Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 2

NPOV check
The sections "Tenure Denial and Resignation", "Finklestein on From Time Immemorial" both present quotes by supporters of Finklestein without solid representation of criticisms against Finklestein or the viewpoints in dispute. Section "praise and criticism of Finklestein" is insufficient in explaining controversy, and needs to be fleshed out more. Finklestein's actual arguments are very sporadically mentioned, and there is overall more evidence presented of his supporters than his critics.

Out of date link
The NYPost link is out of date... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.140.179 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Finkelstein denied tenure
Outspoken Political Scientist Denied Tenure at DePaul - NY Times, 6/11/07 "In a full-court press against Mr. Finkelstein, Mr. Dershowitz lobbied professors, alumni and the administration of DePaul, a Roman Catholic university in Chicago, to deny him tenure. Many faculty members at DePaul and elsewhere decried what they called Mr. Dershowitz’s heavy-handed tactics." --George100 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein has been too close to the line - as the article says the faculty at Princeton didn't even want to be associated with his research to the point of refusing to even read his thesis. As a full professor he would scare the university leaders to death - and cost them a lot of money. Now that he is free of the almost lifetime pursuit of tenure he may finally go freelance and write some god books - hopefully what he really knows about the holocaust - his parents have given him some hints I suppose as to what was really going on in the camps. With or without tenure I suspect that Finkelstein is seen as trouble, if I was a college offical trying to kiss up for cash he would give me heartburn. 159.105.80.141 11:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism sections
why are these sections laid out like book jacket blurbs? these are totally unreadable. I'm resisting the impulse to just delete them as they offer little substance to the article and just bog down the reader. Any suggestions? Potashnik 20:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * edit another article? :) j/k Edit as you see fit and see what happens. Take it to the talk page as you have. Good luck. --Tom 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay - I made a tentative rewrite and tried to be as NPOV as I can be. I welcome any comments and suggestions. Potashnik 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag
Any objections to removing this four month old tag? Potashnik 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for a start most of the refs need expanding properly (I have a strong preference for using citation templates, but not essential). There may well be other issues (for example, I haven't gone through checking spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc).
 * --NSH001 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch vs. WP:BLP
An editor (or two) keep trying to insert some material published on the Counterpunch website that, among other things, contains the following representative phrase: "Moreover, he found at least one of Dershowitz's charges blatantly and knowingly fraudulent." This is very, very strong stuff, and WP:BLP does not allow us to make these kinds of claims, or really any derogatory claims, based on material on a partisan website like Counterpunch. I will remind editors here who may not be aware that in December, 2005 Jimbo Wales deleted the entire article on Alan Dershowitz, and created this stub in its place. We are not going down that road again. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the whole quote and not just the offending sentence? Are articles published on Counterpunch disallowed as source material on wikipedia? Delad 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Counterpunch is a partisan, biased source, which is best not used on Wikipedia at all, but particularly in relation to WP:BLP issues. Jayjg (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. This is a battle that Dershowitz personally started, we don't risk affecting him personally by airing the most charged portions of it.
 * The allegations Dershowitz made against Finkelstein have been fully aired (and look to me a lot more wounding and professionally damaging than anything Menentrez is saying).
 * Prof Menentrez has examined the charges made by Dershowitz and (probably quite carefully) published both his analysis and his results (even though he's done it in a slightly odd place). Menentrez comes to a particular conclusion about Dershowitz's claims that would be difficult to rephrase and would be misleading to the reader if we left out.
 * In other biographies, editors have fought to include smears that are either completely unsupported, and/or appear to be completely false, and/or link the Living Person to ideologies that they do or would condemn. I don't feel that is the case here, Dershowitz set out to make a case against Finkelstein, his case has been robustly challenged, and Dershowitz has been offered the right of reply (though he seems to have rejected it). The Foundation will have to consider the legal issues, but documenting a fist-fight doesn't amount to becoming a party to it. PalestineRemembered 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm dealing with this BLP issue in this article. I'm dealing with one other BLP issue in one other article. I'm not going to deal with every potential BLP issue in every article and, in fact, I'm not even going to comment on them. Jayjg (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the same quote is available on Finkelstein's website. Would it be acceptable if sourced from Finkelstein's without the words "blatantly and knowingly fraudulent"? Why do you think Counterpunch is such a partisan website? Does the question make me partisan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delad (talk • contribs)
 * Does no-one read WP:BLP? Why do I bother continually linking to it?
 * "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."
 * The next time I see this material dumped into the article, without it coming from an extremely reliable source, I'm going to protect the article. I hope that is clear. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, of course I completely agree with the eliminating the main BLP-offending phrase. But I think you may be jumping on Peter's last version a little bit, which I think was a reasonable and good faith effort by a newish editor to solve a problem.  He did what needed to be done - shift the focus from Dershowitz to Dershowitz's public acts and eliminated the most serious phrase.  Perhaps after a bit more work, neutralize - take out "painstaking", maybe. eliminate that Menetrez tried to contact Dershowitz and was rebuffed, and I don't see how it would be contentious or violate any policy or guideline.John Z 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the links and bare facts are in Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair, where it clearly belongs even more than here, so there is also the question of whether it should also be here.John Z 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi John. There's still the issue of the source for these claims, which are clearly negative about Dershowitz, no matter how they are packaged. Counterpunch simply is far too partisan to be used as a reliable source for a WP:BLP issue, and Finkelstein's website all the moreso. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Counterpunch unreliable? I've had a look at wikipolicies re BLP and I understand the need for using reliable sources. However, the same site has been used to source other claims in the same article. Futhermore, I understand that the quote can be interpreted as negative but the whole quote isn't necessary and can be synopsised or reduced, thereby avoiding the issue of negativity while maintaining the legitimate and explicit criticism inherent in the piece (at least from the perspective of Finkelstein and Menetrez). The argument about whether it belongs here in the first place is something to consider if it dominates the article, otherwise an introduction to the affair in the biography seems fine. Delad 03:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Counterpunch is a newsletter published by two guys pushing a particular political POV. It's not an academic journal, or a publication of a university press; it's not even up to the level of a newspaper. The issue is the source; if a reliable one can be found, then we can work on making sure the content adheres to WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this point. Counterpunch is a very strindent political newsletter. It would be like using the World Workers Daily or the Spotlight newspapers, or even the LaRouche publications. While some of the material may be accurate, the political messages distorts their reporting, sometimes unpredictably, even if "parts of it are excellent". In a field where they have a known history of antagonism to a particular subject it'd be inappropriate to use them as a secondary source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, would this "known history of antagonism" benchmark allow material from The New Republic into an article like this?--G-Dett 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that The New Republic is a much larger publication, with a larger editorial staff, and a less strident, quirky political bias. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true with regards to other topics, but with regards to Israel/Palestine The New Republic (published by the frenzied, knee-capping partisan thug Marty Peretz) is no less quirky, strident, and biased than Counterpunch. More specifically, TNR has libeled the subject of this article on at least one occasion.  If we were serious about BLP issues with regards to sourcing of this article, we would be taking a very hard look at anything from The New Republic.--G-Dett 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, I think that Peter's version was a good start to avoiding any BLP issue, basically just say there is this analysis that supports Finkelstein and thinks Dershowitz's charges are unfounded, which is what the other article does. For balance, just put in someone supporting Dershowitz's side, who would likely be published in a similar partisan outlet. How would that packaging be negative toward either?  The only problem might be that this section would start to become a duplicate of the other article, so again, perhaps that should be the reason it should be excised from here. If one eliminated partisans in turn from the DF affair article, then there wouldn't be any article left, and I don't think that is appropriate required by policy.  Menetrez's analysis, which I haven't read, is noteworthy because it is detailed, and he seems reasonably trustworthy and informed. I think he is more "the source" than Counterpunch.   A problem is that there may be derogatory material in these links that is not suitable for wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be any stricture against this in BLP.   I note that at Dershowitz's Harvard site he calls Finkelstein a holocaust revisionist.  I don't think we should eliminate that from the articles and links.  As is obvious, I didn't do my homework and check the other article before writing the first paragraph above, but I hope I might have cooled things down a bit. Perhaps we should try to push people towards the DF Affair article by shrinking this section - it might naturally be a bit bigger than the corresponding one in the Dershowitz article, but it is much bigger than that section and duplicates the DF affair article.  I think D & F are in a conspiracy together to make it impossible for us to write about either without skirting BLP issues.John Z 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * John, all dubious material should be removed; if that means removing much of this little spat between these two people, that's fine. The problem with these kinds of articles is that editors from one POV come and want to bash Dershowitz; then people from the opposite POV come and want to bash Finkelstein. The the 1st groups adds more material, then the second group adds more material, and in the end it's little more than tabloid journalism. No doubt these articles need a huge cleanup, from a BLP point of view; I've started with the most recently added bit. I'd welcome your help in getting rid of all dubious material. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John, for explaining my intent and I do agree that painstaking may be seen as POV. I do not understand the specifically BLP justification for Jay's removal of my reduction of the link. The article already contains quotes from [] which could also be accused of being a politically aligned source especially in its portrayal of Chomsky. And, indeed, anything by Finkelstein or Dershowitz is also aligned. And I don't think a when will you people learn type comment is a good enough justification for the removal of my version. BTW a similar removal by Jay occurred in Anti-Zionism of my partial reversion of User:Abu Ali's over-the-top edit.--Peter cohen 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any problem with quoting Menetrez's article from Counterpunch, provided that the quoted words are judiciously selected and that the emphasis stays on Finkelstein. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while; in catching up I must say I'm a bit bemused by the back-and-forth on this page.  I got a big kick out of the argument that because Dershowitz is A) world-famous, and B) a lawyer, that by definition he can't be C) a charlatan, or D) a semi-literate hack.  Whereas even schoolchildren with their little pencils and scantrons know how to fill out bubble E) for all of the above.  An article that takes Dershowitz at his word from his scribblings at www.jbooks.com cannot plausibly scruple to cite Menetrez on grounds of reliability.--G-Dett 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User threatened with block for editing this article
User:Jayjg has issued a thinly veiled threat to block me for my edits to this article. If you do not hear from me again, it is because he has carried out his threat. If he blocks all other editors who do not agree with him, he will be free to edit this page without interference, adding attacks on Finkelstein to his hearts content and deleting all defences. Will this help improve Wikipedia? I do not think so. Farewell ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have read the Talk: page before blindly reverting. Or, you should have read WP:BLP:
 * "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel."
 * That's pretty clear. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP policy is intended to protect Wikipedial from being sued for making libelous attack on living people. You are turning BLP policy on its head in order to prevent attacks on NF being answered. Your conduct (use of threats to use your administrative privilages to block editors who disagree with your POV) is not likely to win you many converts to your cause. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My "cause" is WP:BLP, and I don't have to "win many converts" to it because it is already policy, and it clearly states you can be blocked for violating it. And claiming that a world-famous lawyer did something that was "blatantly and knowingly fraudulent" is both a "libelous attack on living people", and, frankly, stupid. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP is there to protect the foundation, and in order that the project doesn't cause stress and suffering to living people.
 * But I'm mystified by it's use in this case, since Dershowitz plunged into this case with allegations against Finkelstein, he doesn't need any protection. He's levelled really nasty, personal charges - which we're reporting. The counter allegation, with analysis, from Menentrez (especially when he's offered "right of reply" before and after publication) is fair game in comparison, not least because it's not personalised. There's a fight here alright, but we're not contributing to it by reporting each set of charges. In fact, we have to report both sets, or breach NPOV.
 * This is Finkelstein's article, we're discussing an unwanted set of allegations on Finkelstein, he's the one that should be protected by BLP in this case - and there is NPOV as well. A block on you for trying to protect the subject of this article would be perverse indeed. PalestineRemembered 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the comments in the section above? Jimbo stubbed the Dershowitz article when it used lots more reliable sources than this. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a double-standard in allowing derogatory attacks published by Political Research Associates in their journal The Public Eye in the Lyndon LaRouche article, but disallowing an apparently well-researched article by a respected PhD (JD?) in a similar and apparently completely analogous newsletter Counterpunch? This is not "poorly sourced". The man presumably had a good notion of what libel might involve before he published those claims, seeing as he studied law, and he was not sued for it. That is "fair comment". Seems like WP:BLP is bent and molded to fit the particular article at hand rather than being applied uniformly. Perhaps this falls under the complaining that wikipedia rules are not enforced uniformly will also get you blocked clause... -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is with reliable sources, and it's not good to presume. Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and note that Jayjg has threaned to block another user here. I suppose being an admin is useful as it allows you to block people who do not like your edits. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as an admin it's useful to be able to block people who continually violate policy, such as WP:BLP - or, as is becoming more and more relevant these days, WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm mystified. The policy of the project, right here in this article was to publish "The ADL has also described Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier," and delete any statements there was no evidence for this allegation (eg editors even fought and succesfully removed an additional "without specifically citing statements of doubt or denial").
 * So how come Finkelstein can be viciously (and I think wantonly) slandered, right here in his own article, with no evidence for the smear provided, and yet, when Dershowitz attacks Finkelstein we publish the slur Dershowitz made "failed academic" - then refuse Finkelstein's defenders the right to state their views (based on careful, published analysis) of the nature of the allegations?
 * I personally think there are far too many of these smears appearing in articles and in talk against both subjects and editors. I'll be extremely pleased if and when this policy is changed, such unpleasant practises stamped out and culprits breaching policy are named and shamed. But I'd seen nothing to suggest that the policy had changed - when did this happen, where was the discussion about it? PalestineRemembered 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is certainly an inconsistency. Describing someone as "failed" in the profession in which he makes a living is a serious allegation to keep in wikipedia. I think it should be removed under WP:BLP--Peter cohen 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not objecting to removal of other WP:BLP violating material if it exists. My focus has been on this newly added paragraph. Keep in mind, though, the issue is with reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may wish to post a complaint to a relevant administrators' noticeboard and/or the WP:BLP talk page, or arrange for some other sort of mediation or arbitration. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If this were a case of POV being injected into this article in order to harm the subject (Finkelstein) and protect his critic (Dershowitz) then it would really be quite serious. The integrity of the project would have been jeopardised. It might be a case for the Administrators Noticeboard - or more likely, a case for Arbitration With Teeth.
 * Fortunately, we're not in that situation - we have the benefit of administrators to turn to. We can confidently look to those people to a) act in an NPOV fashion and b) to explain the policy under which we're operating. After all, a closely related BLP situation was extensively discussed on this very TalkPage here - it runs to a massive 16,500 words. We need to know why it was then alright to include quotes calling Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier (based on no evidence whatsoever) - but not alright now to link to Dr Menetrez analysing Dershowitz's evidence. And not alright to quote Menentrez saying "first item on Dershowitz's List .... is itself a fraud" - since both of those portions were reverted with threats to block people. I cannot follow the RS argument, I am baffled by the intricacies of the BLP argument and I fear that the current situation has deteriorated to being an apparent breach of NPOV. PalestineRemembered 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link given for the discussion is dead.Delad 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're talking about this situation, not unrelated ones; I won't be responding further on unrelated issues. Please feel free to discuss this issue. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only way I can see to interpret BLP and RS is by comparing material that has been challenged to established precedents, otherwise it just becomes a war of assertions - "this is defamatory and poorly sourced" "no it's not" - the question is, what are the precedents. I think the precedent is that material like Counterpunch is citable.  How can we avoid discussing analogous situations?  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Examine the policy itself; there is no guarantee that other cases are analogous, or that correct decisions were made in them. Regarding Counterpunch, the issues with it are mentioned in the section above, which is where I will be responding to future comments if they are relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is right. So far all the complaints about this article are complaints that relevant and properly cited material should be deleted because it "defames" a living person.  Would these people who are so interested in protecting the biographies of living persons apply these same arguments to the biographies of Osama bin Laden, David Duke, Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other living persons that have less than flattering biographies that have relevant and properly cited information in it? Speaking of Nasrallah and Holocaust denial, here is a video of a Finkelstein interview given on Hezbollah owned and operated Al-Manar television channel just prior to the 2006 Lebanon War on a show that specifically denies the Holocaust.  And here is another one where Finkelstein exclaims the following at a public rally during the 2006 Lebanon War:
 * "Right now, and I say it publically, right now we are all Hezbollah! All of us!" (2:48).
 * "Every victory of Hezbollah over the vandals and the marauders, the invaders and the murderers, every victory of Hezbollah over Israel is also a victory for liberty and a victory for freedom!" (3:53).
 * "[Israel's] only purpose is to reap murder, reap havoc, destroy, level, pulderize, cleanse; if that's your purpose, if that's your reson deta, then you lost your right to be [in the Middle East]." (5:41).
 * The monsters and freaks in the White House and their collaborators in Tel Aviv, so far as I'm concerned, they can all drop dead!" (8:30). --GHcool 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for that link, I'd not realised quite why Finkelstein is so hated: "What would Americans think if Germany, in its capital, were to create a museum commemorating slavery in the United States, commemorating the extermination of Native Americans, but no museum devoted to the Nazi Holocaust? .... we are now guilty of the same hypocrisy."
 * If our aim is to produce an interesting article and a well-rounded picture of Finkelstein, maybe we should include more of his ground-breaking thinking and teaching, and less of this artificially created "controversy" and/or defamatory material, which does nothing for the reputation of the subject or of the encyclopaedia.
 * (But I still think we urgently need guidance on BLP, since there is an impression growing that it operates in one way for Dershowitz, and in a diametrically opposed fashion for Finkelstein). PalestineRemembered 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I have no idea what you are trying to address. I havent been paying close attention but I believe the disagreement is over the phrase "academic failure" or something to that effect and that Jayjg refuses to allow a seemingly well-cited and researched statements that Dershowitz made some errors in his accusations against Finkelstein. I also have no idea why you think the above quotes of Finkelstein are particularly damning. I don't think anyone would object to citations of things Finkelstein actually said, although calling the above "anti-semitic" is quite a... stretch to say the least, and you also seem to be omitting the necessary context to make sense of his line of thought. Do you have a point or are you just taking the opportunity to point out that Finkelstein is anti-Zionist? Because I don't think anyone disputes that. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, he appears to say "If your only purpose is to wreak murder, wreak havoc, destroy, level, pulverize, flatten, cleanse; if that's your purpose, if that's your raison d'être, then you've lost your right to be there." - I hope you aren't including transcriptions of that quality in any articles. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I admit I haven't been following this debate in great detail, but it looked to me like one party was interpreting BLP as saying that nothing bad could be written about a living person in his/her biography and another party was interpreting BLP as saying that nothing libelous could be written about a living person in his/her biography.  If this was not what the debate was about, then I appologize for wasting everybody's time.  I also appologize for my very very very rough transcription of the YouTube video.  I would never have used that transcription in an article.
 * As for the "failed academic" statement, I am not a subscriber to website of The New Republic and so I have no idea if the source verifies the statement it claims to. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I would like to see another footnote to a more complete source where Dershowitz calls Finkelstein a "failed academic" and claims that Finkelstein picked a fight so he can claim "outside interference" if he wasn't awarded tenure.  This is less a problem of BLP as it is a problem of verifiability.  --GHcool 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a persistent and I suspect insoluble problem about the Wikipedia insistence on NPOV concerning articles about controversial people - such as Finkelstein and Dershowitz. The problem is that neither side agree on the true nature of the controversy, and the fact that a lot of pride is tied up in both sides of the fight is also reflected in the pride of wikipedia contributors, who are (or at an rate, ought to be) emotionally involved in trying to be objective.

In the case of Finkelstein, people who admire his work maintain that he is an honest scholar who is being vilified and slandered by pro-Israeli lobbyists. People who don't admire his work claim that he is a liar and a self-hating Jew who knowingly falsifies information. In the case of Dershowitz, people who don't admire his work claim that he is a pro-Israeli hawk who will stoop to pretty much any kind of infamy in order to slander anyone who dares to criticise Israel, whereas people who do admire his work claim that he is a brave and stalwart defender of a persecuted nation, who dares to stand up against its lying and hateful enemies.

It doesn't take a philosophy degree to see that it is not possible to write an article that will satisfy any of these people. If they can't agree about the basic facts of the case, then an encyclopedia is not the place to try and resolve them. In any case, the only solution I can think of is that anyone who actually wants to contribute to an article on (say) Finkelstein or Dershowitz ought to be somehow vetted first to see if they actually have an opinion about any of these people. If they do have an opinion, at least one that's reflected in their contribution to even the slightest degree, then they shouldn't be allowed to make a contribution. It would certainly spare us a lot of editing wars. (I'm thinking along the lines of the old saying that anyone who wants to run for office shouldn't be allowed to.) Lexo 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your solution is unacceptable. --GHcool 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idead, in theory. Not sure if it would work thoughDelad 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lexo -> The real problem is that we're all volunteers and some suggestions, while perfectly sensible of themselves, would require volunteers to sit down and do things they don't choose to do. All voluntary projects have this problem, but it doesn't mean we can't do very good work. You're quite right there's a serious problem, but we know the solution and it may be that the community is coming round - "Biographies of Living People" or BLP very nearly says "don't cause distress to living people". Here's an administrator see second entry recently saying just this (if I've read him right!) "... all dubious material should be removed; if that means removing much of this little spat between these two people, that's fine. ... I'd welcome your help in getting rid of all dubious material. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)" PalestineRemembered 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, if my solution is 'unacceptable', how about this one: remove all content except for Finkelstein's date of birth, photo and the links. Lexo 21:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dershowitz Finkelstein affair
Most of this material is already covered in a separate article. I suggest reducing this section to a minimum (ie a single paragraph by way of introduction) and leaving the Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair heading as a redirect for those interested in following up on the subject. Delad 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Isarig 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree. --GHcool 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm missing something. From reading this article it appears that a dispute over of a most important historical issue had degenerated into a petty dispute over citations and work methods?  This pharasaical approach, while possibly endemic to academia and which periodically afflicts jounrnals like the New Yorker, should not be viewed as politically or intellectually serious.  We saw this with Doris Kearns Goodwin and her excellent work "No Ordinary Time" about FDR, which was an example of how petty nitpicking raised in bad faith by political opponents of Kearns-and more importantly FDR-under the banner of opposing intellectual dishonesty, represents legerdemain that is itself a greater example of political and intellectual dishonesty.  Why, because what's the real issue? the legacy of FDR or a petty textual analysis, focusing on the latter being a cheap and small minded way of avoiding the former through what are basically contrived personal ad-homonem attacks.  Ditto for, however you want to label it: the murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany and the death of tens of millions more in the Second World War and the historical and political issues and legacy that flows therefrom to this day and beyond.  Thus while I am disappointed in both Finkelstein and Dershewitz, I feel that Finkelstein, if this article be believed, should have known better than to mire himself in such a callow exercise, setting himself up in the process to the detriment of a serious discussion of this important issue. Sadly, another example of the race to the bottom in our "fair and balanced" political culture. Tom Cod 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Parents are Jews is not part of political views
 RolandR (Talk | contribs) (30,267 bytes) (Undid revision 141578078 by DePiep (talk)It is explicitly relevant, and not mentioned elsewhere in the article) 


 * So I undid this one. The backgroun of his parents is mentioned in the section with reference to his parent in the sectiontitle, so it is mentioned. And anyway: it is not a description of his political views. -DePiep 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because Finkelstein says it is relevant. See, for instance, his response to a question about his motivation in a BBC interview from 2000: " My parents had fairly recently passed away in 1995 and I felt that it was time to settle accounts of the Holocaust Industry, in my view, both as a perversion and falsification of my parents' experience. Secondly, as a corruption of my parents' experience by turning it into a shakedown industry, ruthlessly extorting huge sums of money from European countries in the name of what they call the "Holocaust Victims". When they actually manage to get the monies, the victims never see any of it." I think we can assume that, if he thinks his parents background is central to the development of his own political views, we are in no position to deny this.


 * Surprisingly, the fact that Finkelstein is Jewish is not mentioned anywhere else in the article; this is undeniably relevant, as even his detractors concede.


 * So I have restored the phrase in question. RolandR 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

-DePiep 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Finkelstein is Jewish is mentioned, twice, in the categories.
 * In an earlier edit, I wrote it in the opening line explicitly, but RolandR edited it away. Please don)t ask me why its not there.
 * The section on his background, now torn apart by later edits (see below), mentioned his parents as survivors of the Holocaust.The BBC/interview you quote only talks about `holocaust victims`, not specific about jewish holocaust vitims. So in fact, given the fact of his parents being vicims/survivors, that would be enough. His interview refers to this victim/ness.
 * Putting that it it relevant because F. says its relevant, is not enough. At least that would mean that we should eliminate the word Holocaust from the article, because F. defines that word to related to the Industry. i.e. we cannot describe F. in terms he himself disapproves.
 * Why not mention/describe the interview in the section on his views (or even better in the section on the book H.I.)?


 * I have no recollection of deleting that from the opening; and the page history doesn't show that I did, nor that DePiep wrote it. Please give the diffs for your claim above. I take your point about the term "Holocaust", and have accordingly replaced the term with "holocaust" (ie, not capitalised), in accordance with Finkelstein's own distinction between "the real historical event" and "the ideological instrumentalization of that event".


 * It's very clear that Finkelstein is talking in this interview about Jewish holocaust victims, and the way their experience has been exploited. In response to a later question, he replies "I think the starting point is a very simple one. My parents looked on with growing repugnance at the way the experience they passed through was being depicted in the mainstream media and in Holocaust scholarship. In fact when they referred to the Holocaust, it was as if it was another event - a spectacle. It was that scepticism and disgust with the way the matter was being depicted, that finally inspired me to sit down and settle the accounts of this nonsense." You simply can't deny that his parents experiences during the Nazi holocaust were the explicit reason for his interest in the issue.


 * It's not enough that the Categories include him as a Jew; it should be mentioned explicitly somewhere in the article. Not necessarily where it currently is, but we can't omit this. RolandR 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:DePiep, i really don't follow your edits 1 and edits 2:
 * for starters, the article started to make sense sturcture wise, as the intro was a bit more expanded on his focus of study and the criticisms of it which follow.
 * and secondly, the "Education and career" section was consructed in a way which helps understand the general time line of his career.
 * at the very least, this edit helped for a more

constructed version, and personally, i disagree with your edit. Jaakobou 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

-DePiep 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If Jaakobou doesnt understand my edits, why then alter them?
 * As can be seen in the big reordering of sections (just a cleanup) I did recently, I altered the sequence into: background & education, own works, other peoples works on Finkelstein.
 * Here you mention "a bit more sense structure wise" (though you didn't get the before-structure, as you wrote above). In the edit summary you wrote "i think this order is much more solid for readbility and encyclopedic value "storyline")". Again: you did't get my edit as you write, and then break the buildup.
 * Here you write that you "disagree" with an edit, but that has nothing to do with it. It shouldnt be about personal standards. Ands again: if you dont get it, as you write, then first try to grasp it.
 * In your edit summary today it is about "layout\foundation" - another ground once more.
 * "Two days without response" - thats not a useful judgfement of quality. In fact, my big edit was there for five days already - I wont throw that in as a positive or negative fact of quality.
 * In general: after my big reshuffle of sections I have not seen one improvement in your repositioning of parts of sections. Not even with the summary motivation read.


 * User:DePiep,
 * your edit standing for a few days does not automatically make it the best one possible.
 * Thats what I say. You claim that wainting for two days for a reply gives your suggestion a quality to do it.
 * i did not like the layout made, as information was hidden and obstructed and it was near impossible to get a sense of who the guy is. his career for example, is full of debates and criticism (that he makes and against/pro his work), and as such, the subsection about his career should therefore include some explanation/subsection into this information.
 * I wrote and illustrated that yous edit summary changed motivation with about every revert. That I cannot reply to, because next time it can be different again.
 * i did not understand why your edit was making the article somewhat unreadable (i disagree with breaking apart criticism and debates with the person from his career and adding it to generic profiles done on him) and therefore i disapproved of it.
 * You could put the criticism after the book etc. That would make sense too, in my opinion. Remember the article was unreadable first, the template is there for a reason. Anyway, what I find unreadable is that criticisms are the opening line of a description of his work. Too often reading "some people find ...".
 * since i disapproved this edit, and no response was made on the talk page to the revert, i took the liberty to revert back to a version i preffer, which allows to follow some type of a timeline on his career.
 * RE: You removed the description of his parents from the top of the timeline.
 * please stay civil in talk page replies, i understand that you're unhappy with your version being changed, however, it does not automatically make my version worse. what is so wrong with having some type of timeline on his career?
 * RENow its timeline, yesterday it was layout, ...
 * -- Jaakobou 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE by -DePiep 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

note to palestineremebered
please don't let our conflicts on one page spill into another.

the "criticism before academic work" was actually "Praise and Criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship". Jaakobou 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being scrupulously careful. This entire article is/has been riven with BLP of all kinds, and this re-arrangement is simply more of the same kind of thing. The guy is a professional, with a lifetime of academic achievements. Putting criticisms of him first is ludicrous, the kind of thing we'd do to a noted criminal. PalestineRemembered 21:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein isn't just "some academic", he is primarily notable for his ideas on the Holocaust and his controversial books. Perhaps the current attempt needs to be modified, but the idea is a correct one.  Tewfik Talk 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that we have a special class of biographies, where BLP doesn't apply and attacks on him are more prominently displayed than his scholarly work? We're treating a professional academic (highly regarded by many in both his teaching and writing) the way we would treat a criminal. If this is really part of policy, then I think we need to know. PalestineRemembered 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * an intro to an article should include some type of basic summary into the essence of the following text. due to his entire notability revolving around a volume of criticism made both by finklstein and the people he cites approvingly/disapprovingly - there is clear room to add a note about this into the intro without you jumping to a conclusion that he's treated differently than others - the same has been done in the cases of Benny Morris and Yossi Melman. i.e. what is prominent about the figure is introduced also into the intro. Jaakobou 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're now tightening up on BLP, removing "all dubious material". See diff, the second of two simultaneous entries.in section . "John, all dubious material should be removed; if that means removing much of this little spat between these two people, that's fine. The problem with these kinds of articles is that editors from one POV come and want to bash Dershowitz; then people from the opposite POV come and want to bash Finkelstein. The the 1st groups adds more material, then the second group adds more material, and in the end it's little more than tabloid journalism. No doubt these articles need a huge cleanup, from a BLP point of view; I've started with the most recently added bit. I'd welcome your help in getting rid of all dubious material. Jayjg (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)" PalestineRemembered 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou keeps missing the point: whether criticism or praise: other peoples judgement should be placed after the primary description of the person and his-her works. I still haver not read a motivation to introduce a person or his-her work with words like `controversial`. Well described, and later in the article, we could even do without the word itself. Ãnd of cvourse, the edit + summary it is not a personal thing (as Jaakobou writtes in the first line here), but correctly to the point being quality of the article. -DePiep 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Critical controversies engaging Finkelstein"
Come on, guys, this is a friggin' list of links, not "controversies." There's always a temptation to insert BS into the mainspace; try to resist it.--G-Dett 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the brusqueness; I should have been clearer. We could include a list of "notable controversies," but this wasn't it.  This was a hodge-podge of pieces about Finkelstein, ranging from serious and sober to hyperventilating to defamatory, seemingly chosen at random, with no organizing rubric with regards to subject matter and no discrimination as to quality.


 * I'm not certain the article needs or will benefit from such a section; it already has extensive sections on "praise and criticism," on his feud with Dershowitz and Peters, etc. But if we are going to include a list of "notable controversies," then it should organize its material, for example as follows: 1. Debunking of Peters; 2. controversies relating to thesis of Holocaust Industry; 3. Feud with Dershowitz; 4. Support for Hezbollah in 2006 war; 5. Tenure denial / academic freedom issues.  Each giving links to the best articles relating to these subjects.--G-Dett 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good plan. -DePiep 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk
Is the author of this article sure about the words underneath the photo of Finkelstein - "Norman Finkelstein giving a talk in Suffolk (England)". He hasn't done that many talks at universities, and I suspect if the photo is from Suffolk, it is probably Suffolk University in the USA, not somewhere in the county of Suffolk, in England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.40.21 (talk • contribs).


 * (I restored the previous comment after the writer deleted it; I believe it was an accident)
 * Good catch. Upon checking out the photo information, the author is Miguel de Icaza who works at MIT in the same area. So it's almost certainly as you say. I will change the caption. Eleland 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Weblink
By chance I've come about this article,, it's good enough to be put as weblink. I think. You do, too?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.22.12 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Doyen
I thank Groupthink for tidying up the messy punctuation and other things. I have restored one slight point his edit erased. As the text read it looked as though it were my own editorial POV to note that Hilberg was the 'doyen of Holocaust research(ers), and Groupthink rightly questions this. Actually, the use of 'doyen' with Hilberg is a commonplace in the technical literature. Since Finkelstein is charged with a very, I mean, very serious charge by many of his critics, which is echoed in the text, namely of being 'antisemitic' I thought and still think it only fair to note to the untutored reader that Hilberg is not just some guy out there among many, but rather the author of the fundamental text on the Holocaust, whom no one has ever accused of antisemitism, and whose opinion carries some weight. Wiki can well repeat what is, at all appearances, an extremely nasty piece of smearing, but, at the same time, it should duly note that many authoritative scholars dismiss these charges as nothing more than smear tactics. I don't write that into the text of course, but 'doyen' tells the reader to take note, and not just be enchanted by the comfortable dismissal of his work as antisemitic. It's a balancing act. For my source for the expression(der Doyen der Holocaustforschung), Sven Felix Kellerhoff, ‚Raul Hilberg und die Quellen des Holocaust’, Die Welt, 25. Januar 2003, http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article351516/Raul_Hilberg_und_die_Quellen_des_Holocaust.html Regards Nishidani 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and the citation. Groupthink 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Avruch's edits and my changes
Avruch. I appreciate your close examinations, and have profited by them, as I hope other contributors will. But I have restored quite a bit of the earlier material. Here are the explanations.

(1)There is no need to give a citation required sign for the assertion that the publishing mainstream hailed Peters’ work, because the details are given below in the text.


 * I don't see where the mainstream media's initial reception to Peter's book is described in the article outside of this paragraph. Later text relates to eventual criticism and the initial reception of this criticism. Can you point me to what I'm missing? Avruch 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this request for clarification. You say 'main stream media's initial response', and I though the first sentence of the following passage pretty much makes it clear that 'some 200 (favourable) notices' covers the point. I.e.


 * 'By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had...received some two hundred [favorable] notices...in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in The Nation exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax.'


 * Of course, one could doubt Finkelstein's word on this, and request a neutral source for the point. There is an academic journal which keeps track of book reviews that would certainly document this.Nishidani 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(2) You take exception to ‘Demographic studies had tended to conclude that’ and suggest rewriting ‘Some demographic studies have concluded that’. The problem with this suggestion is that Peters work intended to overthrow what she saw as the sloppy consensus of demographic studies. It wasn’t, she argues, ‘some’ but ‘demographic studies’ generally down to her writing which sustained the idea that Palestine was predominantly inhabited by Arabs, or that, the population after Zionism grew predominantly from the natural increase, and not from immigration. If you have evidence that the consensus was other that that decried by Peters in her work, then by all means let us see it. I have restored my earlier version. I would add however that I am not satisfied, and I thank you for reminding me, of the single background ref. for this view. I haven't intervened here to supply stronger material backing for this assertion because I think it more appropriate to the wiki page on Peters, which I hope to work on in due course.


 * I changed the language here because the supporting reference is to a single piece by Edward Said. Said was not a demographer, but I take as granted the idea that the piece referenced includes demographic analysis. However, Said was an activist in this area rather than simply a scholar with an academic interest. It seems unwise to take his work to represent the consensus. If Peters makes the contention that she was writing against the consensus of demographic research at the time, the page where she makes that claim should be cited and the article should be written to make it clear that we are not taking the fact as granted but merely relaying her claim.


 * Additionally, and if this sounds confrontational it isn't mean to, claims of controversial fact need to be cited - i.e. proof positive provided. You write "If you have evidence that the consensus was other than that decried by Peters in her work, then by all means let us see it." You seem to be suggesting negative proof is required to remove or weaken the language, but I respectfully disagree.Avruch 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * .Avruch Generally I couldn't agree more, though I don't think one need question Said as an authority, since he was of Palestinian origin, a scholar (certainly not primarily in that field) who closely followed the technical literature, and the fact that he was an activist, though many disagree in Wiki on this, does not in the least trouble me. Many Israeli sources I have read with illuminating profit, pro and con, are written by activists, in the sense that they make firm public statements of their personal views. A certain passion in the pursuit of knowledge is, as Plato taught, fundamental for creative understanding.


 * No need to worry about sounding confrontational. Your posts strike me as precise and responsive to the dialogic process of good cooperative writing in this medium. I prefer strong viewpoints, informed by an intelligent ear for what others, and the texts, are saying, to muddle, which is the major obstacle to doing justice to these articles. As to eliciting proof, I was just curious to know if you had information contradicting my memory that Peters attacks what she considered to be a consensus.


 * I was myself dissatisfied with using a non-specialist source like Said (though his notes refer to the technical literature). You're right that he is a bad or inaccurate source for the idea of consensus. John Z may come up with better from Wasserstein, whom I haven't read. I can't even access Peters now, since I read the book 18 years ago, in another country, but I have a strong memory of her challenging a consensus. My own version there was provisory, put because a clarification was required about Peters' challenge to what at the time was a consensus. If I am wrong on this, then age is doing some damage to my focused memory. The essential point to which I took exception in your edit is that 'some', which in context, makes Peters' vehemence incomprehensible. Were she just attacking a marginal view, then the whole sense of Finkelstein's sleuthing assault would have been supererogatory. Regards Nishidani 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(3) You challenge. ‘Peters had no training in the historical profession and even her defenders admit the book betrays at times an hysterical tone, is tendentious, and excessively partisan.’ and prefer ‘Peters is a journalist, and some academic reviewers (including Daniel Pipes PhD of Middle East Forum) criticize the style and quality of her writing. Pipes, while supporting her underlying thesis, has described her work as suffering from excessive partisanship and a somewhat hysterical undertone.’

Fair enough. But you can click on her wikipage and find out she was a journalist. She wrote an historical work, and with it, took on generations of professional historians, and it is material to that fact that she had no training in the profession whose consensus she attacked and was challenged by historians precisely for an approach which showed up her lack of understanding of how to conduct an historical enquiry. Peters work is not done by an historian, and that’s why its impact is negligible in the serious literature. To note the fact is no scandal, and, to some degree excuses her on the grounds of amateurishness.

I have therefore conflated my remark on her lack of professional training with your suggestions.


 * I don't know that historical analysis is solely the purview of academic historians - in any case, the point I was trying to make is that the criticism of Peters supported by the link provided is stylistic rather than substantive. I think the current text is an appropriate compromise and I agree that a more comprehensive review of the response to her work belongs on a separate article.Avruch 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the same point elsewhere, with experienced editors who laboured under the impression that Herodotus, Thucydides, Gibbon, Sima Qian, Tacitus,Polybius, or Ibn Khaldun, not to speak of Joseph Needham and Lord Macauley, were trained historians. Agreed then.

(4) You point out that the link ‘Schuker, Lauren A.E. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518002 "Dershowitz Accused Of Plagiarism" Harvard Crimson September 29, 2003’ doesn’t bear out the assertion it appears to document. I am sureI didn't make that link, but I certainly had a hand in writing the words that lead up to it, exceptiong the ‘monumental hoax’, and should have examined it to check. That’s an important oversight you’ve noted and I have supplied a link where Finkelstein does use this phrase with reference to Peters’ book.
 * ((I was uncomfortably aware that ‘monumental hoax’ needed a cite, and provided one when I ran across it in the Crimson article cited. Unfortunately I linked to a different Crimson article, also on the D-F kerfuffle. That is to say, the cite was correct but the embedded link was not. Thanks, Nishidani, for providing the origin of Schuker's quote. Andyvphil 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)))
 * My pleasure, but we are both in Avruch's debt for pointing it out. It's quoted all over the net, but apparently, from this quote, is relatively late, unless he made that remark in his earlier papers or doctorate, something worth checking out in the long haul.Nishidani 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting the reference. Avruch 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(5) You have eliminated a whole paragraph detailing Finkelstein’s ruminations on where his approach, style and moral posture (critics often challenge what they say is his hyperzealous moral posturing), on the grounds that ‘The paragraph and blockquote are not encyclopedic and rely on a link to the subjects personal website.’ Well the two are linked. Dershowitz at one point decried Finkelstein as a lapdog doing Chomsky's bidding, with Chomsky the academic picking up targets and then bidding his amateurish pup to bark at them. That is all part of the public record. In the blockquote his debt to Chomsky for reigning in a character trait he inherited from his mother is acknowledged and they go together like hand and glove, as I see it.


 * The issue here is that it is WP:SELFPUB material related to Finkelsteins character. It seems to be both his work and his character that is at issue in the conflicts that surround him, and per WP:SELFPUB self published material about contentious issues should not be included. As you note, his novel is forthcoming and per the same policy once it has in fact been published it meets WP:RS. Its late and I may not be being terribly clear - but what caught my attention about this passage is that its paraphrasing of Finkelstein's views of himself comes across more as a positive review than an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps other wording of the last sentence or two before the blockquote would ameliorate that issue, but the WP:SELFPUB problem remains. Avruch 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 'It seems to be both his work and his character that is at issue in the conflicts that surround him.' Let me be explicit as to how I read this. Well, he has suffered character attacks for some decades. As far as I can discern, Dershowitz's assault on Finkelstein, who attacked him forensically, is just a patchwork of interpretations of his 'character'. I'd be interested in reading something that contradicts me, since I have spent considerable time picking out the threads of this tangled duel, and only find D, for one, talking about F's mother, his character, his twisted antisemitic enmities, his puppy dog relationship with Chomsky, etc. nothing really substantive. Hilberg, a man whose scholarship I have admired since youth, noted F's character as another world from his own, but evaluated his scholarship independently of the personal animus that might feed it (in classical Greek scholarship, all know Housman, the greatest textual emendator of recent centuries, had a terribly malicious and razor sharp asperity towards his colleages. No one in the field, to my knowledge, considers this problematical in evaluating his contributions to the field. Indeed, the manic trait was perhaps intimately tethered to his counter-intuitive brilliance).


 * It is his character that is predominantly, as far as I understand it, under assault, and if the interpretation of that 'bad' nature sticks, then the scholarship it generates can be dismissed as a mere emotional diatribe. Since one of his major and most devastating (in terms of effect) critics is Dershowitz, who uses a forensic attack on his opponent's character to invalidate the forensic examination of evidence that opponent used against him, one cannot avoid, as far as I can see, looking for elements to background this aspect of the controversy, elements provided by Finkelstein himself. If WP:SELFPUB is to be cited, let's look at it. It can be published if:-


 * (a)it is relevant to their notability; </BR>
 * (b)it is not contentious; </BR>
 * (c)it is not unduly self-serving; </BR>
 * (d)it does not involve claims about third parties; </BR>
 * (e)it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; </BR>
 * (f) there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; </BR>
 * (g)the article is not based primarily on such sources. </BR>


 * It is, I would suggest, on the lines above, relevant to Finkelstein's notability (as a controversialist). The only indication germane to your concerns here is 'unduly self-serving'. It may well be thought of as 'self-serving' in that it disarms those who criticize his 'character' by admitting that things they dislike about him and his work were traits he himself discerns, retrospectively, in his early formation. But, on the other hand, a controversial figure should not on those grounds be denied a reply to those he considers as smearers of his reputation, and, more importantly, I very much doubt whether the self-critical, and ironic, subtext of the passage could be taken as unduly self-serving, and everything hinges on that adjective. Personally, I think it can be taken as a self-defensive admission, and as a briskly confident vindication of the passion in his scholarship for which he is often taken to task. I hazard to venture therefore that, as far as I understand it, the WP:SELFPUB rule is not violated.


 * You write:'what caught my attention about this passage is that its paraphrasing of Finkelstein's views of himself comes across more as a positive review than an encyclopedic entry.' That is indeed a legitimate suspicion, and I was aware of the possibility it raises while drafting the passage. As I said earlier however, that passage can be read both ways: as a belated admission that he took over from his mother a 'holier-than-thou' attitude and a juvenile obstreperous posture of intolerance his critics say is still alive in him, and as a self-appraisel which considers these 'negative' traits a positive virtue in an academic world where (as any one who'se been there knows instinctively) obsessive calculations of the pro and con aspects for one's career prospects of saying something are not infrequent. A hostile psychoanalytic critic of F could have a field day with these admissions, just as a pro-Finkelstein advocate could adduce this material to derail criticisms of his character. An encyclopedia, except for the 98% of it which deals with the dead, where judgements can be readily made if minutely informed by a mastery of the relevant details, might baulk at noting this order of material about a contemporary, as you note. But, to recur to my earlier point, Finkelstein's character constitutes the basis for most public attacks on his scholarship, and to deny the text a paraphrase of a snippet from his own memoir where this is openly addressed would strike me as a grave impoverishment to the article, and the reader. He is explaining the private family nightmare that animates his polemics. We know of his polemics, and the controversies his work engenders. The comprehensiveness instinct in the word 'enkuklopaedeia' should embrace, rather than militate against, the inclusion of this material. Of course, this is my own personal judgement, and I am open to suggested modifications  that might shear off nuances you consider as suceptible to a positive hyping of the subject. This talk page, thanks to many, seems to be working with a vigorous critical energy that is sadly lacking in so many other articles. Regards Nishidani 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any evaluation of Finkelstein's character is, I believe, contentious in that it is likely to be vigourously disputed by many regardless of its conclusion. Its in this light that I thought the material drawn from his own website might be a violation of WP:SELFPUB. I still think this may be the case. However, it will be mooted relatively soon by the actual publication of his memoir. Removing the quote only to replace it in a few months smacks of wikilawyering I suppose. Avruch 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But we are not evaluating Finkelstein's character - his critics are - and I fail to see why citing his own evaluation of a one trait widely attributed to him in his memoir, of which chapter 1 is already 'published' in so far as he has provided us with it on his site, could lead to contention. In any case, as you say (news to me that it will be published shortly, by the way. Means more work for us drudges in the wiki gallery dammit!). Still, if you think that it reads too 'positively' and should be more neutral, I think the rest of us (I hate speaking for others) would be happy to mull over a wording you think more balanced. Nishidani 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the judgement ‘unencyclopedic’ material arbitrary, if not indeed censorious. That personal background culled from a forthcoming book, of which a sample is given on Finkelstein’s website, illuminates precisely elements of Finkelstein’s approach which many of his critics find appalling. A more cautious scholar would not yield up this private information to a potentially hostile world. It undoubtedly allows both critics and wellwishers to penetrate deeper into the passions, for good or bad, that permeate Finkelstein’s work. I will defend that passage with great vigour, particularly since you appear to object to it coming from his own website. Most of the article does, even much of the criticism against him can be sourced to that selfsame website. I have thus restored it. Regards Nishidani 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, Said seems to agree with what I stated. But he is either miscited or he is contradicting himself - the problem is the difference between one to two (=1/3 Jewish; first quote, accurate for all Palestine) and one in two (1/2 Jewish; second quote, accurate for 47 Jewish state, but useless for comparative historical purposes). I'll rewrite this confusing paragraph using another source, as you suggested - Wasserstein's Israelis and Palestinians, a fine source for the Peters / demography controversy, though he doesn't mention Finkelstein.John Z 00:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself was perplexed by an ambiguity in Said's words, and as I noted to Avruch, dissatisfied with that source. If you can manage to get the right quote, it would lever us all out a textual jam-up, and we'll be in your debt. Personally, I wish to ascertain, however, the status of 'consensus' prior to Peters. If Wasserstein, esp. his notes, have any indication on such a 'consensus' then it would be most useful. Regards Nishidani 14:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)