Talk:Norman Finkelstein

Out of date link

The NYPost link is out of date...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)

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 [[1]] 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)

User threatened with block for editing this article

User:Jayjg has issued a thinly veiled threat to block me [2] 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#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. [3] 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)