelstein supports Hezbolla and Hamas, and (2) says (in Wikipedia's voice) that he called on Israel and the US to join the rest of the international community and to abide by international law. On the first point, let's see the sources that say so directly. On the second, we're repeating a quotation from him as an act by him, which is a no-no. That could be fixed, but I'm wondering why we have this at all. There's no secondary sourcing, just a quotation from some of his rhetoric. Why does that belong here? If he actually believes that the US and Israel are outside of the international community, and do not adhere to international, let's find a reliable secondary source that says so for purposes of weight and verifiability, not quote some assorted argument he makes. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding process, I'm not going to revert again, but I strongly urge all concerned to talk about things rather than getting into revert wars, and barring anything urgent like a copyvio or a blatant BLP violation, stick with the established version until there's some consensus for changing it. I don't see that anyone's position is all that far off. Finkelstein does say things supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah, so whether you call that sympathy, support, favorable discussion, or something else, it's only reasonable that if we can find secondary sourcing that characterizes his positions we mention that. Also, I'm not necessarily disputing that he believes (or at least argues) that the US and Israel are outside of the international community and law, let's again find a secondary source. His statement is fine if it's representative of his arguments, but it's a quotation so it should be presented as such. This looks eminently resolvable. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The international law issue is irrelevant to Hamas/Hezbollah support. First and foremost his views on Hamas/Hezbollah must be inserted and editors who want to "balance" the article with original research should post their views here instead of taking it out on the article. Wikifan12345 (talk)
I'm not disputing that the wording can be improved but the basics are supported by the references. Finkelstein makes it very clear that he supports the legal rights of the people not their leadership regime so mentioning his support for Hizbullah and Hamas must carry that qualification. It is indisputable that he has used the analogy to explain his position. Finkelstein does not claim that the U.S. and Israel are outside of the international community but asks that they join the communities support of International law and the UN resolutions in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict which he believes will bring peace. Mention of this makes it much clearer to readers what he means by supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. There is no dispute that the U.S. and Israel oppose International law and the U.N. resolutions in this area. There is no OR or BLP issues with this version.
On another point, it took a lot of discussion to accept the addition of this section in the first place with other editors cooperating with you to avoid conflict. Both of you pushed very hard to include this section and you can not turn around now and say we should delete it because it has become more favourable than you intended. Let the community decide how it should read. Wayne (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, nothing in the references supports your edit and I made that very clear. Are you disputing the fact that your edit was 100% OR? Finkelstein's request that the US and Israel "join" community support for international law has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas and Hezbollah. Mentioning that in relation to his support for Hamas and Hezbollah serves as an obvious distraction. Almost gives the illusion that supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is somehow enshrined in international law. anyways, my edit was sharp as any can be and your attempt to "balance" it was simply a violation of basic editing standards. If you can't recognize this I don't see how this discussion can continue because I know you'll just revert any edit you don't like under rationales of "balance" or "POV." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I obviously cant sway you so I have made it a subsection to reduce weight and shortened the section as well so that it is merely a statement of NFs beliefs supported by the references given so that no one can argue OR etc. Wayne (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That looks good to me, thanks. I wonder if the his expressions of support for H&H can be said to go beyond just their diplomatic initiatives. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at your edit shall we?

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas actions in seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel and condemned Israel's refusal "to abide by international law (and) to abide by the opinion of the international community" to settle the conflict"

What does this mean? Finkelstein supports Hezbollah and Hamas in seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel...? Uh? Nowhere does Finkelstein infer his support for Hezbollah and Hamas is somehow contingent on a diplomatic settlement. And I don't understand why you continue to link the brief reference to international law and random condemnation to explicit support for Hamas and Hezbollah? Again you try to obfuscate what Finkelstein is saying with your own ideas. This is called OR. And even in an alternative universe where Hamas and Hezbollah are peace activist groups seeking a diplomatic settlement, the syntax here is atrocious. Elementary. So why don't we restore my obviously NPOV edit asap? BLPs cannot be treated like an editor's sandbox. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Finkelstein supports Hamas" needs support, from him or from someone else explicitly saying just that. It has none. The counterpunch article does not support it. It is revertable-on-sight seriously BLP-violating OR to write in the article that he supports Hamas, based on such things he has written about Hamas.John Z (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement. It is NPOV and is consistent with BLP standards. If editors don't like how it portrays Finkelstein, well too bad. Wayne's contributions was OR and the current edit is SYNTH and beyond awful. I already copied and pasted the text from the sources that support Finkelstein's solidarity with Hamas and Hezbollah. Editors here have yet to find a shred of policy to justify their OR. You as an editor restored the edit that showed Finkelstein drawing comparisons to the Palestinians/Lebanese to the Soviet Union/Communism. That is absurd and nowhere in the ref does it support that. Considering you supported that edit, it begs the question if you and Wayne understand basic BLP standards. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have rarely seen a more blatant denial of Wikipedia's core policies that the statement above, "Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement". Few statements are so self-evidently true that they do not need citation; all the more so in a disputed and controversial statement in the biography of a living person. If the assertion is indeed true, then we can find a citation to support this. In any case, our requirement is verifiability, not truth. If the claim cannot be verified from a reliable source, then it cannot be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
RolandR what are are you suggesting? What do you think Finkelstein said? Please Roland, find us a quote in the source that supports the current edit. Please. There is nothing controversial about supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in some parts of the world. We have an obligation to accurately represent Finkelstein's beliefs and yet editors continue to turn to their own beliefs to distort what Finkelstein is saying, going so far as to fabricate statements and invent their own analogies and comparisons. So yes, I agree - there is a denial of BLP policy, as evident by the deafening silence to the evidence I have provided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Iffy source/undue weight issue

The second paragraph of the "personal background" section seems highly derogatory, and is taken largely from a movie review in the New York Times[5]. I'm not questioning the use of the Times as a source per se, but I am concerned about placing so much emphasis on this one very hostile and somewhat trivializing article. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I condense the quotations from the is source down to one or two sentences of summary? Delia Peabody (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Not hearing any objections, I'm going ahead with this. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Issue?

Hi. I got here through a link to another user's talk page, and have no idea if this has come up before. If it has, sorry about the trouble. I am worried that http://www.normanfinkelstein.com is used as a source several times in this article. I was under the impression that personal websites (websites published by the people they describe) were considered inherently unreliable and were ill advised to use as sources. I am sure that there are other sources that could be used if this is an issue, so I don't see a reason to take this to Good Article Review, but it might be a good idea for someone with more experience than I to take a look at this and see if it needs fixing. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with using a self published website if you follow the rules. See WP:SELFPUB.Wayne (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, the rules permit it, and I think that when there is a dispute about how to characterize the views of a living person, the safest course of action is to use direct quotes so that there is no possibility of misrepresentation. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: How much detail is needed to maintain NPOV?

Several editors support this original edit with no modification. Other versions of the first sentence have been proposed on the grounds they are closer to the sources and that the original edit carries strong POV implications due to lack of detail. The ongoing discussion can be seen above at #Support for Hezbollah and HAMAS and #Hizbullah and Hamas. 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Placed by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


The following is the original version in the article subsection Hezbollah and Hamas. This has been objected to on the grounds that it is POV, lacks context and carries implications that Finkelstein supports the actual political/terrorist organisations themselves rather than the Lebanese and Palestinian people who are governed by those organisations.
  • 1: Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah[64][65] and Hamas.[66]
The following edit was suggested as a representation of what the sources and Finkelstein are saying. This has been objected to on the grounds that it is POV, synth, not supported by the sources, is using an editor-designed analogy and is OR.
  • 2: Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah, comparing his support to that of World War II support of the Soviet Union against the Nazis whilst not supporting the Stalinist regime itself. He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts.[64][65][66]
This edit was then suggested. This has been objected to on the grounds that it is POV, not supported by the sources and is OR.
  • 3: Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas actions in seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel and condemned Israel's refusal "to abide by international law (and) to abide by the opinion of the international community" to settle the conflict.[64][65][66]
These three sources are used for all three versions [6] The Atlantic, [7] Finkelstein website and [8] CounterPunch.
After lengthy discussion, consensus is stalled. We can either discuss these three or suggest another option. Wayne (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit is not particularly POV (cliche excuse to delete cited content), but simple and textbook OR. It does not take a whole lot of time and energy to look at the edit and compare that to the statements in the references. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment A few observations here: firstly, the first source appears to be questionable and not RS for information concerning third parties such as Finkelstein. Secondly, according to the second source Finkelstein expressed solidarity with Hezbollah's armed resistance against a foreign invader. This wording might be considered. Lastly on the Hamas front, I don't see much in the way of "support" for Hamas in the third source. There Finkelstein appears to support the solution that all the world's countries (except 4) support as a solution to the Mid-east conflict. Overall here it should be kept in mind IMO, that Finkelstein has sharp opinions that lend themselves to misrepresentation, and it should be avoided that Finkelstein would be painted with a broad brush "supports Hamas and Hezbollah" with the connotation being created in a reader's mind that Finkelstein supports terrorism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. My edit is more than consistent with what the source tells us. Until editors recognize what original research means and stop entering fabricated analogies and libelous statements there is no reason to continue this debate. The original edit should be restored. It boggles the mind how an edit like this can remain in the article for so long, truly. I've seen editors get banned for less. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You edit is so far from what the source is saying I'm wondering what source you are reading. There is no consensus for your edit and the current version is exactly what NF is saying. You can edit out of context and make outrageous claims to support it but you have to have consensus to justfy it being in the article.Wayne (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the source saying Wayne? I've copied and pasted directly from the source here to demonstrate its authenticity numerous times. You are the editor who deliberately created a false analogy between the Soviet Union and the Palestinians, positing this claim was made by Finkelstein but no claim was made. Serious BLP violation. Nothing is being taken out of context, you are linking Finkelstein's gushing support for Islamist movements with some weird concern for international law - that is not the focus of Finkelstein and IMO editors are trying to sugar-coat the reality of his POV. So stop the edit-warring please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

*RFC Comment Agree with Dailycare. I think that "Finkelstein expressed solidarity with Hezbollah's armed resistance against a foreign invader" is a simple and appropriate solution. A direct quote from Finkelstein's website could be used to eliminate all ambiguity and possible editorializing. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Finkelstein describes Hezbollah as an "armed resistance against a foreign invador." We as editors cannot claim Hezbollah is resisting foreign invaders. In any case, the current draft is an offense against basic wikipedia policy. Wayne cannot go around and delete cited material demanding a consensus when he has rescued himself from the debate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we say "Hezbollah is resisting foreign invaders"? That is a simple and factual statement of what they are doing. RolandR (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What foreign invaders Roland? Nowhere in Hezbollah is the organization evaluated as "resisting foreign invaders." This is the distorted perspective of Finkelstein and perhaps some editors here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
First sentence of second para: "Hezbollah first emerged in 1982 as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee, set on resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war". Please comment on content, not editors. RolandR (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Resisting" and "resistance" are two different words. The Taliban is "resisting" NATO presence in Afghanistan, but it wouldn't be NPOV to say the Taliban is "resisting foreign invaders." So anyways, back to what the real dispute is about - the edit being gutted and removed by Wayne even though it fairly and accurately represents the sentiments of Finkelstein. So unless Wayne wants to come in and explain why he keeps removing cited material, it should be restored until a serious reasoning to deny it is posted here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. 1 is too general; it sounds like he just straight up likes Hamas and Hezbollah. Does he support Hamas's Holocaust denial statements and conservative religious moral positions? I'd be surprised if the aetheist, Communist son of a Holocaust survivor does. #2 or #3 are much better, it tells us what about them he supports. What's wrong with being more specific?Sol (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

His motivations are irrelevant at this point. We can perhaps include WHY he supports Hamas and Hezbollah, but in a way consistent with NPOV and not in any way inventing false analogies and parallels that Wayne edited in numerous times. It is wrong of us to try and figure out why a decedent of a holocaust survivor would openly express solidarity with an organization that denies it. But we can't assume he only supports Hezbollah for x, y and z and not a, b, and c. I've explained why Roland's example is not fair and why the current edit is malicious and infringes on Finkelstein's character. If editors don't want to debate the original edit then it should be restored for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

His motivations matter a great deal. My point is that anyone who knows a bit about Finkelstein is going to be very skeptical that he unconditionally supports Hamas and Hezbollah. He doesn't. We have the sources to explain the specifics, why wouldn't we? This would be like saying "Israel has expressed its support for Hamas" in reference to the policies encouraging Hamas as a counter-balance to the PLO. It's true but it omits the contextual information explaining the actions. I like Delia's version. Sol (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What Finkelstein says is quite straightforward and all we have to do it report it, without making a judgment about whether it is correct, or speculating about what he really means. To use your own analogy, if this were an article about the Taliban, it would be entirely appropriate to report that the Taliban says it is "resisting foreign invaders," regardless of whether we personally think that is a correct assessment. As long as we are attributing this view to its source and not reporting it as an objective fact, that would absolutely be NPOV.

:I would suggest the following version: Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the "fundamental principle" is that "people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers." Delia Peabody (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit must reflect what Finkelstein is saying not what we believe he means so there is no way Wikifans edit can be accepted. I think Delia's suggestion is an excellent elucidation of NFs position. My vote is for that.Wayne (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd also be OK with Delia's suggestion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't cherry pick specific phrases out of context and place them in a single sentence. More precise to simply say Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas, and provide specific background statements following the Gaza and Lebanon War. And Wayne, my edit quotes Finkelstein directly - you are the one who is pushing a narrative that does not exist. Editors cannot inject their own perception of Finkelstein. It seems users want to sugar-coat his philosophy towards Islamist movements. I still would like to see editors explain why they find my original edit inconsistent with wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure his website supports it per link. Also, NPOV. Sol (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources alone are not an RS. For example, we aren't allowed to [chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website use Noam Chomsky's website] as a unique source without a secondary citation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The notability of Finkelstein's views on Hizbullah has been established by secondary sources, Atlantic and Counterpunch. Since there is controversy about what Finkelstein intended to say, the safest course of action is to let him say it himself, to avoid misrepresentation of any sort which could be damaging to a living person. I think that WP:RS#Quotations should guide us here. Delia Peabody (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch is not a secondary source because it is an editorial written by Finkelstein. CP is also a non-RS. Atlantic is an RS. For clarity, I'll repost the original edit:

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah[63][64] and Hamas.[65] During the 2006 Lebanon War, he accused the Israel Defense Forces of deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians, and rejected claims Hezbollah stored weapons among civilians and used innocent Lebanese as human shields to exploit Israel's rules of engagement.[66] In an article published by CounterPunch, Finkelstein claims Israel's decision to launch Operation Cast Lead was motivated because "Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict."[67]

So, what is POV about this? He has expressed support for Hezbollah. He did accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in Lebanon. He did say Israel's decision to launch OCL was because of [insert quote here]. So instead of cherry-picking specific words to paint a Finkelstein that does not exist, why not go with the simple and concise version? Editors cannot continue to force ideas and thoughts not explicitly made by Finkelstein. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a RS?

"The Atlantic's fact-checking department has no purview over the magazine's Web site. The magazine's fact-checkers vet each word that appears in the print magazine for accuracy and context, but because they have no authority over blogs (or anything else produced for the Web), Andrew [Sullivan] is free to publish malicious nonsense.—Jeffrey Goldberg

An interesting quote from the Atlantics own website. Wayne (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You can't say that without context as it implies NF supports Hezbollah and Hamas in toto. He makes it abundantly clear that he only supports their legal actions and not them specifically, as is clear from the analogy he gave about supporting the Soviet Union in WWII but not the Stalinist regime. We dont need to list every statement NF makes as it covers everything adequately by summarising what his support is. Your edit puts him in negative a light by implying he is supporting terrorist organisations and that is a violation of BLP. Although the current edit is the most accurate presentation of his views as it reflects exactly what he has said, Delia has offered a good NPOV compromise and we should go with that. Wayne (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure how using quotes from Finkelstein can be construed as painting "a Finkelstein that does not exist". Likewise, these are ideas explicitly stated by Finkelstein and hence difficult to force on him. And primary sources are just fine as long as no analytic interpretations are made. Sol (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, the analogy he made was not towards the Palestinians as you wrote in your edit which I proved several times was a blatant BLP violation. He has not made it abundantly clear that supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is somehow predicated on their "legal actions." We can't come to that conclusion without linking statements to ideas he as an individual has not made abundantly clear. NPOV does not mean we have to white-wash his philosophy. There is nothing inheriently POV about saying Finkelstein supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Under your wikipedia philosophy, we should say Finkelstein described the kidnapping and murder of several Israeli soldiers as "noble gesture". His words, not mine. Such an edit would be far more defensible than yours because we would be linking a direct event to a direct statements rather than restorting to picking ambiguous phrases to support a narrative not made explicitly. Also, Finkelstein is not an authoritative source on international law and his thoughts towards the I/P conflict vis-vis UN resolutions is irrelevant. We should go with the easy and simple solution - Finkelstein supports Hezbollah and Hamas. So really Wayne, please explain why my edit - fully supported by secondary sources - is somehow POV? If editors don't like the way it portrays Finkelstein well too bad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly why your edits are so bad, you have little understanding of how sentence structure works in English. NF did not say or even remotely imply that the kidnapping and murder of several Israeli soldiers was a noble gesture. NF said that Hizbullah stated they were taking "solidarity with [their] brothers and sisters in Gaza" and that that solidarity was a noble gesture on their part. He then goes on to explain why he thought it was.Wayne (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, he is explicitly describes the kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers as a "noble gesture." He further elaborates on his total lack of understanding of how international law works, even though he continues to say Israel has failed to abide by it:

If Hezbollah wants to take an action of solidarity I don't know what international law says on that topic -- I'm right now reading international law, it gives me something of a headache -- and I finally don't care.

So his defense of Hezbollah is blatant and hardly exaggerated. It is not inspired by a desire to resolve this conflict nor does he wish Hezbollah or Hamas to abide by international law. In fact, it is the direct opposite - he endorsed Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, a violation of international law and UN1701. I don't understand why editors are so bent on denying the facts when they are so widely available.

And Wayne, you should hold off on accusing my edits of being "so bad." Look at this garbage:

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas, comparing his support for the rights of the Lebanese and Palestinian people to that of World War II support of the Soviet Union against the Nazis whilst not supporting the Stalinist regime itself. He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts.

You wrote that. You falsified an analogy between the Palestinians and Lebanese to those who fougt against Nazi Germany (inferring Israel is Nazi Germany in this analogy). Unfortunately, he never made this analogy and I asked you several times to demonstrate in the source where he said that and of course you couldn't. So before attacking my edits, maybe it's time you considering reading up on WP:BLP if you have the time. My edit proposal still stands. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean this link? The one in the original post where he compares Hezbollah to the Soviet partisan resistance? Here's this one where he says the same thing about Hamas. If you leave the information out it makes Finkelstein look insane and hypocritical. If you include it you see why he voices his support. I don't know a great deal about Finkelstein but I do recall the news stories about him meeting with Hamas/Hezbollah and the resulting block from Israel. I thought he was crazy. I still kind of do but now I see his point. You've got five editors against your version, let's not drag this out. Sol (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, Sol - read my post again. Seriously. Finkelstein does not link the plight of the Lebanese or Palestinian people to those who fought Nazi Germany. Finkelstein has openly compared Hezbollah/Hamas to antagonists of Nazi Germany (again, inferring Israel is Nazi Germany). What information are we leaving out that makes him insane? This isn't a democracy Sol, I've been highly vested in this article for quite awhile and some users here are not up to speed and refuse to look at the facts. There is nothing wrong with my edit and no one here has pointed out a single flaw specifically. The current edit grossly misrepresents Finkelstein POV. Wayne's edit was a massive BLP violation and he doesn't even deny it. So where are we now? BLP issues cannot be negotiated through consensus if the edit is so blatantly in violation of general policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so what do you think he's saying? He's saying something about Hamas/Hezbollah, WWII and resistance. I think it says pretty much what Wayne's saying but maybe I'm missing something. What is your take on the statements in question? Sol (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me abundantly clear that the parallel Finkelstein is drawing here is that, in the same way that, despite their repugnance at Stalinist crimes people supported Soviet resistance to the Nazis, so people should support the Hezbollah and Hamas resistance to Israeli invasion. In his own words "It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the regime"[9]. So he is making it clear that he does not support the Hamas and Hezbollah regimes; he supports their resistance to Israeli invasion. To summarise this as "Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas" is not merely to oversimplify; it completely distorts the clear and unambiguous meaning of his statements. RolandR (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

::::The quote on Finkelstein's website is quite explicit to the effect that Hizbullah's politics are irrelevant to his expression of solidarity, which is based strictly on the right to self-defense against occupation. I would also be careful not to equate "solidarity" with "support" -- there is a distinction. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR here, quotes should include sufficient context. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Roland, Wayne made up the analogy himself. Do I need to copy and paste again? Wayne's edit:

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas, comparing his support for the rights of the Lebanese and Palestinian people to that of World War II support of the Soviet Union against the Nazis whilst not supporting the Stalinist regime itself. He has called for the United States and Israel to join the rest of the international community and abide by international law to resolve the conflicts

This is what Finkelstein really said:

My parents went through World War II. Now, Stalin’s regime was not exactly a bed of roses. It was a ruthless and brutal regime, and many people perished. But who didn’t support the Soviet Union when they defeated the Nazis? Who didn’t support the Red Army? In all the countries of Europe which were occupied – who gets all the honors? The resistance. The Communist resistance – it was brutal, it was ruthless. The Communists were not… It wasn’t a bed of roses, but you respect them. You respect them because they resisted the foreign occupiers of their country. If I am going to honor the Communists during World War II, even through I probably would not have done very well under their regimes… If I’m going to honor them, I am going to honor the Hizbullah. They show courage, and they show discipline. I respect that.

Until editors recognize Wayne's gross error, how can we possibly continue this discussion if users don't understand basic wikipedia policy? You know, like not making analogies up to support a POV? Seriously? Can anyone challenge my edit please?

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah[1][2] and Hamas.[3] During the 2006 Lebanon War, he accused the Israel Defense Forces of deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians, and rejected claims Hezbollah stored weapons among civilians and used innocent Lebanese as human shields to exploit Israel's rules of engagement.[4]

Anything POV about this? Any gross factual errors? Original research?
If editors want to include why Finkelstein supports Hezbollah/Hamas, then that's an entirely different issue and could be worked into the article. But we can't do much as long as editors are ignorant of the facts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It is simply not true that "Wayne made up the analogy". Please do me the credit of accepting that I read the sources that I quote, rather than uncritically accepting other editors' assessments. The source from Finkelstein, which I read, states in full: "It has nothing to do with what Hamas’s ideology is. Take World War II. Stalin was repressive. I don’t think rational people will dispute that fact. You could even say Stalin was tyrannical, but who would dispute the righteousness of the Red Army’s resistance to the Nazi invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union? It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the regime. It is the fact that in the case of Hamas — and here distinctions need to be made — Hamas was the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. In January 2006 there were elections. Jimmy Carter, who was one of the international monitors, called the elections completely honest and fair. So it was a democratically elected government. Israel, along with the United States, immediately tried to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinian people in order to get them to reject and repudiate Hamas, and then eventually launched an attack.In my opinion Hamas had very few options because Israel broke the cease fire that had been implemented on June 19, 2006. Israel broke the cease fire, as Amnesty International put it, on November 4 when it invaded Gaza and killed six Palestinians militants.Up until the end of December of 2008, Hamas was saying that it wanted to renew the cease fire but only on condition that Israel implement the original terms of the cease fire. Those terms were that Hamas would stop its rocket and mortar attacks and Israel was supposed to lift its illegal blockade of Gaza, a blockade that Amnesty International called a flagrant violation of international law. A blockade which Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said was “destroying Gaza’s civilization.” Israel refused to lift the blockade and demanded a unilateral and unconditional Hamas cessation of rocket and mortar fire on Israel. If you think the rocket and mortar fire by Hamas was wrong, or even a war crime, or even a crime against humanity, what else was Hamas to do? The blockade was, and is, a flagrant violation of international law. It was destroying Gaza’s civilization and the international community was doing nothing. Are you saying Hamas, or I should say here the Palestinian people in Gaza, had a moral/legal obligation to lie still and die?"
You may chose to read this as a declaration of general support for Hamas; in this you are in a very small minority. The consensus here is that Finkelstein supports the right of Hamas to resist Israeli attacks; and that he himself (and not editors here) makes an analogy with support for Soviet resistance to German attacks despite the nature of the Stalinist regime. RolandR (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference RolandR? Is there a flavor of Hamas that Finkelstein supports but others don't? His solidarity can be clarified if necessary, but the gist is Finkelstein supports Hamas as a political movement period. We can't say Finkelstein supports the "right of Hamas to resist Israeli attacks" because Hamas does not necessarily have that right - that's Finkelstein's analysis and cannot be attributed to the article as a literal statement (I don't see Finkelstein saying those exact words unless I'm mistaken). Finkelstein is far less explicit than editors here make him out to be. And Roland, I suggest you once again compare Wayne's OR to Finkelstein's words. No direct analogies between Lebanese/Palestinians to "resistance" of Nazi Germany. If you can't see that well than a lot of editors here need to seriously consider re-thinking their participation here. Perhaps a review of the general policy would be far more productive for everyone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


You just posted the analogy yourself so how can you now claim it is made up? The only error I made was adding Palestinian. Paraphrasing is acceptable under WP guidelines. Please accept the consensus and move on. Wayne (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Comprehension much Wayne? The disparity between your made-up analogy and Finkelstein's own words is too great. Are you honestly saying your OR is sanctioned under general guidelines? I've been very, very explicit and am not surprised you want to move on to the "consensus" - which does not exist since we don't even know what is being discussed other than problematic edits. If by consensus you mean your dubious edit means then no, that is not clear. So why don't you challenge my edit, summaries like "POV" are meaningless and should be restored every time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edit has been challenged by every editor who has comnented here and several have also stated that NF did make that analogy. A paraphrase is not OR as long as it retains the original meaning. Wayne (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Am I being trolled? Does not matter what other editors stated - the paragraphs are pasted above so any admin can read and tell you that no analogy exists. Paraphrasing does not = OR. And no, my edit hasn't even been touched. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, you touched your own edit, gave it its toughest criticism, when you said "Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement. It is NPOV and is consistent with BLP standards. If editors don't like how it portrays Finkelstein, well too bad." Implicitly confirming that the source does not support the statement that Finkelstein supports Hamas, so by everyone else's understanding of wikipedia rules, "Finkelstein supports Hamas" is inadmissible.John Z (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe this issue has yet to be resolved. For the record, I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation but that he is also correct that Wayne's edits have been OR-ish. There should be a happy medium somewhere; I think a good place to start would be to revisit DailyCare's suggestions above. Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What BLP violation Gato? Wayne's edit was not simply "OR-ish" - he literally invented an analogy that Finkelstein never made. Finkelstein does support Hamas and Hezbollah in a way that is unparallel for mainstream academics. To say "Finkelstein supports Hezbollah" is not a BLP violation. If editors want, we can enumerate reasons why - but stuff like he calls on Hamas and Hezbollah to abide by international law or whatever is simply bull. We can't say that - Finkelstein has zero understanding of international law and his support for Hamas is not inspired by international law. The way the current edit is framed you'd think he was some neutral 3rd party. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. We can't say that Finkelstein supports Hamas and Hezbollah, because he doesn't. There is not one reliable source which states that he does. He has made it clear that he supports the right of Hamas and Hezbollah -- despite and regardless of their political character -- to resist Israeli attacks, and has himself made an analogy to support for the right of the Soviet Union -- despite and regardless of its political character -- to resist German attacks. To spin this into general support for Hamas and Hezbollah would be beyond synthesis or original reserach. It would be knowingly to distort and misrepresent facts, in an attempt to damage the character of a living person and to discredit his political positions. Let's put a stop to this attempted character assassination, and get on with writing a decent and well-sourced article. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I must concur with the general thrust of Roland's argument. Making blanket statements like "X supports Y" because X supports some aspect of Y's behaviour is obviously misleading and a BLP violation. To take an extreme example: X is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian. One cannot thereby reliably claim that "X supports Hitler", that would be a totally misleading and defamatory statement. The principle here is the same. There is no evidence whatever that Finkelstein supports, for example, the political or religious agendas of either Hamas or Hezbollah, indeed, he is on record as saying he knows little about what Hezbollah stands for. AFAIK, Finkelstein has never endorsed a terrorist act by Hamas or Hezbollah. What Finkelstein endorses is the right of such groups to engage in armed struggle against what Finkelstein views as an aggressor state. That's it. We should stick to specifics, and not be making vague and misleading claims about blanket "support" for such organizations. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. Okay, so he claims Hamas and Hezbollah has a right to launch rockets at Israelis - so what? It isn't a blanket statement, it is a true statement. Finkelstein has openly and proudly expressed solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas on numerous occassions. In his latest book he defends the Hamas position towards Israel during the conflict. What more do we need? Gato, this is quite upsetting:

"What Finkelstein endorses is the right of such groups to engage in armed struggle against what Finkelstein views as an aggressor state. That's it. We should stick to specifics, and not be making vague and misleading claims about blanket "support" for such organizations.

Who is Norman Finkelstein here Gato? Finkelstein's perception of "armed struggle" against an "aggressor state" is irrelevant. Finkelstein endorses Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, many described that as a terrorist act. We cannot take Finkelstein's POV to justify his support for Hezbollah/Hamas. This is simple semantics. Armed struggle is acting as a euphemism for terrorism and the whole "right to resist" doesn't change anything. Finkelstein:

If you think the rocket and mortar fire by Hamas was wrong, or even a war crime, or even a crime against humanity, what else was Hamas to do? The blockade was, and is, a flagrant violation of international law. It was destroying Gaza’s civilization and the international community was doing nothing. Are you saying Hamas, or I should say here the Palestinian people in Gaza, had a moral/legal obligation to lie still and die?

The burden of proof is clear. I'd like to see a non-I/P admin weigh in. I think Wayne's BLP violation should be recognized as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're actively pushing for us to exclude information that contextualizes a politically sensitive issue in a BLP and not addressing valid challenges to your proposal. I'm usually happy to listen to people argue for months on end but this doesn't even seem to be an argument. If you want to suggest some synthesis of the proposals, great, but this is getting tendentious. Sol (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've explained quite thoroughly why your proposals are not fair to the material, and yet no one has explained explicitly why my original edit violated BLP rules. Putting away the whole Hezbollah/Hamas issue, why did Waye remove this:

During the 2006 Lebanon War, he accused the Israel Defense Forces of deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians, and rejected claims Hezbollah stored weapons among civilians and used innocent Lebanese as human shields to exploit Israel's rules of engagement.[66] In an article published by CounterPunch, Finkelstein claims Israel's decision to launch Operation Cast Lead was motivated because "Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict."[67]

What's the problem? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think if you look carefully you'll find your explanation but here it is again: excluding information that misconstrues Finkelstein's limited support of Hamas/Hezbollah is dishonest and violates WP:BLPSTYLE in this context. It's no different than saying "Ariel Sharon was a PLO supporter" because he met with Arafat or pulled out of Gaza; a gross oversimplification that serves no purpose other than to tarnish. Sol (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The version that exists now seems deliberately deceptive. It starts off by saying: "Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas actions in seeking a diplomatic settlement". That's not what is notable - everyone supports "seeking a diplomatic settlement". What is notable is his support for Hamas and Hezbollah's violent "resistance". The title ought to be something like "Statements in support of Hezbollah and Hamas actions" or something to that effect. OmarKhayyam (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestion for a new title carries the implication that Finkelstein supports all their actions so would not work. Finkelstein does support a diplomatic settlement foremost but I can see how it can look a little deceptive because it doesn't mention why he also supports their resistance. Finkelstein believes that Israel deliberately derails any attempts by Hezbollah and Hamas to settle the dispute diplomatically and it is quite clear in his writings that he believes that without a diplomatic settlement available to them, resistance is the only option left. Feel free to work this into the text. Wayne (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Really Wayne? Is that what he is saying? Since Omar is a sock we can annoy his suggestions. Why you did you removed the sentences above as they were practically sourced with concrete? I much rather we quote Finkelstein literally instead of relying on editor's interpretation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::If that is indeed the case, then I would suggest again the version I proposed earlier: Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the "fundamental principle" is that "people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers." This version seemed to be generally acceptable to the other editors. Wikifan, I can't help but notice your undisguised hostility toward Finkelstein, which makes me think that this may not be the most suitable article for you to be editing. WP:BLP says that articles like this one must be written "conservatively" and that "possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." If you have the impulse to use Wikipedia to punish a public figure, it will affect your judgment in a case like this. Delia Peabody (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with that actually. However, I do not see any issue with this:

During the 2006 Lebanon War, he accused the Israel Defense Forces of deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians, and rejected claims Hezbollah stored weapons among civilians and used innocent Lebanese as human shields to exploit Israel's rules of engagement.[66] In an article published by CounterPunch, Finkelstein claims Israel's decision to launch Operation Cast Lead was motivated because "Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict."[67]

A lot of primary and secondary sources include explicit examples of what Finkelstein sees in organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Quotes above clarify his stance towards the movements, and looks better than leaving ambiguous and unchallenged quotes like "people have a right to defend their country from foreign occupier..." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

::I don't see what is ambiguous about that statement. The term "unchallenged" strikes me as inappropriate; it is not our job to "challenge" statements by living persons, just to report them as accurately as possible. Delia Peabody (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unchallenged by editors. It was removed along with all my edits by Wayne and every time I asked why he removed it he hasn't replied. Neither as anyone else. So any objections? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I must admit that you lost me there. You refer earlier to "unchallenged quotes like 'people have a right to defend their country from foreign occupier...'" which makes it appear that you object to the use of that quote. I don't object to using it; my proposed text was Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the "fundamental principle" is that "people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers." However, you refer now to something that was removed by Wayne, and I suspect that you are talking about something altogether different than the "occupiers" quote. Delia Peabody (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Delia you know what edit I'm talking about. I posted it above numerous times. Do you see anything wrong it? POV? BLP issues? Hello? If not I'll restore it because no user here seems to dispute the content. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
???As far as I can see, no fewer than eight editors above have disputed or challenged your text, and not one has supported you. It is beyond my understanding how you can interpret that as a licence to restore your edit. RolandR (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Roland, no editor has responded to the above edit. We're done with the Hamas/Hamas solidarity issue. Wayne as usual removed ALL my contributions with ambigious rationales and I've asked him numerous times to explain his problem with the second edit. He has NOT responded. Delia has not responded. You won't respond. Considering the polarity of I/P discussion, shutting down an editor cannot be negotiated through "consensus." You tell me Roland what you find wrong with the edit. If you can do it without attacking me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Wikifan, in all honesty I do not know which edit you were talking about. Your post was ambiguous. Now, in trying to figure it out, I have gone back to the beginning of this discussion, and I am guessing that you mean Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah[64][65] and Hamas.[66] Is that correct? If so, I oppose it, because it implies things which are contradicted by Finkelstein's published statements. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Delia's sounds good to me. Sol (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I also support Delia's suggestion. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the RfC has been up for almost a month now but the POV pushing is still going strong. Now it seems the time has come for Alan Dershowitz' page to be the subject of a similar RfC over how much detail is needed on various aspects of his activities. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Split

This is the edit I am talking about. I copied it more than five times so there is really no excuse to ignore it now.

Here is the edit:

During the 2006 Lebanon War, he accused the Israel Defense Forces of deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians, and rejected claims Hezbollah stored weapons among civilians and used innocent Lebanese as human shields to exploit Israel's rules of engagement.[66] In an article published by CounterPunch, Finkelstein claims Israel's decision to launch Operation Cast Lead was motivated because "Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict."[67]

Bold for emphasis. Let me know if you still can't see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, I'm a latecomer to the discussion and from the way you phrased it, it appeared that you were talking about a different edit. Help me out here: I looked at the three sources mentioned, Finkelson's site, the Atlantic, and Counterpunch. I easily found the quote about Hamas signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement (I'm assuming that he is in fact referring to "Operation Cast Lead," with which I am unfamiliar,) but I am coming up empty-handed on the first sentence of your edit. Where exactly is that from? Incidentally, I don't see why the Atlantic comment is even useful as a source. Delia Peabody (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. All right, I'm guessing you didn't see some of the statements in the original source, but here is a sample:

In any case the tactics Israel used in the last war are pretty much typical. The tactic basically is -- Hezbollah is a guerilla army, and they want to separate the army from the people -- and the tactic basically is to fire, destroy indescriminately the civilian infrastructure and the civilians themselves in the hope that they will break with Hizbullah and blame Hizb'ullah for all of the destruction that's brought. That was the expectation during the first few days of the war

Some people want to go beyond those numbers and say that those numbers are still not capturing reality because, the argument is made, "ok, it's true, Israel kills civilians but it's not true that they target civilians. And one has to make the distinction between targetting civilians and civilians who are 'collateral damage'" and that will be the last time I'll use that expression. I alredy feel guilty using it now.

What does the record show? Once again we have quite extensive human rights reports, quite extensive documentation -- the record shows that Israel has routinely targetted civilians for killing. I'll get to that later when I discuss the question of Lebanon but we have quite a bit of documentation from Human Rights Watch, from Amnesty International and so forth, that Israel targets civilians for death. So at that level, again, there seems to be, pretty much, an equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the actions of the State of Israel.

It's also true to say, and you'll find this through out the human rights literature, that Israel indiscriminately kills Palestinians. That is to say, it fires wildly into crowds and many Palestinians get killed. The argument, among human rights organizations at any rate, that technically -- no, I shouldn't say technically -- in effect, there's no difference between indiscriminately killing civilians and targeting civilians.

Citing a HRW report - in some cases...Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians..

Of course, we have to be careful here because we are quoting directly from Norman Finkelstein's own website. In this particularly situation I think it would be fair to include the content as long as the statements are directly attributed to Finkelstein.

The counterpunch cite is pretty straight forward, I simply summarized his claims but I didn't think a huge quotation was necessary:

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.

I know editors aren't bent on focusing too much on his philosophies towards Hamas and Hezbollah, but his mathematically reasoning is quite insightful - inferring that the disparity between casualties among Israels and Hezbollah/Palestinians is an indicator of moral superiority. B I also like the claim that HRW support by "Jews" somehow gives more credence to the organizations history towards evaluating Israel's human rights record. Like Jews are a global mafia that think the same thoughts. But I digress. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I cant see that NFs thoughts concerning Hamas and Hezbollah are all that notable. I doubt they are worth more than a passing mention and certainly not in the detail you want.Wayne (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not? We as editors can't determine notability. Can you please explain why you removed my edit? You didn't say the views were "not notable." It seems editors are inventing excuses as they go on to keep information out they don't personally like. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I am troubled by your paraphrase of the long quote above, which I don't feel is justified by what is in the quote (it would be helpful to put quotes in either quotation marks or italics. I am assuming that the quote ends with the words "targeting civilians.") You say in your edit that NF accuses Israel of "deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians," where the word "deliberately" seems to be a shift in emphasis from what NF said -- he seems to be saying that morally, it doesn't matter whether it is deliberate. To quote NF, there is "no difference between indiscriminately killing civilians and targeting civilians." The part about "human shields" in your edit also seems to be your own extrapolation. If I were to summarize the NF quote, I would simply quote him saying there is "an equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the actions of the State of Israel." Delia Peabody (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My edit simply summarized Finkelstein's evaluation of the conflict. He does explicitly say Israel targeted Lebanese civilians and denies Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as human shields to exploit Israel's ROE. Well, he doesn't even recognize Israel's ROE.
If you'd like we can simply grab a nice quote from Finkelstein himself but it would probably be more loaded than my version.
Also, again you ignore the counterpunch source which you disputed in a previous postt. So either stick with the discussion or restore my edit. It's been several weeks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::Wikifan, are your comments addressed to me? I did not dispute the Counterpunch source in a previous post, nor did I remove your edit. I feel that your summaries often distort what is in the sources you are summarizing, and it appears that many other editors feel the same way, so I think that the safest course of action is simply to stick to "grabbing nice quotes from Finkelstein himself" -- I cannot see how this could possibly be "more loaded" than your summaries. Delia Peabody (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI. This discussion has now exceeded 10,000 words. One editor Vs everyone else. Let's wrap it up please. I'm happy with Delia making any edit she thinks accurately summarizes the source. Wayne (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The edit which I proposed earlier was simply a summary of the quote which appears in full in the current version of the article. I think that we should leave the article as is. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Keep the article as is? So what about your proposal that we all agreed on? UH?

Finkelstein has expressed his solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the "fundamental principle" is that "people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers."

So?
This is simply unacceptable right here:

Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas actions in seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel and condemned Israel's refusal "to abide by international law (and) to abide by the opinion of the international community" to settle the conflict"

No, Finkelstein has not expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas in seeking a diplomatic settlement. Wayne tried to force this into the article numerous times without ever explaining it in discussion and then when I removed it I'm the one who is promoting "POV." So we should replace the junk with the settled on compromise, and add the counterpunch quote about the Gaza conflict. No more stalling. Fix it now we have reasonable solutions and the sources to back them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::My proposed edit was simply a summary of a quote by Finkelstein which is in the current version of the article. When there is a debate over the meaning of a quote, I think it is generally best to include the full quote and let the reader decide, but in this case if you prefer my summary I don't object. I was not aware that passage about a diplomatic settlement was also a bone of contention here, but now that you draw it to my attention, I have adjusted it in the article.[10] And on the topic of debated quotes, I think that this edit is a mistake[11], because it leaves the impression that Finkelstein is simply throwing around words like "Satanic" with no particular rationale. I won't edit war with over it, but I think it should be discussed. One other thing -- please use quotation marks or italics when you are referring to quotes in the discussion, otherwise I find it confusing. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So why did your proposed edit not be merged into the article? The original discussion was about why my edits were being gutted, and the reasoning behind the weird "diplomatic settlement" connection with open support for the confrontation policy towards Israel. Editors have falsely portrayed Finkelstein's support for Hamas and Hezbollah on the grounds of seeking a "diplomatic" resolution. He never says this at all.

Far more explicit, direct quotes exist to summarize Finkelstein's views should be used instead of bizarre non-policy paraphrasing. As far as the satanic issue goes, the problem with your version is it links a description of the Israeli state, with a mention of a conflict with Lebanon. The section is about Israel, not the IDF or war. Again, Finkelstein is not known for being a passive peacecreep but a vocal critic that is far from the mainstream. This is how Finkelstein should be represented, not removing cited material because editors think it is "POV." POV does not mean censoring controversial statements. For example, this is good:

Three hundred or so children -- they were incinerated to death; phosphor bombs were thrown indiscriminately over Gaza. Everything these people wanted to rebuild, rebuild and rebuild was destroyed again

Critics have called Finkelstein frequently on his analysis of Gaza/Lebanon issues, his total lack of understand of international law.

Another quote that could be used to explain Finkelstein's view of Hezbollah's militatn activities:

Whether you like it or not Hezbollah is a group of patriotic and dedicated soldiers who exercise their rights, under International Law, to defend their lands and people from American and Israeli ‘terrorists in uniform’.

source.

Good? Fair? Yes, to the point and solely about Hezbollah. We shouldn't force a statement about "diplomatic settlement" and support for Hezbollah and Hamas when he has never made such parallels. That was invented by Wayne, no editor here has refuted this fsct and instead continue to focus on irrelevant and non-notable issues. So I say we use YOUR proposal, axe the bizarre diplomatic settlement reference, copy direct views of Hamas/Hezbollah and Gaza/Lebanon war. Concise and to the point. I also suggest we build a section on his fights with Benny Morris. Morris claims Finkelstein misrepresented his research on Palestinian refugees in his books. a, b, c. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

::::As I mentioned above, I believe that I have fixed the "diplomatic settlement" reference. Please let me know if you think that it is still inaccurate. As far as all the other stuff is concerned, I would really encourage you to take the comments of other editors to heart. One could get the impression that you are really quite hostile toward Finkelstein, and it's not a good idea to edit biographical articles where you might be tempted to injure the reputation of the subject. Delia Peabody (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good on the "diplomatic settlement" fix. Sol (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Without pointing a finger to anyone, perhaps the following article of an Australian website can enlighten just a bit of what I fear is happening in the Finkelstein article and other Wikipedia articles that have direct/indirect connection to I****l: http://www.internetengagement.com.au/?p=477 John Hyams (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not peer reviewed, clueless on WP policy and more biased than the editors they complain about. I looked at one NGO (Christian Aid) to see how it was "manipulated". IE: according to the study above, the critism section was deleted twice and the current section does not have critism of CA's anti-Israeli stance. The first time it was deleted the section had no references and with the language used was potentially libelous, the second time it was deleted the section consisted solely of two links with no text. Those links are likely not RS as they make unsupportable POV accusations. The following examples are all cited as evidence for CA being anti-Israel. Christian Aid calls the occupation of Gaza an "occupation", in a briefing paper to the UK parliament CA accused Israel of collective punishment and also "failed to mention" that Hamas is a terrorist organization, in another paper expressing it's horror at a suicide bombing CA also condemned "Israel's military response" to it, another paper called for an acknowledgement that "insecurity and poverty" in Gaza had been caused by both Hamas and Israel and in yet another paper CA asked the EU and UK governments to ensure "Israel's compliance with International Law" in regards to collective punishment. This is the The Framing of Political NGOs in Wikipedia through Criticism Elimination the study complains about. I'm sure there are legitimate critisms to be made but these are widely held personal views not legitimate critisms and if that paper is actually taken seriously it explains a lot of the problems we have here.Wayne (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Split Two continuation of RFC

Okay Delia, if you don't feel like explaining Wayne's edits or facing my proposal above which I spend much time developing then we'll go with your original edit, and replace the bizarre diplomatic Hamas/Hezbollah OR that was designed by an individual editor and not ever explicitly stated by Finkelstein. We have more than enough content to showcase Finkelstein's ME philosophies. My own opinion of Finkelstein is irrelevant so I suggest you try and focus on what Finkelstein has actually said (pasted above for your convenience) than attacking other editors. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, we aren't here to protect anyones "reputation" but enforce BLP guidelines. Including statements or content that others might deem controversial is not POV, SYNTH, OR, or in violation of BLP guidelines. If you think that I suggest you read up on basic wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted one sentence of your edit. Quoting NF calling people names is not particularly helpful or needed and especially when you delete a quote that expresses his views much better that was agreed to by the other editors who have commented here.Wayne (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You didn't revert one sentence, you removed two and restored an unnecessary copy and paste quote. Finkelstein is not calling anyone names, he is explicitly describing hamas and hezbollah. the fact that his choice of words are somewhat hyperbolic does not mean they stay out of the article. We don't need to include a long quote that basically says he doesn't care for the actual politics of Hezbollah, Delia's proposal effectively simplified this assuming you have read it. Also, we cannot link Hamas and Hezbollah when Finkelstein makes characterizations towards only one of the groups. That is precisely what you did in the first sentence. there really isn't much to discuss, the material is solid and supported by primary sources and secondary cites (though very weak in terms of reliability). Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Having checked the reversion I removed one sentence. The other sentence was your paraphrase of the quote which is not needed once the quote is restored. That paragraph currently has the support of everyone who has commented (apart from you). If you have a problem with it that is what this RFC is for and you cant keep restoring the most negative spin you can find. His views are the issue not the specific wording he sometimes uses that can obfuscate this view when used out of context.Wayne (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, you need to keep up with the discussion. If you don't want to participate in the discussion during actual content issues then you can't come at the end and gut information you don't like. If you kept up with the discussion, you would know that I simply ADDED the revised intro. Here it is:

Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hizbullah, saying that their politics are irrelevant, and that the "fundamental principle" is that "people have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers."

You endorsed this proposal, and yet you remove it and restore the ridiculous and awful paraphrasing no one supported. Delia proposal meant we didn't need to include a lengthy, redundant quote describing his view of Hezbollah. It is disproportionately represented.
This edit is perfectly acceptable:

Finkelstein has characterized Hizbollah as "a group of patriotic and dedicated soldiers” defending their lands from “American and Israeli ‘terrorists in uniform.”.

Editors don't own the article. If you can't find a real reason why editors can't add CITED information, you have no right to remove it. I don't need permission from you to add non-controversial edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't find where he says this. The Atlantic link just goes to a title (for me) and the link to his website has those exact words but not said by Finkelstein. Sol (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The Atlantic online is probably not a reliable source so it doesn't matter. Jeffrey Goldberg himself said that as the Atlantic is not peer reviewed it can "publish malicious nonsense". The problem is not with what Wikifan12345 writes but what he doesn't write. For example, Wikifan leaves out that NF is talking about their legal rights when he calls Hizbollah patriotic and without that it implies that NF supports everything they do which is a violation of BLP. This is an ongoing pattern of behaviour and the cause of the RFC in the first place.Wayne (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I just had a look at that quote and you are right Sol. It was in a letter from a Michael Shanahan replying to someone who had written to NF so it cant be used as NF didn't say it.Wayne (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as Wikifan12345 got that so wrong I thought I'd check the other edits he made.

Finkelstein stated that Israel was becoming an "insane" and "lunatic" state, and that "sometimes I feel that Israel has come out of the boils of the hell, satanic state."

The source for "insane" says "Israel, as a number of commentators pointed out, is becoming an insane state. And we have to be honest about that. While the rest of the world wants peace, Europe wants peace, the US wants peace, but this state wants war, war and war." The source for "lunatic" actually says "It inspired fear among Palestinians and Arabs generally that Israel is a lunatic state". The "sometimes" quote was in reply to being asked how he felt about Israel "as the son of Holocaust survivors". A "sometimes" view without that context is not notable enough for a Bio and the rest should be put in context by using the entire quote.Wayne (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase; I'm now looking at Wiki's past quotes inserted and comparing it to the source and there's a trend of distortion. During the [[2006 Lebanon War]], he said Hezbollah had a "right" to kidnap [[Ehud Goldwasser]] and [[Eldad Regev]]. Except he never claims they have a "right" to kidnap in the source. The University Board on Tenure and Promotions, the organization responsible for revoking tenure, ruled Finkelstein violated the "professional ethical norms" of the [[American Association of University Professors]] all university professors are obligated to follow. Which didn't happen. This one where Finkelstein is said to have express[ed] solidarity with the perpetrators of the Jerusalem bulldozer attack, something the source also fails to mention. On top of this latest one I don't think we are dealing with a long series of mistakes that accidentally resemble BLP violations but that's up to the admin or wiki-Moses or whoever judges these. Is this an ANI thing or some other internet court? I'll work it out tomorrow. Sol (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You guys are going off topic. Instead of attacking me as an editor and trying to avoid dealing with current edit conflicts, let's stay ON TOPIC. Sol, you are taking the edit issues above out of context and anyways it is irrelevant to this current discussion.
Now, back to the original issue - Wayne, can you please explain why you removed Delia's proposal that WE ALL AGREED TO. UH? Sorry for caps, but I've asked this about a dozen times and you refuse to answer.
To streamline the issue:
  • Do you support Delia's proposal that you agreed to? Yes or no?
  • What is wrong with this edit:

Finkelstein has characterized Hizbollah as "a group of patriotic and dedicated soldiers” defending their lands from “American and Israeli ‘terrorists in uniform.”.

Be explicit this time. Sol, if you want to participate in the content dispute feel free to but threatening to take editors out with "internet courts" is not helpful to this discussion. If you want to talk about BLP violations, I suggest you look at Wayne's editing history. His falsified analogy to the Nazi resistance and Soviet allies to Palestinian and Lebanese fighters was one of his most obvious BLP violations here that no one here managed to rationalize. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That you are continuing to push a quote that has been challenged as not from Finkelstein makes it pretty clear that going to internet court is the most helpful thing I can do for this discussion. So I did. Here's my poorly formatted BLP noticeboard post.
If you're convinced you have a case against Wayne, file a report. I've wasted enough time on this one and it's not something I relish. If telling you the quote isn't from Finkelstein isn't explicit enough then I don't know what is. Sol (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I already admitted in the discussion that I unintentionally mistook an email sent to Finkelstein as Finkelstein's own words. This is the problem with relying solely on primary sources. So anyways, the real issue here is your failure to accept Delia's proposal. You and Wayne agreed to it in the RFC, but now you support its removal from the article. What is the deal? I've asked you more than five times and yet no response. Now you take this discussion to internet court? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the revert I did was restoring Delia's proposal which was to quote in full to avoid the problems with context. Wayne (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that the one Wiki's all work up about? The one that I've supposedly supported and that goes against the RFC and Delia's statement? Nevermind that it's a restoration of material Wikifan deleted. This is like the Twilight Zone. Sol (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced information

removed sourced information--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kindly remove my username from the section title. That material is sourced does not prevent it from being removed. You have added to a BLP salacious charges by a person who has a personal vendetta against Finkelstein. BLPs are not the place for such activity and you should already know this. nableezy - 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As you probably know there are many RS that would say the same thing. I am not sure why I should remove your name from the name of the section.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No I dont know of reliable sources that call this Jewish son of Holocaust survivors an antisemite. You should remove my username, and NSH001's below, because WP:TPG says you should:

Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.[5] Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

But maybe I should open a section titled Mbz1 slanders living person, that sound good? nableezy - 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously believe I care how lies sound? I slandered nobody. I provided an exact quote from RS that you removed with the only reason: I just do not like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have changed the section name although I have learned that practice from somebody on your side.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, no. Alan Dershowitz is not a reliable source on either Finkelstein's area or scholarship nor on Finkelstein himself. I dont know if you are not aware of the reasons why Dershowitiz and Finkelstein despise one another, and in keeping with AGF I am going to assume that you did not and are not simply knowingly broadcasting defamatory comments about a living person. I can find sources calling Dershowitz a liar, a plagiarist, an apologist, a racist, a ... . That does not mean that I should rush to the BLP of Dershowitz to include all of these claims. Dershowitz and Finkelstein hate one another, they have both said things about each other that would make even me blush. Their respective BLPs should not be used to highlight the worst thing that either of them has said about the other. Quoting from WP:BLP: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Dershowitz, given his involvement, is not a reliable secondary source when it comes to Finkelstein, and the material you added was not presented responsibly, or conservatively, or even in a disinterested tone. nableezy - 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well you assumed right. I did not know what was the beginning of Dershowitz despising finkelstein , but I just took a look at the article Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair and still cannot see why a book by Dershowitz published by a respectable publisher is not RS. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's look at the original edit:

Alan Dershowitz considers Finkelstein to be anti-Semitic Jew.

  • A) Finkelstein's status as a Jew is made known in the introduction and early body sections. The statement is redundant.
  • B) I haven' read through the source completely, but allegations of antisemitism should be tighter and less combative. Unless he said, "I believe Finkelstein is an antisemitic Jew" we can't say that. It doesn't add a lot to the article. What we can do is include why AD believes Finkelstein is antisemitic. Blanket condemnations aren't particularly notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Dershowitz does say pretty much exactly that. But that isnt the point. Why should such an accusation, without any supporting evidence, made by somebody with a personal vendetta with the subject be included in a biography in an encyclopedia? But lets turn this around. Compare the coverage of what Finkelstein has said about Dershowitz with what has been added here from Dershowitz about Finkelstein. Finkelstein has called Dershowitz variously a "charlatan" (Beyond Chutspah p. 17), an "Israel apologist" (p 57), a person who "concocted a threadbare hoax" (p. 90). And that is just from the first 90 pages of a book published by the University of California Press. James Abourezk recently wrote a blistering reply to a claim made by Dershowitz in which he writes that "Dershowitz is neither a good lawyer nor a good liar."[12] Should the fact that I can source these comments mean they should be included in the article Alan Dershowitz? nableezy - 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The second quote I provided was not actually by Dershowitz. It was said by neo-nazi ingrid rimland and she was praising the man while calling him a Jewish david irving--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you like thanks for adding such an offensive quote to the article? Comparing the son of Holocaust survivors to a person widely called a Holocaust denier? You think that is appropriate to use in a BLP? nableezy - 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, what any man being the son of the Holocaust survivor has to do with the same man being the Holocaust denier? I do not have to provide any quotes of other about finkelstein , It is more than enough to provide its own quotes. What do you think I should be thinking about a Jew, who said:
  • "Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." "The Holocaust Industry" p. 55
  • ‘If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,’ my mother used to exclaim, ‘who did Hitler kill then?’”“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 81
And now I'll tell you that I have no interest to edit that article anymore.I'd rather save some water that I am using every time I touch it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I dont intend to tell you what to think. I would advise you that you should read the book and read what people have written about its quality. I do however hope that you rethink your apparent willingness to use such language about living people on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think what Dershowitz has said, as well as some other commentators, is that Finkelstein trivializes the holocaust by repeatedly using the event as an analogy for the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of Finkelstein's most celebrated books, the Holocaust Industry, is about certain Jews exploiting the holocaust and invoking its history to distract, support, or profit from whatever activities or plots they have going on. But what is somewhat is funny is that he constantly invokes his status as a decedent of holocaust survivors during lectures and speeches.
If I recall, in Defamation (film) Finkelstein compares Abe Foxman to Hitler numerous times. article describing one incident during the production.
I do believe Dershowitz criticism of Finkelstein deserve to be mentioned including Finkelstein's lengthy responses. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I kind of like the idea of putting in a quick blurb like that in the "Criticism" section to better characterize what his harshest critics say; the current bit from Dershowitz talks about Finkelstein's "complicity in a conspiracy against pro-Israel scholars" but the source is just talking about his alleged cooperation with two other academics in attacking Dershowitz and Peters. Broad riticism of his work/statements seems more important than allegations of backstabbing. Where's the 'using the holocaust as analogy for the Arab-Israeli' section in that source though? Sol (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Dershowitz has said many things, not many of which are even worthy of consideration for inclusion, with even fewer actually being worthy of inclusion. nableezy - 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To Sol: Better to respond chronilogically than in-between edits. What I mean is Finkelstein routinely compares Israel to Nazi Germany and occasionally draws analogies between Lebanese/Palestinians to Jews living under Nazi Germany. Jewish SS knows best.

Dershowitz writes,

Norman G. Finkelstein, a Hezbollah-supporting ideologue up for tenure at Depaul University, has repeatedly analogized Jews to Nazis and said that he "can't imagine why Israel's apologists would be offended by comparison with the Gestapo." When criticized for these and other comparisons, Finkelstein responded, "Nazis never like to hear they're being Nazis."

Finkelstein hasn't really made much of an attempt to hide this and often broadcasts similar comparisons in his own site. The question is should it be mentioned in the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel it is inappropriate to directly cite an opposing partisan making these kinds of claims in a BLP. This is no different from adding that Dershowitz has been called a liar and citing Aborezk or calling him a charlatan and citing Finkelstein. nableezy - 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If we attribute the statements to Dershowitz then we could include it. We can't say "Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew [insert Dershowitz cite here]." But I honestly don't care that much about Dershowitz. MBZ clearly has a personal issue going on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this issue is still live, now that Wikifan is out of the picture -- but I agree with Nableezy that it would be inappropriate to use Dershowitz as a source for this article on Finkelstein, particularly insofar as Dershowitz stoops to name-calling. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

:Dershowitz should be included as a well-known opponent of Finkelstein, and because of his role in the denial of tenure, but a quote should be selected that is representative without being unnecessarily inflammatory. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Political scientist"

The second claim made in the article, that Finkelstein is a political scientist, is unsourced. It also, apparently, false: according to the information in the article, Finkelstein is not employed by anyone as a political scientist. I removed this claim per WP:V. I left in the claim that he is an author because it is self evidently true. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that a scholar that is no longer employed in his area of expertise is no longer entitled to claim that expertise?Wayne (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

::If he is saying that, he shouldn't be. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"old communist"

Me thinks the inclusion of "old communist" was an attempt to besmirch Finkelstein. Removing it would have been a mistake, since it was a legitimate sourced quote, the sort of 'loose cannon' behavior Finkelstein specializes in. So I added context from the following sentence of the sourced interview. If anyone disturbs this, I'll respond by wiping the entire quotation out. Threat, but legitimate threat. Cheers. Tapered (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up. The "communist" quote was a weasel edit. Plain & simple. Nixing it feels like dissing David Horrorwitz and Alan Manischewitz @ the same time. Tapered (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

prominent

Without disputing the citation or the possibility of labeling Finkelstein as anti-Zionist, I changed the language of the Finkelstein article, which did not support the contention that he was irrevocably anti-Zionist, let alone "prominent." Another weaselly extrapolation modified without a straight deletion. Tapered (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is he truly an anti-Zionist?

Yes, I know he has been described as an anti-Zionist, but he has countless times said that he wasn't. I have read much of his literature and watched and listened to some of his lectures, nothing he says would leave one to thing he is anti-Zionist. He supports the right of Israel to exist and he supports the right of Jewish people to exist in Israel as does he support the right of any nation and their people to exist. I know he didn't explicitly say "Jewish State" but I still think it is pretty conclusive that he is not anti-Zionist. -asad (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's safe to say that his intellectual appproach to the Jewish state is nuanced and subtle. His public affect is incendiary, immature, and probably informed by inner conflict. It's quite legitimate to reference a source saying that he's been described as anti-Zionist. He has! More than once. So it belongs in the article. The "communist" reference was weasel work 100%, but since Finkelstein explained his statement in the next sentence in the same article, the weaselly intent was easily paried. Tapered (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Then would you agree to have have something along the lines of "... described him as an Anti-Zionist, though Finkelstein denies that claim"? -asad (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, Anti-zionist doesn't necessarily mean that you are against the existence of Israel - but probably often that you are against the policies of said country, our article states: On being called an anti-Zionist Finkelstein has said: "It's a superficial term. I am opposed to any state with an ethnic character, not only to Israel." un☯mi 14:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
He says this:
Academia is a pretty open place. I was not driven from my post because of my opinions, but because I was politically active. By the standards of the ivory tower, my views on the Israel-Palestine conflict are pretty tame: I don’t oppose the two-state settlement, I don’t extenuate Palestinian terrorism, and I do not define myself as anti-Zionist.
If he he's is not defining himself as an Anti-Zionist and the only thing that would leave one to believe that he is an Anti-Zionist is him saying he opposes any state with a national identity, than it would just as relevant to say he is described as being Anti-Kurdistan. -asad (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Good points, we can certainly use that to say that he has stated that he "doesn't define himself as anti-Zionist". un☯mi 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein he said that he supports the existence of Israel, so he is not anti Zionist, the ahram source is a claim by Jonathan Cook and certainly does not belong in the lead.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't being called an anti-Zionist just a perjorative used by his critics? If you look at the Wikipedia articles of other people who have been frequently accused by critics of being anti-Zionist such as Richard A. Falk, Naomi Klein, Joel Kovel, Tony Judt, Ilan Pappé, Tom Segev, Sara Roy, Henry Siegman, Avrum Burg, Jacqueline Rose and Noam Chomsky you will find mention for some that they are against Zionism, but not one of those articles states that they are anti-Zionist anywhere. At most it can be mentioned in the body that some critics accuse Finklestein of it but certainly not in the lead.Wayne (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. If someone of any credibility or substance describes him as an anti-Zionist and there is not some overwhelming counter-evidence, then it can be included in the article. If it's edited out because Finkelstein doesn't agree, THE PAGE BECOMES PR for Finkelstein. I like him, but this ain't his PR page. As far as dissident goes, that IS an unsubstantiated. I'm editing that out until it's substantiated. Let be. To repeat, this is an encyclopedia, not any persons' platform for expression. Tapered (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone describes him as an anti-Zionist, then that is that persons claim, it does not belong in the lead of the article, specially since Finkelstein has said himself that he supports the existence of Israel. You can put it somewhere else in the article and attribute it to who said it if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added to this description in the lead Finkelstein's own rejection of the label. I have no objection if anybody wants to remove both; but we cannot label him as an anti-Zionist if this is a description he explicitly rejects. RolandR (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Roland, good way to do it! I'm not labeling him anything. Someone else included it, w/ citation. re: Deliciousness, I moved it to a slightly less prominent location. I'd suggest that including the quote w/ Roland's mod demonstrates the controversy Finkelstein arouses, at least in the US. Tapered (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dissident?

What makes Finkelstein a dissident? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could say it's his substantial record of opposition to official US governmental policy. Pinkville (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we just change it to "... and historian of the Israel-Palestine conflict". -asad (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

Is there consensus for this? TIA--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there. His being Jewish is one step removed from his notability... he is particularly noted / controversial for his views on Israel and the Middle East, not for his practice (? or non-practice?) of Judaism. Note that his being Jewish, which requires a citation, isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in this discussion (as of yet), just wanted to add my two cents: I recognize the validity of your point, but I don't think it's controversial that him being Jewish is an aspect of his notability; he himself has dicussed it at length in various interviews, its influence or lack thereof on his scholarship, it's an issue often raised by both his supporters and detractors, etcetera. I don't know the exact criteria for notability, but unless there is a provision that excludes noting a person's ethnicity unless certain criteria is met, I think it's notable. Shoplifter (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing, for one. If it's that important to his bio, then that should be developed in its own paragraph or section in the body of the article, with citations. That would be a nice counterpart to all the controversial stuff about him, and round things out. In fully developed articles the lede is supposed to be a short mini-article that reflects the contents of the article as a whole, rather than introducing its own material that isn't treated elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that would be a good idea, on the other hand, I feel like that could easily be overdone, so to speak. Perhaps that is putting too much focus on it. By the way, here's a clip on the topic: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=127800510568535
To be honest, I don't know which side of this discussion the content or the mere existence of the clip favors. :-) Shoplifter (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::For all intents and purposes, his Jewish heritage is already thoroughly sourced in the article because it describes how both his parents were in the Warsaw ghetto and in two different concentration camps. That doesn't leave much room for doubt. It is also central to his notability, because his books and the controversy that surrounds them all deal with Jewish issues. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agee w/Delia on the notability of his Jewish ethnicity - but if this is to be included in the lead, it needs some context. I would add his ethnicity, then summarize very briefly his basic position on I-P issues. And if Prof Dershowitz is to be mentioned as someone who blocked his tenure, D's own university affiliation should be mentioned. So to summarize my position - I would keep it as it is w/o a lot of detail, or add enough detail to make it an actually meaningful summary that might inform someone who does not have the time or inclination to read to read the excessively lengthy and wordy article-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)-Regards-KeptSouth
Sounds good to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I see at the end of the article that it is included in 7 different "Jewish" categories, including "Jewish Anti-Zionism." I think that this is really central to Finkelstein's notability, and the controversy that surrounds him. It is difficult for pro-Zionists to dismiss Jewish anti-Zionists as anti-Semites (although they will often attempt it,) and the harshness of Finkelstein's critique combined with his family history make him perhaps the most formidable Jewish anti-Zionist (and a source of great aggravation for pro-Zionists.) Delia Peabody (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit because I don't think the claim of him being an "anti-Zionist" can stand without sourcing, in light of the weighty requirements in WP:BLP. Shoplifter (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::There are numerous sources which refer to Finkelstein as a Jewish Anti-Zionist, but most of them are pro-Zionist sources denouncing Finkelstein, so I would not use them in a BLP. However, here is a usable source, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram: [13] Is this satisfactory? Delia Peabody (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objection, I'll add it. Delia Peabody (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that Finkelstein is of Jewish ancestry is well-documented, and mentioned within the body of the article, though maybe it should be stressed more. The issue is whether the label of "ethnicity" belongs on the lede at all. Adding it to lede goes against the pattern used for other biographical articles. It makes sense for the lede to focus on the things that Finkelstein is notable for, namely his research. For that reason, they should be left to the main body of the article, not put in the lead. See WP:OPENPARA: Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that may rise to the level of relevant to the subject's notability. There are other vocal and, er, strident academic critics of Israel but Finkelstein stands out as one of the most polarizing Jewish voices. That he's the child of a Holocaust survivor makes his positions more surprising. Is that a subjective judgment on my part or lede worthy and relevant? I'm really not sure. Maybe if RS find it remarkable it would be inclusion worthy? Sol (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Finkelstein is notable as a critic precisely because he is Jewish. His criticisms would be easily brushed off were he not. Most press coverage stresses that he is Jewish, or the son of Holocaust victims, which amounts to the same thing. Delia Peabody (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC) No response. All right, are there any objections to a mention in the lead that he is the son of a Holocaust survivor? Delia Peabody (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Delia Peabody—why would we mention in the lead a fact about his parents when it is Norman Finkelstein who is the subject of this biography? Wouldn't we be going out on a limb, so-to-speak, to assume that a fact wholly dependent on the parents of the subject of a biography warrants mention in a lead? The Holocaust experience is wholly confined to the life of the parent. That experience predates the birth of the subject of this biography. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That is very clearly not the case. If you search in Google Scholar for "holocaust second generation", you ger 53,000 hits,[14] and there are a further 32,000 on Google Books.[15] The impact of the holocaust on the children of direct survivors is a very well-recognised and studied issue. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
RolandR—you say, "The impact of the holocaust on the children of direct survivors is a very well-recognised and studied issue." But what impact did it have on Norman Finkelstein? It may be so that such impact is observed in many cases—but can the referred-to "impact" be shown to be applicable in the specific instance of Norman Finkelstein? Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to your comment that "The Holocaust experience is wholly confined to the life of the parent". As far as I recall, Finkelstein has indeed written about the effect on his childhood of his mother's experiences. If he considers this notable, we certainly cannot contradict him. RolandR (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In some instances the experiences of the parent before the child is born can have "impact" on the child but in other instances the experiences of a parent before a child is born could have little if any impact. So I think we would want to be careful not to make generalizations about all children of Holocaust survivors. We would want to know specifically if Norman Finkelstein accords great significance to his mother's experience during the Holocaust. You say "If he considers this notable, we certainly cannot contradict him." I don't think we would necessarily be contradicting him if we failed to mention in the lead of our article that his mother survived the Holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Finkelstein's parent were Holocaust survivors should be mentioned in the lead for a couple of reasons: (1) many sources comment on it; and (2) Finkelstein's primary claim to fame is the book "The Holocaust Industry" which portrays some survivors (or at least the organizations that represent survivors) in a negative light. The fact that his parents are survivors puts sheds a important light on his opinions, and indeed on his entire career. A reader seeing that fact in the lead will be in a better position to appreciate the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Noleander—you say that "The fact that his parents are survivors puts sheds a important light on his opinions, and indeed on his entire career." The body of the article draws no connection between his mother being a Holocaust survivor and any of his activities or opinions. Based on the present content of the article the fact of his mother being a Holocaust survivor is a disconnected fact—disconnected from any opinions for instance expressed by Norman Finkelstein and presented in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it could be that the article could be improved with more mention of his parents and their influence on him, however, I would say that his ethnicity and the plight of his parents can take up a single sentence and constitutes such basic information that I am not sure that we need to have it fleshed out in the article. His own statements give credit to his parents for his critique of Israel see for example this. un☯mi 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

:We don't need to psychoanalyze Finkelstein to know whether this is notable. Reliable sources that discuss The Holocaust Industry invariably draw attention to this fact. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are psychoanalyzing him at all. It is not Finkelstein who is a Holocaust survivor but rather his mother and the article is not about the mother. I think that what is at issue is whether or not the Holocaust experience of the mother of the subject of this biography warrants mention in the lead of this article. That the mother of someone who is sometimes described as an anti-Zionist is a Holocaust survivor is more a curiosity than an integral aspect of the arguments made and the stances taken by Finkelstein. I am not aware for instance that he ever predicates his reasoning in the matters that he is noted for upon the fact that his mother is a survivor of the Holocaust. That fact of his mother being a Holocaust survivor is more in the category of an incidental oddity than something of great importance. As such I feel it only warrants a passing mention in the body of the article and not in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Let me put it differently then. It appears to me that you are constructing an argument based on your own analysis, when the yardstick for inclusion should be the extent to which it is discussed in reliable sources. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC) sock of banned user   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of allegation that his mother was communist "leaning"; very biased excerpt from very negative Ha Aretz review.

Um, this is not kosher. The cited source prefaced the statement that Finkelstein's " parents, particularly his mother, had communist leanings" with the word "Evidently..."

Moreover, the immediate next statement accuses Finkelstein of "hatred" of Israel...whether or not one is willing to believe that, it is clearly a very negative review. Whatever be its merits, it is not the place for allegedly factual information about family.

ALso, communist "leanings" is a loaded term. It would be more FACTUAL if one could state that perhaps someone had for instanced authored pamphlets supporting communism, etc.

Also, most Jewish socialists of that era were simply socialist "leaning" and not outright "communist" particularly since Stalin was anti-Semitic.

In the USA, to call someone a "communist" is often derogatory and slanderous.

Finally, the article is about his momma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikidIKibitzShield (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Erased sentence

""While condemning the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal, Finkelstein has stated he believes Hezhollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel targets civilians."""

The references do not support this point. Finkelstein says something along the lines of "they have a right to defend themselves" How does this translate into him believing that it is ok for Hezbollah to target Israeli civilians if Israel does it?? It seems to me that whoever wrote this is probably a huge critic of Finkelstein and is trying to put in sentences like this to discredit him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.236.88 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but did you actually read the sources? In the first one Finkelstein literally states: "I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is about the only quote that has any merit in your two articles and even then it has been misused.


""" It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts. """"""""""

He does not justify terrorism, but also doesn't think that it's realistic for them to simply lay down and die. In other interviews he talks about this in more detail. He makes comparisons with Palestinians and Israel to those of Nazi Germany and the jewish resistance fighters, who have at times targeted German civilian populations. According to you we should think of them as true terrorists as well. The important part of this quote is that he is trying to draw a clear distinction. He does not support terrorism, but it's important to think about who is the "instigator" and which group is consistently breaking international law. The second article you referenced is written by Alan Dershowitz and is complete nonsense. It is just one bit long rant.

According to wikipedia, terrorism can be defined as a non-governmental organisation performing an attack against a civilian target. There is the mitigating factor in the example provided in that it was primarily in an attempt at self-defence rather than a political goal or to attempt to terrorise the enemy. However, I still don't think there would be a justification even in the example you cited. From the books I've read on Nazi Germany, many Germans were ignorant of what occurred in the camps, docile due to the extreme police state enforced at the time of the war, or perhaps even sympathetic to the plight of the victims of the regime. I believe in Irish sovereignty and that English rule in the North of Ireland is a relic of England's imperialist past. While I couldn't seriously compare England and Ireland in modern times with Israel and Palestine, I also could not possibly condone the IRA targeting civilian populations. It's a pointless anecdote, but my friend's mum was shopping in Ealing when the car bomb went off: she's Irish and as far as I know supports an independent Ireland as well. 78.149.155.247 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The two articles are not "my" articles nor did I insert them or the content based on them. I merely corrected your false claim/edit (of the content being unsourced). If you you think there description is overall not accurate/misleading or the articles are not well suited as sources, you are free to argue that here and if there's consent to modify the article accordingly.
But you cannot simply delete established and sourced article content that you personally dislike or disagree with for whatever reason by falsely claiming that the content is not sourced
As far as "It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal" is concerned. That's your personal opinion which is irrelevant for the article. As far as Dershowitz is concerned I agree that he is a problematic (and highly partsisan) source on Finkelstein. Nevertheless are Dershowitz and his publications formally "reputable sources" and I don't think an article on Finkelstein is comprehensive without mentioning Dershowitz criticism of Finkelstein (whatever one might think of the criticism itself, it is definitely a notable aspect of Finkelstein's biography).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"" According to wikipedia, terrorism can be defined as a non-governmental organisation performing an attack against a civilian target.""

According to Websters dictionary, terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." I think it would be much better if we went by this definition, however general it may be. The only other definition of terrorism that i have heard is that it is " targeting of civilian populations and civilian infrastructure to achieve a political end" I don't think in any definition of the word is it specifically stated that it has to be a "non-governmental organization" Terrorism can be performed by government organizations to achieve political ends. According to your definition Hezbollah could not be considered a terrorist organization considering they are a political party and have seats in the Lebanese government. So according to your own definition he cannot be supporting terrorism

In the example with the IRA that you provided, the British have actually killed more civilians during that time then the IRA, yet the IRA were labeled as the real terrorists. According to the definition you gave this might make sense, however it relies on a false premise, and that is that only non-governmental organizations can be involved in terrorist acts.

The sentence should be erased because the point was not supported by the sources. It is not completely clear of what Finkelstein is saying, because in the first two sentences of that quote, he is clearly condemning "terrorism" Also that part was not my own opinion, that was a part of his reply (read your own article again) Either you forgot that he said that or you purposefully left that out in order for your sentence to seem more valid.

As for Dershowitz. I have no problems with him being mentioned but that reference was completely out of place. He was talking about Finkelsteins views and trying to discredit him, but it has nothing to do with the point you made. His article was a response to Finkelsteins larger view of the conflict. Also, while i do believe Dershowitz should be quoted in this page, let's not make the whole thing about him. This is supposed to deal with Finkelsteins and his views. I notice that very little information on this page actually talks about that, instead much of it is dealing with the medias image of Finkelstein and Dershowitz battle with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.144.183 (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed Dershovitz as an unsuited source for that content. However left the sentence, since it is still well sourced by his interview and seems to be appropriate in that section. If several other editors agree that the sentence despite being correctly sourced is an overall unfair/misleading, I won't object its removal. I don't really a strong opposition either way as far as the sentence is concerned, but I do have an issue with single editors passing by and removing (reliably) sourced content from reviewed articles (good article). Also it might be a good idea to wait for comment of the editor(s), who inserted that sentence in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The important thing about the wikipedia article that is lost by a dictionary definition is that it points out that no one definition of terrorism is going to be accepted by all parties. If you read the article on "State terrorism" there has been no consensus on separating state terrorism (military usage of terrorist tactics), state sponsored terrorism (employing paramilitary groups as Hezbollah and the USA did) or terrorism itself. One thing that most definitions have in common is the targeting of civilians (rather than paramilitary or guerilla targets) for the effect of creating fear in the actual enemy. Perhaps "terrorism" isn't as useful as to whether it can be legitimate to target civilian populations? If there's a reliable source for Finkelstein's opinion on that matter I think it would make a good addition to the article. 78.151.152.235 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see, why what WP defines or somebody defines as terrorism really matters with respect to the article. First of all the sentence in WP is not using the term terror or terrorism and second even if it did then it would be only a literal copy of Finkelstein himself, who uses the term in that interview.
If you want to argue he said literally terror(ism), but he didn't mean WP's or any other common definition of terrorism, then you'll need a source otherwise it will be just idle speculation for WP editors and some form of WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"""since it is still well sourced""" No it is not. All you have is one quote which is not clear at all, given that in the first two sentences he is clearly condemning terrorism on both fronts. You are making way too strong of an assumption based on an unclear quote. I read the article and the rest of it does not point to the conclusion you drew either. If you want to make such a bold assumption then you cannot introduce unclear quotes and say "it is well sourced"

Also, i think most would agree that terrorism should include governmental and non-governmental organizations. You are talking about specific forms of terrorism, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Sorry, but your argument is neither correctly referring to the text used in the WP article nor are you giving a correct description of the quote. So let me reiterate, the WP article is not talking about terrorism and it correctly describes what Finkelstein is conveying. The notion that anybody here would claim that Finkelstein support terrorism in general or any form of terrorism is something you've made up yourself, the WP article doesn't state any such thing nor did I in this thread.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz for sourcing

The discussion under "erased sentence" above did not reach an agreement regarding various aspects of "terrorism" and "Finkelstein supporting 'terrorism' under certain circumstances". It did however reach an agreement of not using Dershowitz as a "factual" source in that section (more genereally using Dershowitz for "factual" claims about Finkelstein).

The reason for that is the long standing conflict and personal animosity between Dershovitz and Finkelstein, turning Dershowitz into a highly partisan source not being suited for "factual" claims about Finkelstein. There should be enough other reputable sources for sourcing such claims or statements about Finkelstein.

This does of course not mean that Dershowitz criticism of Finkelstein cannot be mentioned - it can and should and of course Dershowitz can be used as a (primary) source for that. But in such cases an intext attribution is required, i.e. it should be be clear to the reader that the claim stems from Dershovitz rather than a "neutral" 3rd party. It should not look like a like factual description, where only the reading of the footnotes will reveal, that it just might be Dershowitz's opinion after all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz in the lead

My recollection of the affair seems a bit different. Dershowitz involvement was highly publicized, independent of whether it ultimately influenced the university's decision or not.

However personally I have no objections against moving that sourced line to a later chapter. But you cannot simply delete sourced and established (?) material from (the lead of an) article currently rated as good, in particular considering that it is under special observation and had a difficult past.

So please state your case on here on the discussion page and see whether you can get some consensus.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your opponents have a point that your edit makes it sound as if Dershowitz instigated the tenure denial, which AFAIK is misleading. I made a compromise edit, I think the wording could still use some work but it's a start. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well it is not my edit, I just reverted the deletion for the reasons stated above. As far as the current edit is concerned it is even more misleading, iirc did Dershovitz call the dean or some other guy at DePaul to ask them to deny Finklstein tenure, which is rather unusual considering that Dershowitz is not at DePaul. That does not mean that Dershowitz caused the denial or that his opinion even mattered, but nevertheless it turned out to be highly publicized attempt to influence the decision and indeed you could view that as an instigation.
In any case you somewhat misquote the source which clearly states, that Dershowitz attempted to block Finkelsteins tenure (Title :"Harvard Law Professor Seeks to Block Tenure for Adversary at DePaul U"), whereas you current version states something rather different.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree it may have given too much weight to the incident but the mention in the lead was the only mention of Dershowitz's intent, which was the basis of the actions he was criticised for. I inserted a short sentence in the first paragraph of the relevant section so that there is context for why the University felt to need to issue a specific denial that Dershowitz had any effect. Hopefully this will satisfy WP:weight. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me as long as the content stays in the article. Regarding the lead it is imho "just" a matter of taste/personal judgement, on which I have no real opinion, i.e. I can live with either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Childhood friend" as a source for a quote.

Using a "childhood friend" as a source for a description of his mother's beliefs doesn't seem very good. Norman says himself that his mother was "hysterical" about the war, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=18&ar=1. I think this would be a better source for a quote about his mother. Glen newell (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Finkelstein's statements on Hezbollah and Hitler

Good evening. I can not agree with user CJCurrie's decision, to delete the following paragraph:


Interviewed on a Lebanese TV Station, Finkelstein suggested an analogy between Hezbollah's fight against Israel and communist resistance under Nazi reign. Finkelstein stated, he would honor Hezbollah for their courage and discipline. Suggesting that it was Israel's and the United States' intention, to entirely dominate the Arab World, Finkelstein said the Lebanese people would only have the choice of either militant resitance or "to be the slaves of the Americans."
Asked, if there wouldn't be any alternative to Hezbollah's militant actions, Finkelstein denied: "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." Hereupon, he again anagolized the United States and Israel with Hitler-Germany.[6]


Without making use of the discussion page to explain his action in detail, CJCurrie deleted the above twice. All he said: "It's a highly selective -- and, in that sense, misleading -- summary from a much larger interview." On the other hand, another part of the Future-TV interview is quoted in length:


Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas with respect to defensive actions, alleging that Israel had invaded Lebanon as a signal of rejection when Hamas was seeking a diplomatic settlement with Israel. He also condemned Israel's refusal "to abide by international law (and) to abide by the opinion of the international community" to settle the conflict".[7][8]

"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, who they want to represent them. But there is a fundamental principle. People have the right to defend their country from foreign occupiers, and people have the right to defend their country from invaders who are destroying their country. That to me is a very basic, elementary and uncomplicated question."[9]


I do not understand, why Finkelstein's equation between Hitler-Germany and Israel on the one side, and Communist Resistance and Hezbollah on the other, should be withheld from wiki-readers? In the Future-TV interview, it is obvious, that in this alleged analogy lies the core of Finkelstein's analysis of the conflict - that leads him to solidarity with Hezbollah. Why does CJCurrie believe, reproducing this core argument from the original source Norman Finkelstein: In Defense of Hezbollah, Excerpt from a Lebanese (Future TV) interview, January 20, 2008 could be selective and therefore misleading?

In the informationa non grata part of the interview, Finkelstein also declared:

"Even Hitler didn't want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could."

Now, this truly seems to be a misleading interpretation of history. But it is not up to us, to correct Finkelstein here. It is what he said - and whoever researches on Finkelstein has the right, to read it. And obviously the information is practically relevant to understand the public discourse on Finkelstein: In Germany for instance, the above statement on Hitler provoked massive protests against the author in 2010, so that Finkelstein eventually had to cancel several lectures in Berlin and Munich.

If other editors would read the interview's full text and agree, that other parts of the interview should likewise be referredd to, there could be a productive process in order to adequately picture the interviews logical structure. Just deleting information of fundamental interest to the public is not an encyclopedic option.

Best regards, --Minzminz (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Check archive six. There is a RFC there regarding the content of the "Statements on Israel and Israelis" section and the Hizbullah and Hamas sub-section, The RFC covers 13 sections and more than 20,000 words (approx 50 pages so set aside a few hours to read it). The interview's full text was reviewed and the material you are suggesting was discussed and rejected as was expanding the section above it's current size. Consensus was almost unanimous for the current version (only one dissenting editor). The analogy was actually originally in the section but there were major problems with it being edited and reworded out of context in order to cast Finkelstein in the worst possible light so it was decided to keep analogies out. If you can find the RS for the protests in Germany then that can be added, perhaps something along the lines of "Finkelsteins views regarding Israel have led to protests in Germany." Wayne (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So, do I understand that correctly, the community had problems getting Finkelstein's analogy straight - uncapable to stick to the source and therefore not to misinterpret the author - and therefore you decided without further ado to just ignore the whole subject? Sounds really unsatisfactory. From a glimpse look it seems to me, that there might have been "only one dissenting editor", but he might have made some strong arguments nevertheless - that it would be an obvious violation of the rule of editing, to conceal central parts of somebodys expressions of opinion, that seem to be misleading. Again: Should Finkelstein have said anything misleading, it would be up to him to straighten it out - not to fellow wikipedia editors that desire to prevent any controversial interpretation.
As for the theme of essential equation of National Socialist Germany and present Israel actions, there is only very low risk of misinterpreting the author: Finkelstein frequently draws the analogy, very obssesively for example here: [16] This is extremely important information, that is indispensable for any comprehension of Finkelstein's analysis - let it be affirmative or critical.
Sounds like a good idea to refer to the German protests, that objected Finkelstein's Hitler proposition. This is how we solved the conflict in the german Wikipedia as well. [17] Does the english Wikipedia accept RS in foreign languages?
Hope we can move forward together. Regards, --Minzminz (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The community had no problems getting Finkelstein's analogy straight, it was the dissenting editor who was incapable of sticking to the source and he was not only misinterpreting Finkelstein but adding OR and filibustering to keep his version in. He was topic banned for his behaviour here. Finkelsteins Stalin analogy is a better example because he used it for both Hizbullah and Hamas, it is more consistent with his views, is easily understood by readers and is not as open to misinterpretaion as the Germany analogy. People see the name Hitler and they let emotion overule common sense and forget what an analogy is. Wayne (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Finkelstein and BDS

I'm not sure that this is an accurate characterization of Finkelstein's statements in the video where he discusses BDS:

"He did however state that he supported BDS, but had tactical differences with the movement."

Finkelstein's opposition to BDS seems more than just tactical: there's a clear different on principle in that he sees BDS as opposing a two-state solution and he thinks that the movement's platform "has to include recognition of Israel". There's also a level of anger with the leadership of the movement that goes beyond a disagreement over tactics. I think the point of inserting this text is to establish that there are some fundamental things that Finkelstein agrees with, and I think that's absolutely true. When he says "I support the BDS..." he's referring to something he says at about 4:03 in the video, that he supports using boycotts, divestment and sanctions as tools. Clearly he's not saying that he supports the BDS movement, since he's spending half an hour describing all the things about the movement that anger him. Would other editors support the following text instead of the above (my modifications to the existing text are in bold):

In February 2012, Finkelstein "launched a blistering attack" of the BDS movement, saying that while he supports using tools such as boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, the organized campaign was a "hypocritical, dishonest cult" that tries to cleverly pose as human rights activists while in reality their goal is to destroy Israel.

GabrielF (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But that characterisation is consistent with previous comments by NF. For instance, in a debate in London with Professor Jonathan Rosenhead in November 2011, he said: "BDS is one tactic, its not THE tactic as some exponents of BDS would like us to believe... ou could say that BDS is one of three broad strategies that’s been attempted. All of them have registered some success, none of them has been resoundingly successful... that to me again is an indication of a creation of a cult which worries me... you couldn’t find a more morally unimpeachable tactic – its non-violent, it doesn’t use any forms of force, even force of language, the tactic itself is unimpeachable but it has to be attached to a goal that will reach the public, now it you attach it to a goal that does not reach the public its a dead end."[18] In fact, this speech was no different from the latest one, which has sparked the controversy. It seems clear that NF supports BDS in princiiple, but opposes the way in which this is applied by the Global BDS Movement. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
What do the reliable sources say about the interview? We can't use our own interpretation of the interview on the article page, as that would be misuse of a primary source. Nor can we use the fact that Finkelstein called it a "cult" a few times as a source for stating that he has recently taken to calling it a cult. We would need a reliable source to say that directly, not do our own analysis. While we're at it, the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source but a short piece in that publication about an anti-Israeli activist interviewing an Israel critic is not enough to establish due weight for calling one particular interview a "blistering attack", or even that the interview is worth mentioning at all. If this interview is such a game changer, surely a broader range of publications has covered it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
RolandR, I don't think we're disagreeing. I guess my point is that the acronym BDS is being used to mean a set of tactics and also a movement and so the phrase "he supported BDS" is unclear. I think we need to explicitly state that he supports using boycotts, divestment and sanctions as tactics but opposes the movement. The current text is confusing on that point. GabrielF (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We cannot explicitly state anything of the sort based on the video, as Wikidemon explained. That's original research. If it's not in a secondary source, it doesn't belong here. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
other sources include: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012227111759385177.html; http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/norman_finkelstein_hezbollah_zionist_bully; http://boulderjewishnews.org/2012/norman-finkelstein-makes-an-astonishing-admission/; http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/jonathan-kay-the-return-of-the-israel-apartheid-week-cult/ and more......
I don't like this section. It seems like we've just jumped on the latest headline without discussing his long held views on the BDS issue. For instance he has used the term "cult" in relation to BDS since at least 2010 [19]. Also I think we need to make a bit more effort trying to accurately describe his position on BDS rather than just trying to fit in the most inflammatory quotes from the articles. Specifically what does he support about the movement what has he criticized and why? Dlv999 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The quotes are not from the article, they are sourced to the interview itself. Avaya1 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if the quotes are taken straight from the interview, that is even worse. The interview is 15 minutes long, you could have just as easily cherrypicked the parts of the interview where he says he supports the non-violent "means" of boycott, divestment and sanctions rather than his disagreement with the goal (Finkelstein supports the 2ss while he characterizes BDS' "agnostic" position as dishonest - essentially he thinks their goal is a 1ss where "there is no Israel".)Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

picture irrelevant?

the picture above the caption : "Attempting to enter Israel in 2008, Finkelstein was detained at the airport for 24 hours and then sent back to the United States" is random and should be removed. It's just a picture of Israel's airport! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Finkelstein as Holocaust denier

To anybody familiar with the subject, there isn't really any serious dispute that Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier. In that context there wasn't really any problem with VivaWikipedia's alleged "editorializing". He merely provided a well known and undisputed context for readers not familiar with Finkelstein already, this is something a good encyclopedic article actually should do.

However by looking at the (primary) source, one might argue that the source itself doesn't state that he is no holocaust denier (as it is obvious knowledge), so formally one might argue by using that alone (and ignoring common knowledge/other sources) that VivaWikipedia's description is "editorializing". But such a line arguing looks more like (unjustified) wikilawyering to me.

But be that as it may, we cannot keep a (purposely?) misleading information in the article by giving an incomplete and out of context description of a source (=misrepresentation of source). So either we have the "editorialized" version of VivaWikipedia (by adding another source)/an alternative complete description taking context into account or we remove that nonsense altogether.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a compound sourcing problem. True, the proposition that he was called a holocaust denier is from a primary source (one primary source republishing another): Finklestein's website repriting the letter verbatim. It's presumptively true that the letter exists and wording is correct, but that does not validate its context or weight. The material added in rebuttal is argumentative, and a matter of editorial opinion, so it's some combination of WP:OR or not reliably sourced. The whole thing together parses something like "the National Association of Forest Defense accused Fuzzie of not being a bear[cite 1] even though he was full of fur and came from the woods[unrelated cite]". To take a step back, certainly Finklestein is not denying that the holocaust happened, or is it a cogent answer to the charge to say that he is Jewish so he can't be a denier. Rather, he criticized Jewish groups for linking their own advocacy to the Holocaust, leading some of them (in particular, the ADL) to use the term "holocaust denier" against him, more or less as an epithet. This is covered by secondary sources, though as something that happened as a slow burn beginning 15 years ago or more there aren't as many reliable sources as something that might happen with a current news story today. Here's one from the Washington Post, behind a pay wall. ADL repeatedly accused DePaul University professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and strongly opposes Israeli policies, of being a "Holocaust denier."[20] Here is a more in-depth analysis.[21] I can't speak for the location and approach. The article already mentions the extreme upset that some Jewish groups have taken to Finklestein's accusing them of exploiting the Holocaust. Should it say that some of them have called him a denier? There's no dispute that they have, so it's a question of WP:WEIGHT, and putting it in the right context. Underlying all, would adding this fact explain the subject better to an interested lay reader? Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem from my perspective was the misrepresentation of the source that was used. It is probably fair to argue that we shouldn't use a primary source here and that the particular primary source might not be reliable, but the consequence of that is not using it at all and removing the content.
The other thing is, that from a line reading "(non profit, presumably reputable, 3rd party) organisation X calls Y a holocaust denier" without any further info/context a lay person would probably conclude, that indeed Y is most likely a holocaust denier. So we never should use such a line if we we know that Y is not a holocaust denier to begin with.
Now if the article is supposed to describe that some organization or some people have (falsely) called him a holocaust denier, then it needs be done in such a way that the actual meaning is obvious/transparent to lay readers. I.e. they should not be not required to have special knowledge about Finkelstein to understand, that those accusations are false (and mere labelling).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving film up

I goofed and hit "Minor edit" which obviously wasn't. But since I'm here, makes sense to put the positive together but am unwatching since if others disagree, whatever. CarolMooreDC 16:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For this link Debate with Shlomo Ben-Ami --Malerooster (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced this with the correct link. It took me all of two minutes to find the new URL and edit the article. RolandR (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you want a prize? --Malerooster (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, just pointing out that you could have done this yourself yesterday, rather than deleting the link. RolandR (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You could have just said that. --Malerooster (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

disappointing article

I am disappoined in the article. dePaul is of no significance nor is Desrhowitz. ( Martin | talk • contribs 10:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

They are relevant to the article. If you are talking about the lead, I agree the points you highlighted are given too much weight. Perhaps you could help improve the article, maybe by summarizing some of the other notable aspects to this topic in the lead, e.g Finkelstein's leading role in exposing the Joan Peter's "Hoax" or his other notable scholarship such as his work on the Holocaust. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You mean his smearing of Joan Peter's factual and accurate account of the Arab immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruelslums (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean the "factual and accurate account" that the author has never surfaced to defend after critics trashed it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request November 2013

Please add this article to the category "Children of Holocaust survivors". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.23.229 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013

Two of the references are dead links. Here are fixes

ref 47 please change Alan Dershowitz and Alexander Cockburn (October 2003). "Dershowitz vs. Cockburn (including exchange of letters)". www.normanfinkelstein.com. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)[dead link] to Alan Dershowitz and Alexander Cockburn (October 2003). "Dershowitz vs. Cockburn (including exchange of letters)". www.normanfinkelstein.com. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

ref 50: I can't find a page that has both Menetrez's original post and the following exchanges with Dershowitz.

Please change Frank J. Menetrez; et al. (July 6, 2007). "Dershowitz vs. Finkelstein: Who's Right and Who's Wrong?". www.normanfinkelstein.com, including e-mails attributed to Alan Dershowitz and remarks additional to the original article attributed to Menetrez. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)[dead link] to Frank J. Menetrez; et al. (July 6, 2007). "Dershowitz vs. Finkelstein: Who's Right and Who's Wrong?". www.normanfinkelstein.com. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Rbehrouzi (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for those. I have also removed the quotation "Dershowitz is deliberately misrepresenting what Finkelstein wrote".[49][50], since those words are in neither source. I have paraphrased instead. Finally, FN49 was inaccurate to list the Beyond Chutzpah ... book as being by Menetrez. The book is by Finkelstein and includes the Menetrez article as an epilogue. I have corrected the citation. --Stfg (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Please somebody search the main article for the term 'oing' and change into 'ing'. Why is it so hard to send an email pertaining to this simple edit? You guys have too high opinions of yourselves. I know it's a controversial topic, but there has to be a better way for people that just propose good-willing spelling/grammatics edits. Wheee. Now that that's out of my system, would appreciate a mail back telling me the edit's been done. bjd AT xs4all.nl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.236.142 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request January 2014

There is a sentence under the heading "Hezbollah and Hamas" that reads "While condemning the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal, Finkelstein has stated he believes Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel targets civilians". It refers to fn83.

1. The footnote returns a 404 Error. The interview to which the passage refers can also be found here.

2. Perhaps the quote should be given in full, since this is a statement which requires contextualisation. Finkelstein says, "It is impossible to justify terrorism, which is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. But it's also difficult to make categorical statements of the kind you suggest. I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."

The current summary says that Finkelstein 'condemns' the targeting of civilians. However, his actual claim is that it is 'impossible to justify' the targeting of civilians, which is quite a bit stronger. He goes on to say that Hezbollah has the right to target civilians. To say that a person or organisation has a 'right' to perform an action can naturally be taken as a justification for their performing that action. If so, then Finkelstein's remark is a blatant contradiction. If not, at the very least it is a controversial statement that should be presented in context. 110.175.237.225 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version was the result of considerable discussion (see here) and is unlikely to change without encouraging an edit war. I don't see a contradiction as Finkelstein saying they have the right is not the same as thinking it is justified. He still believes it is wrong. Wayne (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statements on Israel and Israelis

Regarding the section on Israel, Avi Shlaim is an excellent high quality third party source to succinctly describe Finkelstein's critique of Israel and give his considered academic appraisal of the critique.

It is not a "coatrack". Finkelstein is an academic, and Shlaim is giving us his academic assessment of Finkelstein's research on Israel. Finkelstein's research is is central to the topic of the article - that is why he is notable. I'm not really sure what is going on here, we can't discuss an issue central to the topic by a high quality academic source because it includes some material about Israel that certain editors do not like? Dlv999 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Shlaim's quote is from an interview he gave to "Democracy Now" - that doesn't strike me as an academic venue. As Shlaim is both an activist as well as an historian, I'd say his opinion, as expressed in an outlet that skews heavily left is more an expression of his activism, rather than his professional capacity. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
He is emeritus professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was interviewed by Democracy now to discuss Finkelstein's scholarship due to his academic reputation in the field relevant to Finkelstein's work. Shlaim was one of the academics that peer reviewed Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah for it's publisher University of California Press. So is probably about the best source you could ask for for an appraisal of that research (Shlaim's peer review for the University of California press has been published by the Journal of Palestine Studies so we could probably expand the Shlaim comments based on his peer review of the work). I'm not aware that Shlaim is regarded as an "activist" by RS. I wonder what RS you could produce to support your claim. Dlv999 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This is nothing more than your opinion. Academic reviews and scholarship are found in academic venues. "Democracy Now" is a populist, activist site. If you are looking for a description of Shlaim as an activist: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/25/ten_things_im_thankful_for_this_year . Brad Dyer (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your citation fails, Walt lists a number of "inspired writers and activists" and doesn't who he views as writers and who he views as activists. In any case we have Shlaim's peer review of Finkelstein's work for the University of California press as published by the Journal of Palestine Studies, so this discussion is somewhat mute. Another point to make is that weather you personally regard Shlaim as an activist or scholar does not really alter the fact that he is a significant published opinion on the issue of Finlkelstein's research on Israel and should be included per WP:NPOV Dlv999 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is far from moot (note the correct usage of the term). We can certainly use material from his peer reviewed work published by UC (and I believe the article does this already). But we cannot do the same for an informal interview he gave to an activist web site. And here's another source for you on Shlaim's activism: http://www.jpost.com/International/New-Statesman-prints-pro-Palestinian-flotilla-advert Brad Dyer (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A Democracy Now interview with Savi Shlaim on the topic of Finkelstein's research with respect to Israel is a perfectly fine source to verify Avi Shlaim's opinion on Finkelstein's research with respect to Israel. The important point is that AS's viewpoint is significant for inclusion per WP:NPOV (it tells us to include all significant viewpoints). As previously discussed Avi Shlaim's viewpoint is significant because of his position as emeritus professor of International Relations at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, he has published extensively on the issue throughout his career, he completed the peer review on Finkelstein's work on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Shlaim's review of Finkelstein's work , published in a UC journal is indeed academic work - why aren't you using that, then? Why are you instead choosing an interview he gave to an activist site? I am beginning to agree with the the other poster who said this looks like a coat-rack. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As discussed Shalim's viewpoint is significant and should be included per our WP:NPOV policy, which tells us to include all significant viewpoints. An interview of Shlaim, conducted and published by Democracy Now, about Norman Finkelstein and his work, is a perfectly fine source to verify the opinion of Avi Shlaim on Finkelstein and his work. If you have any doubts that the source is suitable for what is being used for you are free to take it to WP:RSN. Claiming Coatrack is a nonsense - the entire Democracy Now interview with Shlaim and Hilberg is focussed on Norman Finkelstein and his career. That is the topic of this article. It is not a coatrack to include material about the topic of the article from a source specifically covering the topic of the article: Norman Finkelstein. Dlv999 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You aren't answering my question. Why are you using an interview in Democracy Now, a heavily biased source, instead of and in preference to an academic work by the same author on the same topic? Brad Dyer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the consensus is that Democracy Now! is an independent progressive news source, not a "heavily biased source." Avi Shlaim is himself a RS making a claim supported by a consensus among major academics in his field of studies so I see no problem with using it. If you need a more scholarly source then you can add the journal Works & Days, Special Issue: Academic Freedom in the Post-9/11 University, Vols 26 & 27, pp 307-322 (2009) ISSN 0886-2060 which also contains the material. Wayne (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you provide the relevant quote from Works & Days - that might be a suitable replacement, but I don't have access to it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the Democracy Now interview with Shlaim is a fine source for the opinion of Shlaim. If you have any doubts you are free to take it to WP:RSN. But I can assure you, what they will say is that the source is fine for what it is being used for. Dlv999 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Agian, assuming you are not coat-racking, why are you using an interview in Democracy Now, a heavily biased source, instead of and in preference to an academic work by the same author on the same topic? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The interview with the two very notable scholars is on the topic of Norman Finkelstein and his career. The topic of this article is Norman Finkelstein and his career. It is not a coatrack to use sources that are entirely devoted to the topic of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you just answer the question, please? Brad Dyer (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The quote very succinctly summarizes Shlaim's appraisal of Finkelstein's work with respect to Israel. I haven't seen any policy/evidence based reasons to exclude it. Dlv999 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_sourcesis clear that academic sources should be used over non-academic ones, and that more neutral sources should be used in preference to ones with a known ideological bias Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources. You are doing the opposite here, choosing the non-academic, biased source over academic sources by the same author , where he has written and expressed his opinion on the topic. Why are you doing this? 21:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad Dyer (talk • contribs)
Your personal opinion about Democracy Now is irrelevant here, because we are using a direct quote of Avi Shlaim to describe the opinion of Avi Shlaim. It is Avi Shlaim's opinion that we are including not Democracy Now's. In fact the opinion Shlaim gives in his peer review is very consistent with the opinion he gives in the Democracy Now interview. The Democracy Now quote is just a very succinct summary of Shlaim's views on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, are you going to be consistent with your approach here? Are you proposing to delete all non=academic sources from the article? Look at the rest of the sources in that section alone, I think you will find that the Democracy now source is the best citation there. Dlv999 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am proposing that wherever we have academic sources , they should be used in preference to non-academic ones, yes. That is wikipedia policy. You asked for a wikipedia policy, I've given you one. Please answer my question now. I really want to understand why you are violating wiki policy is such a blatant manner. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the majority of material in the article is not supported by academic sources, so just trying to remove this one piece of text from the article because it is a scholar quoted in an interview rather than in an academic publication is not really going to fly. Dlv999 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I am saying. The reason to replace this material with equivalent material from an academic source is that that is Wikiepdia policy. Why are you doing the opposite of what policy requires? if the opinions are, as you claim, 'very consistent' - why are you using the one from Democracy Now interview, rather than the academic peer review, in contravention of wiki policy? Brad Dyer (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As discussed the Avi Shlaim quote is a very succinct summary of Shlaim's views on the issue. If you read the policy document that you cited above it states: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources". We are not prohibited from using non-academic sources. In this case the source is very relevant, because it is two very notable academics being interviewed specifically about the topic of this article (Norman Finkelstein). Also remember that the vast majority of sources in this article are not academic sources, and we have a very good reason for using the quote: It very succinctly summarizes Shlaim's viewpoint on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If the opinions are, as you claim, 'very consistent' - why are you using the one from Democracy Now interview, rather than the academic peer review, in contravention of wiki policy? Could you perhaps show how the one from DN is more succinct? It's my impression that the opposite is true. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could propose an alternative text that covers all the points in the current text as succinctly as the current quote does. Dlv999 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
the current text is "Discussing Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah, Israeli Historian Avi Shlaim stated that Finkelstein's critique of Israel "is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B'Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall — the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal — the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate." (139 words, of which 124 are a direct quote) . I would replace this with "Discussing Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah, Israeli Historian Avi Shlaim stated that Finkelstein's book "does not make a substantive contribution to the study of the Arab-

Israeli conflict.", but neverthless 'is a frontal attack on more recent books and articles by American Jews about Israel that are written in the tradition of “my country right or wrong” except that they vehemently refuse to admit any wrong on the part of Israel. Finkelstein places this literature under an uncompromising lens, highlighting the biases, distortions, misquotations, selective use of evidence, fabrications, and downright dishonesty of the authors" - which is more succinct (93 words, of which 78 are a direct quote), more balanced and comes from a higher quality academic source. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose your proposal. Your text is more suitable for the Beyond Chutspah section. This section is about Finkelstein's views on Israel. The Shlaim quote specifically characterises Finkelstein's "critique of Israel" and gives us Shlaim's view of the merits of that critique. Your text does not give us any information at all about Finkelstein's critique of Israel. Most of your proposed text is not really relevant for the section. Dlv999 (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
My text is complaint with Wikipedia policy, yours is not. Multiple editors have objected to your text, so unless you gain consensus for it in the upcoming days, I will be removing it. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't work like that. You are proposing to make changes to the long-standing text, so you must gain consensus for your proposed changes. Of the three editors who have commented here, two have supported the current text. As discussed Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_sourcesis states that: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources". There is nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice that would prohibit us from quoting a notable academic who is specifically discussing the topic (and relevant section) of our article. Dlv999 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The current text for the "Statements on Israel and Israelis" and "Hezbollah and Hamas" sections was the result of a consensus gained after a long series of quite heated disputes, RFCs and noticeboard discussions. It should not be significantly changed without a clear consensus. Wayne (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Statements on BDS

The currently worded characterization of his statements on the BDS movement are inaccurate - while he has certainly been critical, his actual statements are far more nuanced and do not support the characterization of the published synopsis (some of his exasperation, which leaked into the comments, was with the interviewer). It seems that the published characterization is lifted from a partisan source.

It is clear from watching the taped interview where the quoted statements were made that Finkelstein was referring not to boycotts of businesses in illegal settlements, but specifically to the support by the group that was interviewing him of a one-state solution (Finkelstein supports two-state solution) , which he believes would destroy Israel as a Jewish state by creating a single state with an Arab majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.211.47 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Added more details on his views of the BDS movement in article earlier today. Saw this section and thought I would let you know. Bittenfig ☆ | ✉ 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

1. "the boils of" in statements on Israel and Israelis section, second quotation, change "boils" to "bowels" 2. "coward of a hypocrite" in Hezbollah and Hamas section change "of" to "or"

Alexanderum (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done. In each case, this is what the source says, and it is not up to us to second-guess them. I have corrected the first url, which had been a dead link. RolandR (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/04/human-rights-watch-and-hezbollah-supporter-norman-finkelstein/39592/ Human Rights Watch and Hezbollah Supporter Norman Finkelstein
  2. ^ http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/in-defense-of-hezbollah/ In Defense of Hezbollah
  3. ^ http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein01132009.html The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
  4. ^ http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=646&pg=11 Finkelstein on Hamas, current crisis, Lebanon, Hezbollah
  5. ^ URLs of edit histories and revision differences begin with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/, and Wikipedia's robots.txt file disallows /w/.
  6. ^ Norman Finkelstein: In Defense of Hezbollah, Excerpt from a Lebanese (Future TV) interview, January 20, 2008.
  7. ^ http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/in-defense-of-hezbollah/ In Defense of Hezbollah
  8. ^ http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein01132009.html The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
  9. ^ http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/in-defense-of-hezbollah/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Finkelstein/Archive_6&oldid=1137049343"