Jump to content

Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 7

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

Using Dershowitz as a source

@Kmhkmh and RolandR: My edit was reverted by user:RolandR because "As has previously been discussed and agreed, Dershowitz cannot be considered a reliable soource for information about Finkelstein". Searching the archives , I found "an agreement of not using Dershowitz as a "factual" source in that section"

Does it include facts that Dershowitz attributed to another source, with a cite that can be verified? Ykantor (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If an alternative, reliable source can be found for the statement, that should be used; we cannot trust Dershowitz's interpretation. If another source cannot be found, the statement should not be used at all. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not Dershowitz's interpretation but facts that Dershowitz attributed to another source, with a cite that can be verified. Ykantor (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, cite the other, reliable, source, not the tendentious Dershowitz. If the cite can be verified, do so, don't expect others to do this for you. RolandR (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Dershovitz is a issue and it would be not use hom directly for this article (as we shouldn't use Finkelstein in the Dershovitz article). Both made are/were involved in an intense personal coflict containing various controversial/questionable claim (and even actions) about each other. This doesn't rule them out as sources about each other per se. But keeping WP:BLP in mind and that 3rd party "neutral" sources are in doubt preferable, it would be wise to withstand any temptation and not use Dershovitz here. Anything really notable (and reliable) Dershovitz stated about Finkelstein can be found in other (in this context) less problematic source as well. Such a source should be used instead and if such a source doesn't exist, the concerned claim doesn't belong into the article in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yours:"Anything really notable (and reliable) Dershovitz stated about Finkelstein can be found in other (in this context) less problematic source as well." Ideally this is correct but in reality I do not have access to these sources. I still do not understand why should we avoid a factual verifiable Dershovitz (Or Finkelstein) text, as opposed to his own interpretation. Ykantor (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Because, if we have not checked the purported source, we cannot be sure that Dershowitz has quoted them accurately and in context. If the sources can be checked, then cite them. If they cannot, do not cite Dershowitz's citation. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Justifying the Sept 11 attacks

RolandR, yours: "That's an inaccurate summary of the statement; 2) there's no evidence that this led to a controversy".

- What is inaccurate?

- Justifying the Sept 11 attacks is controversial, similar to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Is it accepted to place Finkelstein justification under a header like: "Controversial opinions" ? Ykantor (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1) Your edit read "During an interview with the CounterPunch, Finkelstein said that the U.S. was responsible for the tragedy of September 11, and that the soviet Union was U.S. fabricated enemy although actually it was a stabilizing force in international affairs." He did not. The interviewer said "I get the impression that you think that the West was in some way responsible for the tragedy of September 11", and Finkelstein neither confirmed nor rejected this impression. He gave a long answer, that could be interpreted in many ways. Our task here is to quote Finkelstein, not to interpret him.
2) Stating that "Justifying the Sept 11 attacks is controversial" is your own opinion, and thus unacceptable in Wikipedia. In order to establish that a view or statement is controversial, it is necessary to point to an actual controversy. It's not enough to assume that there ought to have been a controversy. Was there one? If so, bring some reliable evidence. If there was no controversy, then we can't say that the statement was controversial. RolandR (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. - Yours: "Finkelstein neither confirmed nor rejected this impression". That is not true. Finkelstein clearly justified the September 11 attack in his response to the interviewer question : "the United States, …, it’s payback time for the Americans and they have a problem because ...Frankly, part of me says – ... we deserve the problem on our hands because some things Bin Laden says are true’. One of the things he said on that last tape was that ‘until we live in security, you’re not going to live in security’, and there is a certain amount of rightness in that. Why should Americans go on with their lives as normal, worrying about calories and hair loss, while other people are worrying about where they are going to get their next piece of bread?"
  2. There are controversial views by their nature, similar to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. However, if you insist on "some reliable evidence", are the Ten Commandments :"Thou shalt not kill", acceptable for you? Ykantor (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
1) You cannot say that "Finkelstein said x" when the source cited shows clearly that he said no such thing.
2) "The sky is blue" is a clear and ascertainable fact. If necessary, it could even be reliably sourced. "These statements ascribed to Finkelstein, some of which he did not make, are controversial" is an opinion. We cannot state this in Wikipedia's voice; if you have a reliable source that someone stated that this is controversial, then please cite it. And no, the Ten Commandments is not an acceptable source for a factual statement about something that allegedly happened in the 21st century. RolandR (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. So what is the meaning of "it’s payback time for the Americans...we deserve the problem on our hands""?
  2. Finkelstein response to the Sept 11 question, does not condemn the attackers' leader. On the contrary, he justifies Bin Laden, who ordered the killing of thousands of civilians. Are you sure that his response is not controversial ? Do we need a wp:rs to prove that it is wrong to justify a mass murderer ? Ykantor (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR's interpretation of WP policy. Ykantor, please see WP Should Not Be Used to Right Great Wrongs. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not one article by me has ever been published in a scholarly journal.

@RolandR : You deleted my contribution and claimed: "Cherry-picking a poorly-translated out-of-context remark, presumably from a hate site and not from the Dutch original."

Where is the good faith that editors are supposed to stick with. You blame me in using a fabricated hate site but do not bother to verify it , which is very easy. Please stand by your word and prove your accusations:

The site you cited does not include the English words you included, but the phrase "Er is nooit een artikel van mij gepubliceerd in een wetenschappelijk tijdschrift". Google Translate renders this as "There is never published an article of mine in a scientific journal", which is significantly different. I read this to mean, not that he is an unpublished academic, but that he is being cold-shouldered because of his views. The "translation" you offered appears too originate from the blog by Paul Bogdanor, which I have no qualms in describing as a hate site.[1] RolandR (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it true that NF has never had an article published in a scholarly journal, as can be easily established by a Google Scholar search. The only purpose served by addition of a separate section containing solely this poorly-translated sentence is to sow suspicion in readers' minds that NF is not a scholar but a charlatan. This is why, as well as being poorly translated, out of context and given undue weight, this sentence is also a breach of our BLP policy. To use an incorrect translation from a hate site in order to disparage a living person is a prima facie breach of policy, and I advise you not to repeat this. RolandR (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, where is your good faith when you allege that I "do not bother to verify it". That is in fact the very first thing I did when I saw the unlikely statement. I looked at the original source you cited, used Google to translate it and confirm that it did not say what you claimed, and then searched for the translation that you actually used. And of course I did this before reverting your edit with the summary you quote above. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- poor translation? . Some automated translations:
- There is never an article published in a scientific journal of me
-There has never been an article of mine published in a scientific journal
-There has never been an article of mine published in a scientific journal
- It seems that the translation is good, unlike your claim.
-out-of-context? This is what Finkelstein himself said, to a respected Dutch newspaper. It is a plain factual sentence, and it is not dependent on what was Finkelstein purpose. If in your opinion it is not true, you could add your supported(?) view to the article, but you have no justification to delete it.
-presumably from a hate site? I referred to the respected Dutch site, which is definitely not a hate site. I wrote when was it ( year 2000) and quoted the exact Dutch source sentence in the footnote. For an unknown reason, you decided that my source was another one, and not the specified one. So where is the good faith that editors are supposed to stick with? Ykantor (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Not one of these translation sites gives the English translation that you cited. Only the Paul Bogdanor attack blog does. Quite frankly, I do not believe that you independently found the Dutch site, and then translated the text there, fortuitously choosing exactly the same wording as Bogdanor; I find it far more likely that you read Bogdanor, or another similar hate site, which gave a false translation and referred you to the Dutch original. Assumption of good faith is not supposed to trump common sense.
And I say this is out of context because you created a new section, in which this sentence was the entire content. That is quite evidently out of any context. You are obviously bent on smearing Finkelstein; but you will have to rely on better sources if you wish to include such material. RolandR (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Another clear example of cherry-picking. Ykantor: you simply cannot do that on a BLP. (Actually, you are not supposed to do it anywhere on wp...... ) Huldra (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- @RolandR, it is a pity that you don't apologize for your wrong and offending claims.
- poor translation? . You falsely claim that this translation is poor: "Not one article by me has ever been published in a scholarly journal." Let us compare it to some automated translations:
- There is never an article published in a scientific journal of me
-There has never been an article of mine published in a scientific journal
-There has never been an article of mine published in a scientific journal
- It seems that the translation is good, unlike your claim. You should apologize for your mistake.
- yours: "this is out of context because you created a new section". This is a simple lie. Please apologize for this statement too.
- Yours: "you will have to rely on better sources if you wish to include such material." You either not familiar with the rules, or deliberately try to delete a well supported and important contribution. Please have a look at the rules before your next response.
- Your are a reviewer, so you are supposed to know the rules. Thats unfortunately leaves the other alternative. Sad. BTW Your user page has contradicting claims. You say "This user will oppose racism" and on the other hand have an antisemitic caricature, in which Jews are compared to Nazis, with a caption text: "we are fighting against those racist Jews". Pity. Ykantor (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should learn to read before making false claims about the cartoon on my user page. The only people compared to Nazis are Nazis. If you bring to other texts the same analytical skill that you bring to reading this cartoon, it is no wonder that you cannot distinguish between a faithful translation and an outright distortion. RolandR (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I repeat- please apologize, otherwise I'll have to complain. Ykantor (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have done nothing for which to apologise. Go ahead and make whatever complaint you think appropriate. RolandR (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor I agree with RolandR's assessment (for the most part least) and your machine translations are actually proving his point rather than contradicting him. To me this starts to look like that you're trying to associate/tie Finkelstein to negative image no matter what (in particular no matter whether reputable sourcesdo make such claims or not). As it was already pointed out to you further up, WP is not the place to right all (perceived) wrongs. Instead WP compiles the notable material reputable and reliable sources report on a person. Moreover to do so in a restrained manner for living persons (WP:BLP). Anything else (no matter how justified or appropriate it might be for publication in general) has no place in WP. There is other media that can used for that instead but here you should give it a rest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: You look like a decent guy. Will you please tell me what is the difference between the sentence : "Not one article by me has ever been published in a scholarly journal." and the automated translations? Ykantor (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone with an advanced qualification in the Dutch language, I just wanted to add a comment. If we were to use it, I would translate this sentence from the interview differently. But I don't see the point in using in. In the years before 2000, when the interview seems to have happened, it clearly was the case that he was often published in learned journals. As such, that sentence does not help us to understand his academic career. I don't see what it adds to the section. --Duncan (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

- Yours: "In the years before 2000, when the interview seems to have happened, it clearly was the case that he was often published in learned journals." I have searched for articles by Finkelstein up to year 2000 and found few articles published by "Journal of palestine studies" only. Is my search wrong?
- will appreciate it if you share your translation of this sentence. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Friend of Schumer

In this talk, he says that he was friends with Schumer's sister, not with Schumer himself:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?181037-1/book-discussion-image-reality-israelipalestinian-conflict

Also, in neither of the sources given to support this statement does he say he was a friend of Schumer, only that he went to the same school with him. Hence, I will go ahead and delete this statement. Equilibrial (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Norman Finkelstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Norman Finkelstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norman Finkelstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

An incoherent sentence

The final sentence of The Holocaust Industry currently reads: "The historian David Cesarani wrote that while Finkelstein absolves Swiss banks of serious misconduct towards Holocaust survivors and depicts them as victims of a Jewish terror based on a sentence from an important report annex, he had ignored the report body which describes deceitful actions by Swiss banks, inappropriate closing of accounts, failure to keep adequate records, and so on." I'm afraid this is very poorly expressed and needs to be clarified. Could someone with access to appropriate sources do so? Alfietucker (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

ADL and other detractors

Klein's a dubious source, see [2] for instance, and he doesn't say who the detractors are. We need something much more specific. He definitely doesn't say the ADL called Finkelstein a holocaust denier. Maybe the letter in his book is genuine, maybe it's not. How do we know? In any case, what reliable sources discuss this letter? Take a look at WP:UNDUE. I can't see any significant coverage of this alleged letter, the article doesn't even attempt to explain why he might be called a holocaust denier by the ADL, and the sentence has original research where it says "despite" his family, etc. That's editorial comment, not something from a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This Washington Post article states that More recently, the ADL repeatedly accused DePaul University professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and strongly opposes Israeli policies, of being a "Holocaust denier." These charges have proved baseless Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And still, where did they "repeatedly accuse"? This may be correct, but it's frustrating not to see any actual evidence and to be unable to find any explanation from the ADL as to why they said this, if they did. We'd need that. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what evidence is required. Surely a statement in the Washington Post ought to be enough? As to why they said this, the article goes into some detail about the reasons. I don't know the exact reasons, but it is well known that Finkelstein and ADL had (have?) an antagonistic relationship. Finkelstein has harshly criticized the then head of the ADL, Abraham Foxman in The Holocaust Industry and other writings. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about the reasons that I can find, it doesn't mention holocaust denial either. The link to the alleged letter is a dead wayback machine link. But I still think that we need to know about these repeated accusations of holocaust denial. If we can't find them, that suggests a problem.
It isn't a terribly good article - what's with the huge bibliography? The large number of quotes from Finkelstein? But I'm not going to work on it, there are articles of much more interest to me. This however needs to be sorted. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about the Washington Post article, not the Wikipedia article, sorry. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
That's ok, but it looks as though the only thing the article says about the Finkelstein is "More recently, the ADL repeatedly accused DePaul University professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and strongly opposes Israeli policies, of being a "Holocaust denier." These charges have proved baseless." No comment on where they did this or why they say "these charges have proved baseless". 2 sentences in an article, especially when we can verify either, doesn't seem enough. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This helps[3] but it (carefully?) doesn't actually say ADL. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And if we want more on Finkelstein and the ADL: cals Foxman the "Grand Wizard"[4], "bete noir" of the ADL.[5] Doug Weller talk 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I can believe that Finkelstein called Foxman "Grand Wizard" of ADL, but the source is not good. Dershowitz and Finkelstein have a long history of animus. The main point is that Finkelstein has harshly criticized the ADL in his book and elsewhere, and the ADL has (according the Washington Post, repeatedly) called him a Holocaust denier, a charge which was found to be baseless. The "bete noir" is directed towards Finkelstein, not Foxman (which would be weird, since Foxman was the head of the ADL and can hardly be its bete noir). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The "Grand Wizard" source given is a radio interview with Finkelstein. And yes, "bete noir" refers to Finkelstein, not Foxman. I keep searching and cannot find any clearly reliable sources about the ADL itself calling Finkelstein a holocaust denier. Don't you think we need some? What letters, sent where by whom? Doug Weller talk 13:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
If the Washington Post says so, that is enough for me. There is also the letter by the regional director of the ADL linked above, also in the other source you linked to? I don't find the claim to be dubious; it is well-known that the ADL doesn't like Finkelstein and vice versa. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Wars on Palestinian Occupation

I want to document how edit wars are handled on pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors' articles, as it is very different from how edit wars are handled on pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors' articles. If any editor preforms reverts such as

Found 2 edits by Doug Weller on Norman Finkelstein

17:57, 09 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-612) . . Norman Finkelstein

17:31, 09 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-612) . . Norman Finkelstein

on a pro-Palestinian-Occupation author's article, they are immediately blocked via the 1RR rule. The Wikipedia definition of a revert at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring is "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". While that definition of revert is used for pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors' articles, it is not the revert definition enforced on pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors' articles. Reverts on pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors' articles are defined with a special definition that is very different from the revert definition used for pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors' articles. "All editors are equal, and some editors are more equal than others" says the WMF. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors" and "pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors"? How do you determine who is which? RolandR (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You can read the Wikipedia article and see which policy they support regarding the Palestinian territories. Or just watch who the WMF blocks on two reverts in 24 hours. If two reverts in 24 hours results in in a editor being blocked, it was a pro-Palestinian-Occupation author. However, pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors are continuously reverted in 24 hours, and editors are never blocked, as long as the reverts help to paint the author in a bad light. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's not beg the question. Two reverts as above should lead to a block. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 16:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I have just given up on what "should" happen ever happening. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And once again, I only reverted once. Removing material isn't actually considered a revert, at least by most Admins, I can't speak for all. I'm speaking as someone who in the past reported editors for doing what I did and was told that the first edit, a removal of material but not by someone who had been editing recently, wasn't actually considered a revert. If you think that this should be spelled out better, I agree. If you think I'm anti-Palestinian, you're wrong. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You could try getting your definition added to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring definition, but I don't think anyone at the WMF wants that. The WMF is happy to continue using your definition when people are bashing pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors, and using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring definition (that is doesn't matter how recent the material being reverted is, a revert is always a revert) when people are trying to tell the truth about pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I must be exceptionally dense, because I still don't understand what you mean by "pro-Palestinian-Freedom authors" and "pro-Palestinian-Occupation authors", and how you differentiate. Nor do I think this is a helpful or productive way of addressing the issues here. RolandR (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think of Finkelstein as a pro-Palestinian-Freedom author, maybe there is a better term for it. He is the type of author that editors can bash and 1RR will not be enforced. There are other types of articles where 1RR is instantly enforced. My complaint is this is unfair, and my complaints in the past have done nothing to improve the situation. So I conclude that all I can do is document the fact this is happening, and maybe some new WMF administration will address it in the future. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There are several ways of addressing your complaint. If an editor is violating the single revert rule (not including vandalism), open the issue on WP:ANI and draw admin attention to the case. And yes, removing edit (not vandalism) material is a revert and goes into the revert count. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 22:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have watched many of these cases with great interest, and it is my experience that any time the 1RR is violated by someone removing info that might help the Palestinian cause, the 1RR is never enforced. I would love to see you prove this will not continue to be the case, but I will not waste any more of my time asking for something that has never been supported in the past. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke: Did you notice that there is a section just above which discusses the edits in question? You can participate in it, like I and Doug Weller did. Also, it is by no means the rule to block people if they violate WP:1RR: WP:1RR is very easy to break, even by accident. The usual way to handle it is discuss on the talk page or leave a message on the user talk page saying that you think they violated WP:1RR. See for instance this. For your information, none of the editors on the page are aiming to bash Finkelstein. I certainly am not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Yes, I read the above and thought your Washington Post reference would be a valuable addition to the article. If I were Doug Weller, I would self revert and simply add your Washington Post reference to improve the article. As Weller continues to refuse to self revert his violation of the 1RR, I think it is best that I not edit as I do not want to be drawn into one of his edit wars. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
As there has been no response for Doug Weller for several days, I'll take a shot at adding the Washington Post reference and creating an edit acceptable to all. I can see Doug Weller is actively stalking editing my other edits, so I assume he will be taking a look. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: You are doing yourself no favours by this language of "stalking" and so on. This is not the venue to discuss user conduct: if you want to purse it, go to WP:AE. The fact of the matter is that there was one revert (two if you want to be pedantic) in many days. There followed by a discussion on the talk page, in which you did not participate. Following this, you made a change on the talk page based on the discussion, which may or may not hold. This is the way things are supposed to work. I will give you a piece of free, unasked advice. Drop this incendiary language and try to discuss more on the talk page. Nobody changes their mind about politics based on internet debates with strangers, but people can still find a consensus edit even with different politics. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: If “stalking” is a poor choice of words, perhaps it would be better if I said “I can see Doug Weller is actively editing my other edits, so I assume he will be taking a look.” Would that fix the problem? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke: The point is not the language, but the comment on user conduct, which distracts from the discussion. Instead, just focus on content - say that "I have made so and so change, and people can discuss/edit if they like". If you have problems with user conduct, either ignore it (if it's not serious), or discuss with the user on their talk page, or bring it to WP:AE (if it's serious). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Holocaust Industry" criticisms

Of course WP:NPOV must always be maintained with regard to "balancing" of weight on both sides of any WP editorial conflict, but the citations of Ronnie Landau and David Cesarani do not meet this test. Both are construed very narrowly, contain many ad hominem attacks on Finkelstein, and fail to cite specific passages from the latter's book (with Cesarani not even mentioning it by name, the dateline the only clue as to what he's even talking about). The section, and the article as a whole, richly deserve a rewrite from top to bottom, and by editor(s) with no obvious axe to grind. This is currently lacking.184.145.42.19 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The link you have in reference #39 is out of date and returns a 404 Not Found error.

Since I have too few edits to edit this myself, here is the correct link for someone else to insert: https://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/24/scholar_norman_finkelstein_calls_professor_alan

Blgreenz (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for the heads-up!184.145.42.19 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hezbollah *and* Hamas?

The links between Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi'a resistance movement, and Hamas, a duly-constituted Palestinian Sunni political party and former elected local government of Gaza, are virtually nonexistent (and in any event, are not cited here). Even the quoted text shows Finkelstein talking only about Hezbollah. "Hezbollah and Hamas" is a phrase commonly used by Zionists to smear sundry opponents of Israel. If this content is to remain, it should be split into separate sections so as to not falsely conflate all Zionist foes (or, at least, all Arab ones) as being a single entity.184.145.42.19 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Blatant bias

Funny how when I make a simple edit, someone from Israel [reverts it] knowing I can't put it back without risking being blocked. Hmph. So much for WP:NPOV!184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Check their edit summary, and the big yellow warning at the top of this page (and at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30). You (and I, and all other IP editors) must not edit this article at all. They reverted, assumed good faith, and let you know (via their edit summary) that IP editing here (and at all other Israel/Palestine articles) is off limits. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I find the "from Israel" part a bit troubling here, to say the least. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Norman Finkelstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Norman Finkelstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo

Is this section notable? Finkelstein has written on many, many topics. Its not clear to me that his views on Charlie Hebdo gained any special media attention over the tonnes of other stuff he's written on.VR talk 15:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

Here is the key section of "The Holocaust Industry", Chapter 3, in which Finkelstein speculates as to why the 6 million number must be grossly inflated:

Not only does the "6 Million" figure become more untenable but the numbers of the Holocaust industry are rapidly approaching those of Holocaust deniers. Consider that

Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler put the total camp population in January 1945 at a little over 700,000 and that, according to Friedlander, about one-third this number was killed off by May. Yet if Jews constituted only 20 percent of the surviving camp population and, as the Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust industry's reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn't have been harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and remarkably low mortality rate.

The standard claim is that the Final Solution was a uniquely efficient, assembly-line, industrial exterminations But if, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn't have been so efficient after all. It must have been a haphazard affair — exactly what Holocaust deniers argue. Les extremes se touchent. In a recent interview Raul Hilberg underscored that numbers do matter in comprehending the Nazi holocaust. Indeed, the Claims Conference's revised figures radically call into question its own understanding. According to the Claims Conference's "position paper" on slave labor in its negotiations with Germany: "Slave labor was one of the three main methods used by the Nazis to murder Jews — the others being shooting and gassing. One of the purposes of slave labor was to work the individuals to death.... The term slave is an imprecise word in this context. In general slave masters have an interest to preserve the life and condition of their slaves. However, the Nazi plan for the 'slaves' was that their work potential be utilized and then the 'slaves' should be exterminated." Apart from Holocaust deniers, no one has yet disputed that Nazism consigned slave laborers to this horrific fate. How can one reconcile these established facts however, with the claim that many hundreds of thousands of Jewish slave laborers survived the camps? Hasn't the Claims Conference breached the wall separating the ghastly truth about the Nazi holocaust from Holocaust denial? In a full-page New York Times advertisement, Holocaust industry luminaries such as Elie Wiesel, Rabbi Marvin Hier, and Steven T. Katz condemned "Syria's Denial of the Holocaust." The text decried an editorial in an official Syrian government newspaper that claimed Israel "invents stories about the Holocaust" in order to "receive more money from Germany and other Western

establishments." Regrettably, the Syrian charge is true.

I would suggest that it is appropriate to call Finkelstein "controversial" for his support of Hezbollah and Hamas, both considered terrorist organizations, and for his support of Holocaust denial. Jdkag (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Blatant Self-Evident Mistake Needs Immediate Fixing

Hi Everyone,

Have been a wikipedia user since virtually its inception and for the first time ever I just registered an account because I found an egregious error in this article. Roughly a third of the way down you will find the following:

"In April 2007, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Dershowitz, finding no merit in any single charge and concluding that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters.[51][52] In a follow-up analysis he concluded that he could find 'no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters's From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source', as Dershowitz claimed.[51][52][53][54] In an interview given for the film American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein in 2009, Dershowitz said of Finkelstein: "I don't think he is a Jew. He's Jewish only on his parents' side."[55]"

The problem with that passage is that Frank Menetrez did not "[find] no merit in any single charge..." In fact, quite the opposite. He found merit in EVERY single charge. The problem with what's written there is actually self-evident in the context: Read what's there carefully: "In April 2007, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Dershowitz, finding no merit in any single charge and concluding that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters."

So Menetrez found no merit in any of Finkelstein's charges (against Derschowitz) but concluded that Derschowitz had misrepresented matters?!?! HUH?!

THe source cited [ https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/30/dershowitz-v-finkelstein-who-s-right-and-who-s-wrong/ ], source #52, is the correct source for the passage but it proves that Menetrez found merit in EVERY SINGLE ONE of Finkelstein's charges, not the opposite.

Because the article is on lock-down with extended confirmed protection I don't know how I, having just become a registered user, can possibly edit the content (is there even a way?), so I am writing this as a plea to have someone with the proper level of editing authority make the necessary correction.

Moreover, I hope you will review the editing history of this article to determine who made this egregious blatant falsehood and determine whether it was likely or not that there was mal-intent on the part of the editor in question.

Thank you for your time and consideration everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skangarl (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this whole signing this works yet but I guess I'll give it a shot... Skangarl (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Skangarl, My understanding of that sentence ("finding no merit in any single charge") was that it had to be seen in connection with the sentence before it ("an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Dershowitz")...so there is no inconsistency; Menetrez found no merit in Dershowitz charges agains Finkelstein, in addition, he found that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters. These are two different matters. (And as Menetrez found no evidence that Finkelstein had orally misquoted, (but did not rule it out)), Huldra (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see exactly what you mean. But the analysis by Menetrz was focused on BOTH the charges made by Finkelstein against Derschowitz AND on the counter-charges made by Dershowitz against Finkelstein. For the sake of accuracy, clarity, and to avoid any confusion by any reader, including apparently this one, I suggest the passage, based on source material #51 thru #54, be revised as follow:

"In April 2007, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made by Finkelstein against Dershowitz, and the countercharges made by Dershowitz against Finkelstein. Menetrez found merit in every single one of the charges made by Finkelstein, in Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah", against Derschowitz's book "The Case for Israel" and found no merit in any one of the countercharges made by Dershowitz against Finkelstein's oral and written charges and concluded that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters.[51][52] In a follow up analysis, Menetrez concluded that he could find 'no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters's From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source', as Dershowitz claimed.[51][52][53][54] In an interview given for the film American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein in 2009, Dershowitz said of Finkelstein: "I don't think he is a Jew. He's Jewish only on his parents' side."[55]"

I would particularly point everyone to source #52 https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/30/dershowitz-v-finkelstein-who-s-right-and-who-s-wrong/ for verification. Skangarl (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Skangarl, ...Hmmmmm, I dont really like the sentence: "Menetrez found merit in every single one of the charges made by Finkelstein, in Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah", against Derschowitz's book "The Case for Israel" and found no merit in any one of the countercharges made by Dershowitz against Finkelstein's oral and written charges and concluded that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters." It should be cut in two; say: "Menetrez found merit in all charges made by Finkelstein, in Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah", against Derschowitz's book "The Case for Israel". Furthermore Menetrez found no merit in any one of the countercharges made by Dershowitz against Finkelstein's oral and written charges and concluded that Dershowitz had misrepresented matters." Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Cesarani quote in the section on The Holocaust Industry

Compared to the rest of the section on The Holocaust Industry, which consists of general assessments, the Cesarani quote seems too specific, since it is devoted to just one concrete argument in the book and one concrete objection against it. I see no reason for this specific bit to be singled out and presented on par with the general assessments. I would suggest that the Cesarani quote should be moved to the main article about the book.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism by mainstream scholars, such as Cesarani, is exactly what this article needs more of, not less.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

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

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

Orthography comments when quoting (aka "sic")

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

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

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

"Jewish only on his parents' side"??

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

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

He’s obviously Jewish by ancestry and ethnicity but an Atheist on the religious side as many Jews are Nlivataye (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Atheist

We should add that he is an atheist unless he has found God Nlivataye (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we should only add that he is an atheist if a reliable source says this. RolandR (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

New section: Opinion of David Irving

The new section, Opinion of David Irving {diff}, relies heavily on a Jewish Chronicle article by Lee Harpin and a Times of Israel blog piece by Kevin Berk[6].
The Jewish Chronicle, to its detractors a highly partisan purveyor of hasbarah, has recently been the object of heavy censure by the Independent Press Standards Organisation, a major cause being some articles by Lee Harpin.[7][8][9][10][11][12] As a result of those articles, libel damages were paid to Audrey White.[13][14][15]
Doing Google searches, it is hard to uncover any reason why Kevin Berk should be accorded any significance. In particular, his only contribution to the Times of Israel appears to be the one blog piece cited.
Taken together, one article from a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source and a blog piece from an insignificant-seeming author, it is hard to see why the new section is worth including and how it obeys the WP:BLP requirement to write conservatively. That the sources are both hostile to Finkelstein raises questions about the neutrality of the section.
    ←   ZScarpia   10:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Raise your issues with the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle and The Times of Israel elsewhere. A Community Securities Trust article also confirms Finkelstein's comments in the video. A publication Wikipedia considers RS which has never lost a libel action quite possibly does not exist. Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
To repeat: "Taken together, one article from a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source and a blog piece from an insignificant-seeming author."
Regarding reliability, see WP:RS#CONTEXT MATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context." That means that it is appropriate to raise the appropriateness of using, as I wrote, a highly compromised, highly partisan (and tiny circulation) source for the material in question on the current talkpage.
It shouldn't be necessary to point out to anybody apart from a very green newbie that any reliability attached to The Times of Israel doesn't extend to its blogs. Material sourced from those may only be used to state facts about what the author has written, not state what the author has written as fact. There should be a point, such as notability of the author, for inclusion. In this case, the author doesn't appear to have any significance other than that he has written a single blog article for The Times of Israel.
    ←   ZScarpia   08:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
ZScarpia, The Times of Israel blog item was removed nearly a fortnight ago by DSQ. The Jewish Chronicle and Community Security Trust articles remain straightforward RS, as I indicated before. Philip Cross (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
(Note: moved Phillip Cross's previous comment as, in it's previous location it appeared as a reply to DSQ rather than me) To my knowledge, nobody has ever explicitly tested the reliability of the material sourced to The Jewish Chronicle or Community Security Trust at the RS Noticeboard. If not, your "indication" that they are "straightforward RS" is rather grandiose. They certainly aren't listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. Your comment ignores my point about the "context matters" aspect of the source reliability policy. Even if a source is considered generally reliable, that doesn't mean that its reliability is universal; it is subject to context, the effect of which is presumably is determined by discussion attempting to establish a consensus position. Also worth noting is the policy that, though any material included should be verifiable, verifiability doesn't mean that the material has to be included.     ←   ZScarpia   09:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
As I said on 9 August above: "Raise your issues with the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle and The Times of Israel elsewhere", meaning RS/N. Checking your edits, you have not done that. Substitute CST for TOI, and take the issue to the appropriate place as I suggested more than three weeks ago. No one has said in reliable sources that Finkelstein's description of Irving as a "very good historian" has been misconstrued or the same opinion of his dismissal of Richard Evans work. Philip Cross (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


Points:


  • I raised a question about whether the newly introduced section on Finkelstein's views on David Irving was worthwhile, it being based on a pretty shoddy polemic in the highly partisan Jewish Chronicle, whose writer has, at my count, been on the losing end of several libel prosecutions, and a blog piece by a relative unknown.
  • You inaccurately construed this as a questioning of the general reliability of the two sources and told me to raise the issue elsewhere.
  • Even so, it should have been obvious that the blog piece wasn't reliable for statements of fact about anything but the author's views, and the author being pretty unknown, those views were not worth including anyway.
  • Framed as a question about reliability, I am not be bound to raise that in the context of the current subject, as you insisted several times, ignoring the context-related aspect of source reliability, at the RS Noticeboard. The current talkpage is an acceptable place.


  • Things have now moved on. Currently cited sources are:
- The same shoddy Jewish Chronicle article.
- An unattributed Telegraph View piece which probably counts as a Leader (in Wikipedia terms, opinion).
- An unattributed article on the CST website.
  • Source-wise, I wouldn't say that the above are "great shakes".
  • Regarding the CST, it is a prominent organisation whose statements on certain subjects are are worth noting, but why exactly should its website, particulary an unattributed article on that website, be considered reliable in Wikipedia terms (meaning, for example, that it is known for fact-checking and exercising editorial oversight over what it publishes) for statements of fact about the Labour Against the Witchhunt event? What sets it apart from other organisations such as thinktanks or government bodies whose statements are worth noting but would not be considered reliable for statements of fact?


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


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


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


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


  • The sole reference to David Irving in "The Holocaust Industry" is in a single short paragraph Chapter 2:
- "Not all revisionist literature — however scurrilous the politics or motivations of its practitioners — is totally useless. Lipstadt brands David Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial" (he recently lost a libel suit in England against her for these and other assertions). But Irving, notorious as an admirer of Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism, has nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an "indispensable" contribution to our knowledge of World War II. Both Arno Mayer, in his important study of the Nazi holocaust, and Raul Hilberg cite Holocaust denial publications. "If these people want to speak, let them," Hilberg observes. "It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that's useful for us."


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


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


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


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


  • Since reading what "The Holocaust Industry" says contradicts the statement made in the quoted Telegraph leader, on neutrality grounds I propose that one of two alternative actions is carried out:
  • Either the quotation from the Telegraph leader is removed.
  • Or the relevant sections in The Holocaust Industry are quoted in the article in order to allow readers to make up their own minds about the Telegraph's claims.


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

What's the status on this? I watched the online panel debate a month ago and, as I recall it, the context of Finkelstein's comments was that people shouldn't be excluded from the open debate. That even universally reviled people could be worth listening to. In a way, the titling of the section is wrong, Finkelstein wasn't offering his "Opinion of David Irving," he was using his name to make a rhetorical point. ImTheIP (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Serious POV problems

This article seems to always assume the POV of the subject rather than relying on sourced facts. To take two examples: the articles claims Finkelstein was denied tenure because of an argument with Dershowitz; no source is given for the claim. The article also claims he was denied entry to Israel for ten years for criticising Israel. The source used for that claim in fact says he was accused of cooperation with Al Qaeda. If we want to adhere to WP:NPOV we cannot just assert the subject's POV of several contentious issues.Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite sections of text that claims that Finkelstein was denied tenure because of Dershowitz campaigning? I cannot find the claim. I think you are right about denial of entry though and I've tried to fix that. ImTheIP (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A Nation on Trial

I've draftified Draft:A Nation on Trial, an unreferenced stub for eight years. Interested editors may wish to improve the Draft and submit it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Add To entry on books: 2008 Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press). Published in 2005 in the UK by Verso 82.69.41.97 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Seligne (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Remove the category tags of Jewish atheist and American atheists, as there is nothing to back up those categorizations within the article. 74.64.195.172 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor 74.64.195.172:  Done thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Is he still a professor?

Is he still a professor at any college? If not, shouldn't the lead say he is a former professor, rather than a professor?

Wondering, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I did some research, and could not find anything which indicated that Finkelstein is currently a professor, so I have changed the lede sentence to say "former professor". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Extraneous sentence

This sentence seems really extraneous: "But Finkelstein told Tablet magazine in 2012 that he had been closer to Carol, the linguist's wife.[12]" It is not like he was not friends with Chomsky. I think it should be removed. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Excessive bibliography

I've removed the following list of sources from the article, as it is a combination of indiscriminate listing of papers, and WP:LINKSTOAVOID #1. As profiles and reviews of Finkelstein's work might conceivably be used for future article improvement, I leave them here. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Articles and chapters

  • "Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The Not-So-Strange Case of Joan Peter's 'From Time Immemorial.'" in Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Ed. Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens. Verso Press, 1988; ISBN 0-86091-887-4. Chapter Two, Part One:
  • "Peace process or peace panic? - The scourge of Palestinian moderation", Middle East Report, 19 (1989) 3/158, pp. 25–26,28-30,42
  • "Zionist orientations", Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives 9 (March 1990) 1. p. 41-69
  • "Bayt Sahur in year II of the intifada. - A personal account", Journal of Palestine Studies 19 (Winter 1990) 2/74, pp. 62–74
  • "Israel and Iraq. - A double standard", Journal of Palestine Studies 20 (1991) 2/78. pp. 43–56
  • "Reflections on Palestinian attitudes during the Gulf war", Journal of Palestine Studies, 21 (1992) 3/83, pp. 54–70
  • "Réflexions sur la responsabilité de l´État et du citoyen dans le conflit arabo-israélien" (Reflections on the responsibility of state and citizen in the Arab-Israeli conflict), in L' homme et la société, L'Harmattan 1994, 114, S. 37-50
  • "Whither the `peace process'?", New Left Review, (1996) 218, p. 138
  • "Securing occupation: The real meaning of the Wye River Memorandum", New Left Review, (1998) 232, pp. 128–39
  • Contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Ed. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. AK Press, 2001; ISBN 1-902593-77-4.
  • "Lessons of Holocaust compensation", in Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return. Ed. Naseer Aruri. Pluto Press, 2001, S. 272-275; ISBN 0-7453-1776-6.
  • "Abba Eban with Footnotes", Journal of Palestine Studies, vol 32. (2003), pp. 74–89
  • "Prospects for Ending the Occupation", Antipode, 35 (2003) 5, pp. 839–45
  • Contributor to Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel, by Seth Farber. Common Courage Press, 2005. ISBN 1-56751-326-3.
  • "The Camp David II negotiations. - how Dennis Ross proved the Palestinians aborted the peace process", Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 36 (2007), pp. 39–53
  • "Dennis Ross and the peace process: subordinating Palestinian rights to Israeli 'needs'", Institute for Palestine Studies, 2007; ISBN 0-88728-308-X

Others on Finkelstein and his works

Academic reviews of books by Finkelstein

  • Massad, Joseph. "Deconstructing Holocaust Consciousness", Review Essay, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1. (Autumn, 2002), pp. 78–89.
  • Cole, Tim. "Representing the Holocaust in America: Mixed Motives or Abuse?", The Public Historian, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Fall, 2002), pp. 127–31
  • Hooglund, Eric. Reviewed work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, Special Issue in Honor of Edward W. Said. (Spring, 2004), pp. 123–124.[failed verification]
  • Pelham, Nicolas. Reviewed Work: Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. by Norman G. Finkelstein, International Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and International Relations. (July 1996), pp. 627–28.
  • Pappe, Ilan. "Valuable New Perspectives," Reviewed Work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. by Norman G. Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Summer, 1997), pp. 113–15.
  • Beinin, Joel. "The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict after Oslo", Reviewed work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein. Middle East Report, No. 201, Israel and Palestine: Two States, Bantustans or Binationalism?. (Oct-Dec 1996), pp. 45–47.

Reviews of books by Finkelstein

Profiles of Finkelstein

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

Add {{Norman Finkelstein}} and Category:Norman Finkelstein. Uriahheep228 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done --N8wilson 🔔 06:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM

I count about 22 blockquote-sized quotations in this article. I've tagged it as having too many. Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect "dubious" tag

"Israel’s notion of Jewishness, the determinant of who should hold sovereignty, is ultimately a biological[dubious – discuss]." You shouldn't be marking incorrect statements within quotes as dubious/discuss unless 1) its quoted incorrectly or 2) you're improperly trying to censor what quotes are shown.

It would seem that @Arminden: added the tag in good faith, but IMHO it was the wrong sort of tag. I've changed it to {{sic}}. Elizium23 (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Elizium23, hi. I see what you mean, but I have a problem with that. What I wrote was
{{dubious|Misquoted. Either "is ultimately a biological one" [forgot to add "or", sorry] "is ultimately biological".|date=April 2022}}
Just adding [sic] after the sentence does not indicate what you consider to be wrong. Wikipedia is in large parts used by non-native speakers! In such a case, I suggested in the "dubious" tag two possible options, but there might be a whole line missing ("... way of determining the rights to..." etc., for instance), so pointing towards what's wrong is a necessary firs step. The source is a blog, Finkelstein either was a bit careless, or he copied and pasted from elsewhere and missed something. As a matter of principle, I prefer more information over less, and information over formal considerations, misunderstandings happen even then, the more so if one chooses too much brevity. Maybe there's a way of adding something in the way of "|reason=Missing word/one too many?" to the "sic" template? I admit I'm not familiar with this template on Wiki. In short, I'd welcome adding to "sic" the reason one has used it. As you will see, sometimes it was used in the wrong place - we do have editors who are not all that accurate; showing their reasons is a way to start understanding if it's a mistake or not, and should almost be mandatory.
Secondly, why a template? I think I haven't checked the source last time; now I have, and the quotation is correct, the mistake is in the blog. Why not simply add [sic]? What purpose does it serve to use a hyperlink there?
Btw: A simple [sic] also shows up after "hoaxters" in a quote from a Dershowitz posting. Hoaxer might be a form preferred by some, but I see hoaxter very much being an entry on Wiktionary, and not only.
Why does "coward of a hypocrite" have a [sic]? It makes perfect sense, it's a similar construction to "idiot of a bastard" or alike.
Altogether, the use of [sic] (w/o Italics, arbitrarily in dubious places, with or w/o a hyperlink) seems random and not always helpful in this article, while my "dubious" link served its purpose, whether formally 100% kosher or not. Arminden (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Arminden, the problem is that our {{dubious}} tag is like {{citation needed}}, it's for dubious assertions or facts that we've written in an article, in Wikivoice. It's wholly inappropriate to apply this concept to a direct quote, no matter what the situation. It's a non-sequitir. I don't understand your explanation, either. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the situation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Elizium23, give me another template that allows me to explain what exactly the problem with the citation actually is, which helps the user & editors understand why you set the tag, and I'll use it. (Why? See all the inaccurately used sic tags I had to fix! And I had to read the mind of those who set them.) Sorry, but my grasp of the situation is perfect, but matter-of-fact; yours seems to stop at the formal level: "it is not done". I'm saying "if it helps, it is being done: and I'll do it." It's not like a mistake, e.i. something misleading or otherwise wrong. And you didn't answer to my question: what good is the hyperlinked format you have used, inaccurate word(s) [sic] ({{sic|''inaccurate word(s)''}}), as opposed to a simple [sic]? But never mind, you said that you don't understand what I mean. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
PS: I understand now why you used the hyperlinked sic, it is basically the same as sic, it benefits those who don't know the term. I thought it would do more than that. Clarified. Arminden (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

I request that the line "But Finkelstein told Tablet magazine in 2012 that he had been closer to Carol, the linguist's wife" be removed. The line is simply irrelevant to the remainder of the section. The personal relationship of Finklestein, Noam, and Carol is plainly not being discussed, and to insert this line as such detracts from the substantive issues under consideration. DemocratizeUN (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done After giving the section and relevant sentence a read multiple times I, too, cannot understand it's relevance. The sentence has been removed. —Sirdog (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Quotations

I just heard an interview with Finkelstein and, for background, read through the entire article. I don't think there are too many or overly lengthy quotations. Finkelstein's ideas are contentious, and much of the article consists of his arguments, followed by counter-arguments. I fear that if the quotes were rewritten as a "neutrally worded summary", they might not be accurate summaries of the original ideas. In addition, an argument should not be "neutrally worded." These are arguments by adversaries who are not neutral. By replacing their words with a neutral summary, you would be removing their arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight in the introduction

Its not reasonable to spend so much space, more than half indeed, of the introduction on a specific feud with another scholar. I think all this paragraph should be completely removed from the lead, given it is already covered in the controversies section. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that half or more of any biography's lead ought not to be taken up with a feud with another scholar. That isn't the case on this article, so it's odd you feel that needs discussion. There is one brief mention of the conflict with Dershowitz; the rest of the paragraph is very clearly and obviously concerned with the article subject's tenure and subsequent resignation from his academic appointment, and not concerned with the conflict with Dershowitz. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless I've tried to shorten that section of the lead for brevity. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Reference 127 is dead. See the archived version here

https://web.archive.org/web/20210920023450/http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/10/21/why-we-should-rejoice-at-holocaust-deniers-not-suppress-them-a-reply-to-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-and-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-by-norman-g-finkelstein/

https://web.archive.org/web/20210908104621/http://normanfinkelstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Finkelstein-HDeny.pdf


Or we can use this

https://peacenews.info/node/9757/why-we-should-rejoice-holocaust-deniers-not-suppress-them Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Uncombined paragraphs

I was going to combine the first and second paragraphs under "Family", but found I can't edit the page. Somebody please do this if they think a paragraph break here isn't merited, thanks. Bret Sterling (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sure, done. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add Finkelstein's comments to Oct 7 Massacres

On October 7, Finkelstein celebrated the massacre of Israeli civilians at the hands of Hamas terrorists, writing that "moral consistency commands that we honor the heroic resistance in Gaza" [1] He compared the actions of Hamas to that of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and the Israeli response to the Nazi razing of the ghetto [2]. He described Israel's reaction to Hamas' taking of Israeli hostages as "crocodile tears". [3] 2600:1017:B807:B057:99C5:EDF:9FB6:B0BF (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with celebration, dont try to bring a smearing campaign here JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What word would you prefer to describe calling the actions of Hamas on Oct 7 "heroic"? 2603:7000:6401:7377:52E:A98F:63F:52F6 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Joaquim that IP's suggested edit is a preposterous WP:BLP violation. Saying that the scenes of Gazas smiling children 'warmed every fiber in his soul' is as far as Finkelstein went. He compared Oct 7 to Nat Turner's slave rebellion and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and refused to condemn or condone it. I have no opinion on whether or not to include this information in the article however. StonyBrook babble 05:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The truth shall never be revealed, behind the wall of Wikipedia rules.
Books will be written about this.
This is so freaking outrageous. Truthreconciles (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Norman's words, followed with his disclaimer doesn't seem like an extreme example of an outright lie? Truthreconciles (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
They will do all they can for good ol Norman and won't ever allow this information to appear in the main article. Wikipedia is an absolute joke about Israel/Palestine. Truthreconciles (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The two editors below are claiming it's because of your descriptive words, about his quote. To prove they are just using that as an excuse simply rewrite that in a neutral manner and rely just on the quote.
Watch them move the goal posts and find another reason. Truthreconciles (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding only the bit about 'warmed every fiber in his soul' was taking his words out of their context, which has now been corrected. The full quote is now there, and this is how it should remain. StonyBrook babble 12:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

On Irving

Finkelstein called Irving a good historian, and this was drummed up as controversial within a small clique of partisan sources. This is not material of the stuff that makes statements like Finkelstein "praised a holocaust denier" due in the lead - on the contrary, this is misleading and somewhat implies Finkelstein's support for holocaust denial itself, which very much enters BLP violation territory. Not an appropriate summary, at all, and not due based on the current material. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed it from the lead. Finkelstein's description of Irving is already in the "Other statements" section. Burrobert (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Calling Irving a "good historian", especially given his well known (and well documented) stance on the holocaust, sounds like praise to me. The statement is well sourced. So, please explain which sources you consider "partisan" and/or a "small clique". The bit you object to, is part of a sentence, and seems WP:DUE to me. Kleuske (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kleuske: This page is under WP:1RR, so please self rv this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Saying someone "praised a holocaust denier" suggests the praise was for the h-denying. Better to give the exact words - Finkelstein was "a v-g historian". If someone said John Profumo was a v-g Secretary of State for War, we would not say they were praising an adulterer. Burrobert (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean with "v-g"? Very Good? In the case of Profumo, the adultery lead to a serious security issue. Also, David Irving isn't regarded as a (serious) historian by any other historian AFAIK. Apples/Oranges. Kleuske (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, per RfC Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392, it seems the Telegraph is considered a reliable source. I get the impression some IDontLikeIt is involved, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes v-g = very good. Just like e & b means egg and bacon. You need to read more Wodehouse. Are you disputing the idea of Profumo being a v-g Secretary of State for War? Also, regarding this apple/orange thing, which is which? Burrobert (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
if you are inventing your own acronyms, Please be aware this does not exactly b-e-c (benefit effective communication). Kleuske (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
If you are talking about the anonymous opinion piece, well, wikipedia is WP:NOTOPINION obviously, not least anonymous opinions that are, by definition, not by anybody notable. In the specific case of an anonymous opinion, one could also point to WP:ARSEHOLES. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I would agree on that source, that still leaves two others. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The CST blog is a blog, and this has all of the feel of an WP:SPS as well - the article in question is certainly not referenced on google scholar. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Add mention of his latest book to the intro

I think the introduction should mention his latest book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom DMH43 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

At the end of “Views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” > “Terrorism and targeting civilians”:

Change “Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Finkelstein wrote: "it warms every fiber of my soul."[100]” to “Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Finkelstein wrote: “For the past 20 years the people of Gaza, half of whom are children, have been immured in a concentration camp. Today they breached the camp’s walls. If we honor John Brown’s armed resistance to slavery; if we honor the Jews who revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto—then moral consistency commands that we honor the heroic resistance in Gaza. I, for one, will never begrudge—on the contrary, it warms every fiber of my soul—the scenes of Gaza’s smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled.[100]”

(Reasoning: adds more needed context to statement being made) 142.198.100.236 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Might be worth mentioning Finkelstein's clarifications about his comments made on Piers Morgan's show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Sh-ERypMA)
Finkelstein claims he wrote his original article because he thought only 50 had died (although piers challenged this). He said he regrets having written it but he would not remove it so as not to alter the historical record. ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find a reliable source that describes Finkelstein's caveat, so it shouldn't be included. And I agree that the IP seemed to have engaged in inappropriate discussion. StonyBrook babble 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why (sic)

In the Charlie Hebdo section, there is a (sic) included in a Finkelstein quote. No grammar is incorrect. What's up with that? The original didn't have the (sic) in it and the (sic) appears completely unwarranted. Original work passed off as a quote containing an interjected mistake. Needs to be fixed. 162.154.248.143 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not incorrect grammar, but incorrect wording - the correct term would be hanged, not hung. So the tag is indeed warranted. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Categorisation

A defining characteristic is one which reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the subject. Categories should be based on the content that is stated in wikivoice in the article body. In this article nowhere is Finkelstein referred to in wikivoice as an anti-Zionist. There is exactly one source, attributed in-text, which describes him as such. A brief search found an article in Jewish Chronicle, not a great deal else. We are obliged to follow the BLP standards. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

[126] "Dershowitz and Finkelstein: comrades at heart?". The Electronic Intifada. June 28, 2013. Retrieved October 4, 2020.

As the now former footnote was from a deprecated source and concerning BLP (RFC: Electronic Intifada), I have temporarily removed it. If there is an alternative reliable source, I do not disagree with someone re-adding the source. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein's Parents

The article, in the Early life and education section describes Finkelstein's mother as a pacifist and both provided links are broken. However, in a recent interview on Al Jazeera with Marc Lamont Hill, he describes both his parents as ardent, lifelong Stalinists. The interview is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNr_ro97MI Kasablanket (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We need secondary reliable sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. His interview on Al Jazzeera is not a secondary source. JimRenge (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

NF connection with Unz Review

@Makeandtoss you claimed that my edit on this subject contained "ADL (ironic) defamation". Can you explain? As far as I'm aware what I wrote there in the name of the ADL had never been denied or claimed to be defamatory. Vegan416 (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It is synth to collect information from multiple sources and coming up with one's own conclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
But there was no conclusion in my edit. At any rate, I didn't ask you about SYNTH, because I don't have time now to debate what is SYNTH and what isn't. I asked you specifically about your seeming accusation against the ADL as if my edit contained some defamation that came from them. Can you explain what you meant by that? Vegan416 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it was SYNTH and also that the text exceeded what was in the source. This is all the source says, with no dates: The most prominent and clearest connection between the Alt-Right and conspiracy theory sites in our conspiracy theory selection is called The Unz Review, which appeared very frequently amongst the Alt-Right twitter handles. The Unz Review is a "mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 ‘truther’ and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to ‘Holocaust industry’ critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians".[1]
This bit isn't SYNTH, but it only has a primary source: In 2014, in the preface to one of his books Finkelstein thanked Ron Unz for his "friendship and support".[2] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think the ADL is a usable source for saying that Finkelstein received funding from the Unz Foundation: The Unz Foundation has also given grants to Mondoweiss, an anti-Israel blog run by Philip Weiss, which regularly reports on and promotes the initiatives of some of the more prominent leaders and groups associated with the domestic anti-Israel movement, including Ali Abunimah, co-founder of “Electronic Intifada”; Alison Weir, the executive director of If Americans Knew; and Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Israel speaker whom Unz also funds.[16] But we might want to wait until the ADL RfC plays out before adding that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
We have also a public admission of NF to that effect in the preface to another of his books. See here: "I am grateful for the Unz Foundation support". Vegan416 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ E. Bevensee and A. R. Ross, "The Alt-Right and Global Information Warfare," 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Seattle, WA, USA, 2018, pp. 4393-4402, doi: 10.1109/BigData.2018.8622270.
  2. ^ Finkelstein, Norman G. (2014-04-24). Old Wine, Broken Bottle: Ari Shavit's Promised Land. OR Books. ISBN 978-1-939293-47-3.

Footnote 112

Per this RFC, the use of Mondoweiss on controversial topics and BLP is not optimal. Is there a better citation for the sourced claim? FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It would be more helpful if you actually described your issue with the source rather than just waving at an RFC that doesn't prohibit its use in this case. Parabolist (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, thank you for your response.
Per this RfC: that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people.
While the other uses are covered by aboutself or acceptable for other reasons, 112 was not. Based on the person, the source and the topic, I was BOLD, reflecting my understand of the limited permissibility of fringe source citations for BLP. In my opinion, the other uses are (at least with the current close) acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The RFC allows use with caution. You haven't actually explained the problem with the usage here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It is a rather critical review of Finkelstein (though while I am not generally opposed to those, being not ‘radical‘ enough is definitely the rarer type of criticism). The content is harmless - and if I recall, there is a video somewhere, though I couldn’t find it - and isn‘t the primary concern: I’m a lot more concerned about citing non-experts (and basically reprinted) SPS/statements about a BLP, and would prefer if we just got the content from him directly. FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
So your issue is that you think the source is "basically reprint[ing]" his words, and the solution is that you want the words from him directly? Seems like the source is exactly what you want? Parabolist (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The most important issue is the other stuff inside the article, such as:
  • the tag as „activism“ (compared to other tags, such as „news“
  • the use of non-expert non-journalists to make a claim about BLP, something that should be avoided in cases that are equivalent or worse than Wikipedia:RSEDITORIAL in combination with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, mentioning This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
  • for this person and topics (see this talk page), the standard is rightly higher than usual, him being a highly controversial BLP (see also, the recent RSN discussion) active in one of the most controversial issues of our time. An argument can be made for inclusion (and was made below), but saying „ah it’s probably fine“ is not the standard for BLP, we need a source reliable for BLP or a selfsource, particularly based on the mix of aggregating circumstances.
The redeeming factor here, as stated by @Aquillion below, is that the actual claim is so mild that all of those concerns can be ignored in favour of a „this is so minor it isn’t an issue“ style approach, which probably can be covered by 'great caution, if at all‘ FortunateSons (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It's definitely something to be cautious about, but I think at least this usage is fine - in the context of the rest of the section (which makes it clear he supports the two-state solution), him saying he supports it because he thinks it's more practical is fairly anodyne; it's neither BLP-sensitive nor exceptional or potentially unencyclopedic in tone. The other usages are perhaps more serious in that they attribute relatively sharp words and major statements to him using only his WP:ABOUTSELF statements in Mondoweiss as a source, so it would be ideal to find other sources for those, but I don't think we need to worry so much about a comparatively bland statement that the reason why he supports the two-state solution is because he thinks it's more practical. --Aquillion (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that makes sense, thank you. I was also concerned with the source content and context, and not just the specifically cited section. I would still strongly prefer removal here as well, but understand that this is unlikely to find consensus unless I find a better source. Thank you all for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
    I don't feel strongly about this but I think that now there is an RfC closure that we should only use this source with extreme caution in a BLP, it is appropriate to boldly the onus should be on those who want it included to secure consensus for that by showing why it is exceptional. Otherwise we have a community consensus that is meaningless. In this particular case, the contentious source was removed with a clear edit summary in line with that RfC closure, but replaced within two days on the basis that it "appears to have been removed for no good reason" - when really consensus should have been reached first. The quotation is from from a critique of the subject of the BLP by somebody who is neither notable nor noteworthy ("a regular commenter on this site, Daniel Crowther, who works in Boston in the technology development industry") summarising the BLP subject's position. Surely we can find a reliable source to summarise his position from? While the quotation isn't itself contentious, I think we have the duty to find a better source for it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I definitely agree, thank you!
    Regarding a replacement, I have been looking a little but can’t find anything great. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the sake of due diligence: we currently have five citations of MW, citing three different texts. This is the only one that seems problematic to me. His comments on on B’Tselem’s "apartheid regime" designation for Israel and an interview with his thoughts on BDS are both used for his own words, so that seems fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Finkelstein/Archive_7&oldid=1245840661"