Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 4

Consequences

Anubis3,Isarig,Groupthink, Gatoclass. Gentlemen, now that we have scrupulously applied, with the greatest austerity, the strictest interpretation of intro Wiki rules to the Norman Finkelstein page, I eagerly await your editorial concern to use a like rigorous address to similar problems on the pages devoted to his critics. Note the repetitions happily sitting on these three (of several I could cite) Wiki pages respectively dedicated to his pro-Israeli adversaries. Wiki articles are ruled by common criteria, and what holds for one article must hold for another. Unless you collectively clean up for similar vices the pages of his critics, linked on NF's page, reducing them to the exact standards required of a page on an anti-Zionist author, one must revisit the whole intro. debate and text here, as it would, unless these are adjusted, appear to have been pared down by pretextual and selective targeting.

(1)Daniel Pipes (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian and counter-terrorism analyst who specializes in the Middle East. He has written or co-written 18 books, maintains a blog, and lectures around the world presenting his analysis of world trends. His work has attracted both admiration and criticism as a result of his view that Islamism is incompatible with democracy, freedom, multiculturalism, and human rights.

Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace*(1), and a regular columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post. He contributes regularly to David Horowitz's online publication FrontPage Magazine, and he has had his work published by many newspapers across North America, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal.[citation needed] He is frequently invited to discuss the Middle East on American network television, as well as by universities and think tanks, has appeared on the BBC and Al Jazeera, and has lectured in 25 countries.[citation needed]

Pipes is also the founder of Campus Watch, an organization and website that opposes what it sees as anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias. Pipes and the organization were accused of attacking academic freedom in 2002 by publishing a list of academics critical of Israel and U.S. foreign policy. Recently, Pipes joined Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaign as an advisor.

(In case it is missed, apart from irrelevance to Intro., what is the function of saying Pipes is . . a former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace?)

(2) 'Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer and criminal law professor at Harvard Law School known for his extensive published works, career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases, and for being a die-hard supporter of Israel.

He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School, where, at t:he age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard, a record that has since been surpassed by Noam Elkies. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there. He is now the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. In addition to his teaching, Dershowitz has worked on a number of high-profile legal cases and is a prolific author who makes frequent media and public appearances.

As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny; an adaptation of Dershowitz's 1985 book about the case, Reversal of Fortune, became the 1990 feature film of the same name starring Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson. The case never went to appeal because Simpson was acquitted of the crime in that trial.

Dershowitz comments regularly on issues related to Judaism, Israel, civil liberties, the war on terror, and the First Amendment, and appears frequently in the mainstream media as a guest commentator. Dershowitz is noted as a liberal and civil libertarian and an outspoken commentator on the history and politics of Israel. He has engaged in highly publicized media confrontations regarding torture and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict with Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and former President Jimmy Carter, among others.

(3) 'Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (born 1959) is an American political scientist. He is best known for his book, Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996), which posits that ordinary Germans not only knew about, but also supported, the Holocaust because of a unique and virulent "eliminationist" antisemitism in the German identity, which had developed in the preceding centuries. Goldhagen writes that this special mentality grew out of medieval attitudes from a religious basis but was eventually secularized.'

Regards Nishidani 09:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your point, that the Finkelstein intro is too brief? I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, I think more could be added to it so long as it is not overdone. The only problem is that on subjects which polarize opinion, like this one, the more that is added the more potential there is for content disputes and for the text to get messy and unprofessional, which is why I've been content to leave it as is. But if someone wants to add some more, I'm not going to stand in their way - provided of course that any changes conform with the usual Wiki policies and encyclopedic standards. Gatoclass 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass My point is that Wiki rules should be applied with the same rigour, especially over pages that deal with similar figures and themes. The Finkelstein intro.can sit as it is for a while, until we see if the several intense efforts to pare it down to a minimum by editors worried by the POV they detected in it earlier, are applied to the intro. of the pages of his critics. Goldhagen, Dershowitz and Pipes are all people who 'polarize opinion', as does Finkelstein, only he is a critic of Israel. They are all people who have used extreme language. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I take this as a little test of bona fides or good faith(this for those who are upset at my sophomoric style!) for future editing here. Personally I have no interest in those three lamentable pages, but think those who worry Finkelstein's to death as POV-ridden, 'polemical' and 'polarizing' should, ex aequo, hasten to clean up the mess on his critics' pages, in the interests of their concern for Wiki rules. If nothing happens within a month, I will return here, and, taking in your bibliography adjustments, restore the intro. to what it was before it began to be the object of intense scrutiny. It was innocuous, even if it could be improved. Regards Nishidani 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the introduction the way it is currently written. It may be difficult after a heated debate, but it is nonetheless helpful to assume good faith (WP:AGF). In this case, in my view, that applies to assuming that the editing to the intro was done to improve the article. The status of other articles, related or not, is irrelevant to this article. If you like, I can join you in focusing with similar attention on one of the other articles you mentioned. I've seen it noted elsewhere, but poor or middling quality in some articles does not excuse the same in others. Avruch 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Avruch for the input. I am however not quite convinced. Isarig, as Gatoclass demonstrated with some forensic and principled argumentation elsewhere on a page dealing with bans covering people with a bad record for sock-puppetry, should not have been anywhere near this page, for one. I knew nothing of the deeper record, as others apparently did, until today, but had intuited for some time, a pattern in his appearances, and a certain irrational fixation which suggested to me his edits were not motivated by a concern for neutral composition. I probably would have written several page-length articles on subjects I know well for Wiki had I not had to do extensive arguing with that kind of edit.

On the second point, I beg to differ. There is a lot of work to do in refining the Finkelstein page but (from my perspective) it is far in advance of the, for example, Dershowitz page. The intensity of focus on one or two phrases in the mere intro., while a mere click away Dershowitz's intro trumpets all of the faults, several times over, which worried several editors in here, but was left untouched, points to a unilateral focus. A critic of Zionism was being hauled over the coals of the rulebook while, next door, one of the key figures in the campaign that surrounded his dismissal, likewise an academic, but a pro-Zionist advocate whose language is not particularly distinguished for its nuanced regard for etiquette, was being, and still is, given an armchair ride, with repetitive hype. I read these pages intertextually, for the simple reason that (1) the rules are invariant, and (2) the subjects are linked.

I appreciate your offer, but my time is short, and many of the things I do wish to write of here lie neglected, mostly because of atmospheric disturbances of this kind. I am restricting many of my edits to figures I see as subject to strong unilateral assault (particularly if they are Jewish intellectuals - I am now intervening to try and help a certain Ovadyah, on the Ebionim page, for example, who has been subject to a particularly outrageous war of nerves and attrition by a know-nothing know-all. I strongly suspect I would differ with Ovadyah on many things, yet cannot but admire his erudition and dedication to a difficult subject, and thus feel constrained to pitch in, perhaps uselessly). I do not much care about editing pages on people whose position is secure, and who have iron-fast guarantees of a comfortable life, career and publishing outlets. Regards Nishidani 22:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ps.Avruch and Gatoclass. I hate to abuse your offices, and time, but I have done a substantial initial rewriting of sections of the article on Egyptian Jews, and would appreciate if someone could keep an attentive eye on my work there. Regards Nishidani 09:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"To do" list

The Freedman/Cockburn blockquotes in the "Finkelstein on Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel" subsection are a bit misleading in that Cockburn is presented as if he replying to Freedman but is actually responding to Dershowitz paraphrasing Freedman material, or somesuch. I'll look into fixing this when I can get around to it, but if someone else does it first that would be nice. Andyvphil 10:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No one has. Ah, well. Maybe I'll find the time or interest to fix this someday... meanwhile, I ran across this article in the "Norman G. Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign" bibliography, and was struck by the assertion that Finkelstein "has no publications in peer-reviewed journals". If true, this ought to be mentioned somewhere in the recitation of his academic career. Andyvphil 12:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Profiles of Finkelstein

He is said to be controversed but there are only positive profiles. Is he really controversed ? That should be fifty-fifty. Alithien 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the DTN profile, toward the requested balance. But 50-50 is not a requirement for NPOV. And npov is not the tag you want. Andyvphil 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Finkelstein's own website posts a large number of hostile documents by his most vitriolic critics, within academia and the punditocracy, accusing him of poor scholarship, bad faith, anti-semitism, and self-hatred, I don't see much point in the DTN profile, (nor in the double link, one to the Wiki page, a boost to the organisation featured there, and then to the DTN profile it edited) which I have, by the way, read, particularly the laughable smear, of intentional mendacity, in here which says

'Professor Finkelstein is a disciple of the discredited historian and Holocaust denier David Irving, who he considers an authoritative scholar.'

Of course one mustn't dispute content, only 'reliable source', and that is certainly not a reliable source, since it is an ineptly concocted smear. Those who know the literature know that most of the points raised by the DTN 'profile' in attempting to smear Finkelstein (Holocaust blackmail, recognition that several of Irving's early works were substantial pieces of historica research, etc) touch on judgements shared by Raul Hilberg, the doyen of Holocaust scholars, whom no one accuses of anti-semitism, and whom Finkelstein regards as one of his life guides. This is, to cite just one example of many, of Finkelstein's (and Hilberg's) relationship to Irving's books:

Ok, if you ask me what I think of David Irving... listen, young man, I can give you the politically correct answer and say "he's terrible, he's this and he's that." Personally, I don't like the fellow. I think he is a Nazi. However, I have to be fair. And I want you to listen. Fairness means: A) I'm not an authority on the topic on which he writes. Mostly on military history, [audience noise, talking] on the German side, during WW2. Number two, [audience noise, talking] historians who are authorities on him have given mixed ratings. Gordon Craig, one of the leading historians on Germany in the US who writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, Gordon Craig wrote, "his contributions are indespensible." I can't change that. I cannot say Gordon Craig is wrong. You know why I can't do it? Because I'm humble enough to say: I-Don't-Know. John Keagan, one of the leading military historians in the UK, when he testified in the Irving Lipstad [spelling?] trial, he testified on his side, on Irving's side, as being a good historian. So I can only report to you what other historians have said. And so in the book, in the Holocaust Industry, I wrote that Gordon Craig said that his contributions, his meaning Irving's, are indespensible and that became "Finkelstein says Irving is an indespensable historian." Well, I didn't say it. And I just don't know. What I do know is that, at this point, I totally here.. in this point... and I hope you will listen, I totally agree with John Stuart Mill. I teach Mill every quarter of whenever I teach. I love Mill's On Liberty. One of the things Mill says in On liberty, he says that the most useful person in society, in trying to uncover ideas, is the devil's advocate because the devil's advocate is always trying to find holes in your argument and trying to find errors in your facts. Now, the devil's advocate is a devil. That's why he or she is called a devil's advocate but he or she serves the useful purpose of trying to find errors in your reasoning, errors in your facts. That is to say, as Mill puts it, he or she, even if he or she is a devil, he or she is trying to help you find the truth. Now, may be his or her motives are evil, incidious, malicious or wicked but it makes no difference because by looking for errors in your arguments he or she is helping you -- unwittingly no doubt -- but helping you to find truth. And so I think, and I can imagine how it's gonna be distorted, I think people like David Irving serve a good function in society. You know, I had... a few months ago for a film I was making .. with a British documentary, I went to visit Raul Hilberg, the leading authority in the world on the Nazi Holocaust, and I talked to him of this whole issue of the Holocaust deniers because Hilberg says "I think they're useful, they're good." That's the world's leading authority on the topic. And I asked him, "well, how are they useful to you?" And he says "you know why they're useful?" he says "they ask all the questions that everyone else takes for granted, that nobody else thinks to ask." So he says "everybody knows," he gives me an example, "that in the gas chambers they usef Zyclon B and then along come these Holocaust deniers and they say: 'well, we tested this Zyclon B. it can't kill humans. it can kill vermin but not humans.'" And it was an interesting point, and then Hilberg says: "well, it turns out they used Zyclon B but they couldn't use it in its pristine form, they had to mix it." They asked an interesting question. And he says: "I think they serve a useful purpose." And I thought to myself, "if the world's leading authority bar none on the Nazi Holocaust is not terrified of these Holocaust deniers and isn't out to supress them, who am I to say they shouldn't have the right to speak?" And that's all I said and I'll stick absolutely by that. Everyone... you know, Mill says at one point in On Liberty, he says "even if the world is in the right, dissentions still have... dissentions -- those who disagree -- still probably have something to contribute to truth, a small piece." I think that's true. And that's my view on the topic. I think among... [audience applause] among rational people that won't even be considered controversial. To let the devil's advocate speak... who would even challenge that? Again, it's one of the peculiarities of discussion when we come to this topic. The level of mental hysteria it evokes, is really terrifying.'[1]

I think therefore Gatoclass was correct in his edit. There are very serious and respectable scholars who have taken Finkelstein to task. Althien or whoever should cull his 'balancing' material from these respectable sources, not from cheap pixil pamphleteeting by hyperPOV smear campaigners focusing on persuading the gullible.Nishidani 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can rely on Finkelstein's selection of hostile material to be sufficient. The "double linking" parallels all the other cites. DTN is partisan, but not a blog. I am perfectly prepared to believe you that DTN's characterization of Finkelstein as a "disciple" of Irving is a polemical stretch, but what Wikipedia characterizes as a "Reliable Source" doesn't actually guarantee reliability and an external link is not endorsement of content. Alithien's concern seems legitimate (I admit I have not read any of the profiles - and I've only skimmed your explosion, for lack of time right now) and I have attempted to address it as such. If you can address it in better fashion, please do. Respectfully. Andyvphil 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

...OK, I've read it. And it seems DTN's "disciple" exactly parallels Finkelstein's complaint about "'Finkelstein says Irving is an indespensable historian.'" But that DTN is hostle and unreliable (at least as regards characterization, which may be distinguishable from statements of fact) does not necessarily mean it should not be linked to. Reread what Finkelstein says about devil's advocate. Andyvphil 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, DTN's disciple does not parallel "Finkelstein says Irving is an indispensable historian'. Disciple is, as I showed, a false description. The second remark is a false attribution to Finkelstein of Gordon Craig's judgement. The two feed into one another, as if 'disciple' were a gloss on the second judgement, but neither represents the record. Both indeed wilfully distort it. I don't mind polemics, or hostility. To the contrary, unlike many, I think they are part of the marrow of democracies, but I dislike misreportage. One can make a thousand links, if one scrapes the barrel for all chat possibly bearing on any page. Wikipedia, in so far as it has aspirations to quality reportage, is ill served by the trivial kibitzing of third-rate pseuds, which is what we are dealing with here. I don't need to reread what NF says about the devil's advocate. I bought my own copy of Mill's classic forty years ago, and it is well thumbed. Diabolic advocacy, even in Church law, has a crucial function in putting the finger on possible flaws in a good argument, of whose logic the original proponent feels confident. It is a refined mode for probing weak points in an adversary, and engaging him with them. The DTN pastiche has no such claims to subtle casuistry or tweaking weak points in a line of defence. It is a boring piece of chitchat, groupie-speak aimed at buttressing the prejudices of one's own side, not exposing the weaknesses in the other. A devil's advocate engages intensely and intelligently with his adversary. The smearing of the DTN page doesn't probe Finkelstein with artful analysis, it just gives a ditsy, thumbnail sketch of or 'skit' on, what those serious critics who do act as devil's advocates argue. Agitprop for circulation among those ignorant of the issues. I'm trying here to defend quality, not NF. If no one else can come up with ready material from serious critics of NF, then I'll have to scrape up the time to go back and get it myself, and post it here. But the DTN will have to go. It's not up to snuff. RegardsNishidani 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I am not defending "disciple". Nor was I sending you anywhere to educate yourself about the term "devil's disciple". I was merely asking you to look more closely at, and consider the implications of, the quote from NF you had yourself provided. Althien alleges all the other "profiles" are friendly. If correct, this needs to be addressed. A devil's advocate more careful than DTN is surely to be desired, and I would welcome your adding one, but I don't think the holocaust deniers that Hilberg (and Finkelstein, by implication) say are "useful...good" are also thought by him to be "careful". His point is that the binocular vision is valuable even if it needs correction. Andyvphil 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil A very good possibility I misread you. The remarks were written late, on the strength of a skinful of prosecco and the lingering effects of being constrained to sing 'I did it my way', a song I dislike, to karaoke effects before a group of foreigners who don't understand English. I think we agree that Alithien's request should be addressed. I disagree only that the profile section is the place to address it, since good critical material on Finkelstein by intelligent adversaries can be either found already in, or added to, the relevant sections on his various positions. Hilberg, Gordon Craig and Michael Howard, historians of the first order, said that despite his opinions as a holocaust denier of the first ordure, Irving was an historians of considerable abilities. Hilberg, whose work I know more thoroughly than Finkelstein's, simply wasn't troubled by the secondary or tertiary reverberations, polemical public controversies over the political implications of any research. That's why he wasn't worried by Irving, and why, despite deep political differences, he readily supported Finkelstein. Because the former's personal opinions, as opposed to his archival research, didn't interest him: he saw them as just froth bubbling over the public palate, just as Finkelstein's personal opinions or rhetorical style left him indifferent, since he was exclusively interested in the results that emerged from NF's 'forensic' methods, results he liked because he considered them important for the way they appeared to dispose of frivolous or incompetent research that caught even the academic eye, but that simply muddied the waters of pure research. He just wanted evidence, and proof, for anything, whatever the consequences - a scientific scrupulousness that probably comes from his early interest in chemistry. There is a huge volume,('Fresh addenda are published every day/To the encyclopedia of the Way', as Auden once wrote) of opinionizing that gets most of the cutting edge research debates wrong, because it is prepossessed by the political fall-out. Wiki tends, particularly in zones of controversy and conflict (the history of post-Soviet Eastern European countries, Israel-Palestinians etc.), to attract editors with acute sensitivities to POV nuances, but a relative indifference to the hintergrounds of austere academic research, which cannot be accessed by search motors, and make for laborious reading. I dislike this aspect of Wiki, one doesn't find it in the great traditional encyclopedias, and press for a steady and strict focus on the high ground, where serious scholars contend. To confound their technical disputes, (where we should, instead, be engaged in reading those controversial analyses and simplifying them for the reading public that lacks the time to investigate primary sources), with hearsay and tendentious misreportage pitched to political communities creates endless, unmanageable POV battles, and wastes 95% percent of an editor's time.

Binocular visible, to counteract what Alain le Pichon once called Le Regard Inégal (1991) is something I wholly endorse. But of course one won't get far with it if one suffers from myopia, and fails to get corrective lenses.Regards Nishidani 10:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Althien's complaint was specifically about the Profiles and, I think, must be addressed there.

Wikipedia is not and can never be a paper encyclopedia. One of the things it can be is an annotation of the web. If NF is widely (even if only on questionable sources - the test here is page views) denegrated for having a higher opinion of Irving or his work than is fashionable my position is that it is a proper goal that anyone reading such a denigration should be able to Google the fellow, go to his Wikipedia article, and get an NPOV treatment of the canard (thus debunking the falsehood, to the extent it is one). If this doesn't fit the paper encyclopedia meme, so be it. The test is usefulness. Andyvphil 11:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That means, I gather, that you also think the assertion re NF and Irving could be incorporated into the text, and the rebuttal, side by side, with it. I just dislike clutter, and the Profile stuff is, in my humble opinion, clutter - background noise drifting over, like genes from the pre-Darwinian phase of evolution, from the tohubohu of the circumambient web.Nishidani 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

linking to DTN

I've yet to thoroughly check on DTN's bona fides re Wiki policies. I initially deleted the link on the ground that WP:BLP specifically prohibits derogatory material from partisan websites, but it turns out, as usual, that somewhere along the way the phrase "partisan websites" has been removed from the policy and replaced with "questionable sources" which is in in fact a much less stringent yardstick. (This is something I find really annoying about the policy pages BTW. Any clown can go and edit them and you never know exactly what the policy is from one day to the next).

In summary then the issue is no longer so clear cut, although I would still have my doubts that DTN would qualify, given that it's a highly partisan political website and negative BLP material is supposed to come only from the best sources. Gatoclass 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To:Andyvphil: Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I mentioned that the material Finkelberg puts on his pages reproducing his serious critics' articles and negative recensions is far more damaging than the grubstreet hackwork of the page Alithien refers us to. By that I didn't mean to suggest that we use Finkelstein's pages as a source for negative material about him. I was indicating an irony which invites one to get quality material. I agree Alithien's concern must be addressed. It's a matter of getting serious criticisms (and their are many) and serious critics onto the page. I must hurryNishidani 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andyvphil. Wikipedia is, I am often told, an encyclopedia. Normally encyclopedias cover everything but they are drafted for quality, and use not anything handy, but serious sources. The primary reliable sources therefore should be those, scholars, journalists, writers etc., with a reputation for accuracy and quality. I know this is finangled endlessly by squabbles over what the complex Wiki rule book allows or disallows. The matter is simplified if, particularly on pages dealing with thinkers, polemicists of scholarly temper etc., one build the page using quality links and references, and not simply adducing material from any source that might get through the rules after an edit ruckus, on technical grounds. Personally I don't like the section on Profiling (an ugly word with sinister uses) Finkelstein, since I think the main text itself, which should devote sections sequentially to all his works, and the often polemical counterattacks they have stimulated, should give a broad, non-repetitive and well-sourced guide to everything his major critics, from Dershowitz, Novick, Bauer to Pipes, Segev, Morris et alii have adduced to raise questions about his honesty, or his scholarship's reliability. One could even summarize the various points made (defects of his 'forensic' approach, polemical temper, Jewish self-hater, supporter of terrorist organisations, whatever) as long as those who maintain these charges are scholars and journalists of repute engaged in serious polemics. The DTN link gives an execrably crummy run-down of charges, often manicured to falsifying effect, of what Dershowitz, for one, says. So cite Dershowitz, or Novick, or whoever, not some anonymous hack using Horowitz's organisation to get at Finkelstein. I should note, in addition, that that organisation is a mirror image of the 'Jewish Tribal Org.' Both are modern variants of the strategies of theProtocols of Zion (excuse my language) crap, in that they respectively create a series of paranoid links between 'Jews' on the one hand, or between 'leftists' on the other, to conjure up an image of a kind of conspiracy, death spiritual or otherwise by innuendo, smearing and circulating travesties of the truth. Whatever the rules may be argued to say, editors who wish to strive for encyclopedic quality should disdain loading the page with trashy irrelevancies. Let's keep to the high ground, not to tabloid material, and I mean that whether sources to be cited are pro*- or contra-Finkelstein. Regards Nishidani 08:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The DTN article is a hatchet job. It's obviously not as unpleasant as Dershowitz's trick of mis-quoting Finkelstein to make his mother seem to have collaborated with the Nazis in the death camps,[2] but it's still pretty gross. It has no place in the references of this article. PR^talk 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a hatchet job as an attempt to kick arse which ends up with the punitive foot in the kicker's mouth. Actually it is the sort of thing a critic who is on the receiving end of diatribes likes to collect, as proof of the dumbness and mendacity of those who criticize him, and in that sense, does NF an inadvertent service ('If this trash is all you can come up with, then keep it flowing', because it is so patently biased and distortive that it destroys its own credibility, and thus relieves the accused of the burden of disproof). RegardsNishidani 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I think the Egyptian Mail chat by Emad El-Din Aysha doesn't warrant mention either. I will note that while it hypes NF as a decent guy, and can qualify for Alithien's charge of weighing in for being pro-NF, it can also be read as being anti-NF, since putting it there associates, in the public mind, NF with Arabs, and Arabs are widely associated with some intrinsic ontology of terrorism in Islam. Whatever way the reader takes it, it does not represent quality (and is indeed taken from Finkelstein's own site) Nishidani 08:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Challenging is not discussing

It seems there cannot be consensus to find weblinks critical towards Finkelstein. In that case, it is certainly better to remove all the linkds. Alithien 07:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The links are from a range of different commentators, and IIRC they are not strongly pro-Finkelstein. If no "critical weblinks" can be found, that is presumably because no credible weblinks criticizing Finkelstein exist. In which case the section presumably reflects the prevailing weight of opinion, which is all we are required to represent. Gatoclass 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Or it is because it is considered here as "not reliable" any critic of Finkelstein ? I don't know.

If the section reflects the prevailing weight of the opinion with 100% (except IIRC which is not strongly pro-Finkelstein), then maybe we should think a way to evaluate "opinion" ? Or do you mean nobody ever formulate reliable critic against him ? Alithien 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alithien in that much of the Profile section is junk. I don't care whether for, or against, Finkelstein. Good material, if any, can be worked into the article, whose second half requires reorganization because it is messy. I think I won't insist either way, however, since links are easily to jigger up. The hard work is actually still to be done, on improving the flow of the page. I personally am in no hurry. I think, structurally, we have to get, in chronological sequence, reviews of each of his major works, and the replies of those he criticized (2) A general overview of serious critics, of which there are many, noting in detail their challenges to Finkelstein's work (3) A general overview of those who appraise it positively (2/3 balanced by equal space and quality). But my priorities aren't necessarily those of others. Regards Nishidani 10:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I had a chance to read them all. The first link was broken, the second poor quality, and the last (the DTN link) was scurrilous tripe, so I've removed those. The remaining three or four are typical fence-sitting pieces one finds in the mass media, neither clearly pro- or anti-, so the unbalanced template seems inappropriate now and I've removed it as well. Gatoclass 10:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think we should limit ourselves to "typical fence-sitting pieces". Andyvphil 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the solution is not to restore broken links and ratty opinion pieces which violate WP:BLP. With respect, Gatoclass 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass's decision and the judgement behind it, which is what Alithien who complained in the first place, has now suggested would be the better move. One can add no-work, simple link stuff in more and more sections. The work we dedicate to this page is surely best used in improving the quality of the article itself? Once that is up to snuff, if anything remains, we can return and consider the suggestion of a Profile section. It will still be in the archives. Nishidani 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer Althien, Finkelstein is indeed controversial. For example, consider "The Zionists indeed learnt well from the Nazis. So well that it seems that their morally repugnant treatment of the Palestinians, and their attempts to destroy Palestinian society within Israel and the occupied territories, reveals them as basically Nazis with beards and black hats." which DTN quotes[3] from NF's The Holocaust Industry.[4] The Wikipedia article wouldn't lead you to expect quite so intemperate a characterization, and until that deficit is remedied I think the DTN link is a useful corrective, even if they got "Irving disciple" wrong... I haven't read the NY Post "profile". If it's good webrot is insufficient reason to delete it. If it's not, go ahead. Who's seen it?... And the El-Din piece is dispensible, now that I've looked at it, though I wonder about the video he mentions. It's not really a profile, anyway. Andyvphil 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it might be construed that way, but the point is that a piece like this grossly violates WP:BLP. It's by an anonymous author on a partisan website and it makes a bunch of quite scurrilous accusations that it fails to substantiate with evidence. BLP sources are supposed to be of the highest possible quality, this one fails on virtually every count.

I was (just barely) prepared to tolerate it on the ground that it was supplying some sort of "counter" to an alleged pro-Finkelstein bias in the other pieces, but when I took the trouble to read them, I found only one pro- article, and that was of poor quality so I tossed it out. That removed the last possible rationale for retaining the DTN piece in my view, which is why I also deleted it. Gatoclass 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can convince me. "[I]t makes a bunch of quite scurrilous accusations that it fails to substantiate with evidence." Please specify one (other than the "disciple" characterization). Andyvphil 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil I don't think anyone denies that Finkelstein, like most people in that area of the debate (Dershowitz, Plaut, Neumann, Beinin, Pipes etc etc etc) makes strong statements. Indeed, I'm all for giving room to them, and those who criticize his comments. If the article is lacking in this regard, by all means let's build a section on it. Wikipedia is under construction, not definitive. That statement for example could well go in, with many others. But, can I plead a cause?: let us get statements of this controversial polemical kind from Finkelstein's works, not from his adversaries' scandmongering hyperPOV tabloid sources, which offer no guarantee of context (after all, Jabotinsky had his terrorists trained in Mussolini's military schools, Shamir and co., conducted negotiations to form a common front with Nazis. Under Weizman the WZO did not exert itself, according to Brenner, against Nazis, and often agreed, in declarations, with their antisemitism.

'Weizmann, the prestigious scientist and President of the WZO, who was well connected in London, did next to nothing for German Jewry. He had never liked them, nor did he have any sympathy for their defence efforts against anti-Semitism. As early as 18 March 1912 he had actually been brazen enough to tell a Berlin audience that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews.” In his chat with Balfour, in 1914, he went further, telling him that “we too are in agreement with the cultural anti-Semites, in so far as we believed that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralising phenomena”,

and this absurd and fatal prejudice inflected the way the WZO developed their various strategies of coping with Hitler in the 1930s, like refusing to condone an anti-Nazis trade boycott of German goods in Europe and America, as others had argued for, when a boycott could well have destabilized the teutonic maniac etc. etc.etc.)

There is a substantial literature on 'lessons' from the continental rebellion against democracy taken by certain schools of Zionism, whose leaders subsequently rose to Prime Ministerial rank.) I say therefore source it directly because this is a BLP article, and is subject to rather strict sanctions, which means editors have to be wary of falling into the polemical battles the article will describe or allude to, and the best way of doing that is going ad fontes for the controversial remarks.Nishidani 13:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this answers my request for evidence that DTN is generally making things up fom whole cloth. Nor do I have to agree with all of DTN's conclusions to make use of their research. (Again, look at your Finkelstein quote re the usefulness of holocaust deniers.) If DTN supplies convincing evidence of F's extremism (and it's hard to imagine a "context" for "basically Nazis with beards and black hats" that excuses putting it in hardcover) denying the article that evidence until such a time as one of us stumbles across it independently is not acceptable. Andyvphil 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please specify one (other than the "disciple" characterization - AndyvPhil

You mean the "disciple" characterization is not enough? But if you want more, there's this:

Finkelstein refers to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis as the "Six Million" in quotation marks

The evidence for this? In an interview with the German paper, Die Welt, he said: "Not only does the 'Six Million' figure become more untenable...

If he said it, how can anyone know he was putting the "six million" figure in "quotation marks"?

And then there's: ...[Finkelstein] says that nearly every self-identified Holocaust survivor is a fake, a thief, and a liar.

I have searched in vain for some supporting evidence for this scurrilous charge but been unable to find any. Perhaps you can point it out to me? Gatoclass 13:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

From memory, Finkelstein challenged the 6 million figure because he trusted Hilberg's calculation that the roughly verifiable figure, on the evidence so far was something in the range of 5.1 million. Both didn't think the difference made any difference to the fact of the Holocaust. They, like some of us, think arguments for a case are best based on strong archival paperwork which cannot be impugned, and not on loose round figures which can be impugned and therefore be used by antisemites to challenge a phenomenon as massively obscene as the Holocaust itself. The key word in the second quote is self-identified. He wanted documentation for the survivors, since they were to be the beneficiaries of any legal action taken to get compensation for the travail of life in the death camps. Since his mother was one, and had received a pittance, he, as an interested party, didn't want to see any of the money accruing to survivors distracted into bank accounts by people with no verifiable claim to compensation. But as Gatoclass insists, you don't get material like this, if it is asserted to exist, off crap sites. You get it from the horse's mouth, or it does not past muster as material fit for an encyclopedia Nishidani 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The key word in the second quote is "self-identified"

But even with that caveat, there is still no evidence presented in the article that Finkelstein has called nearly every self-identified Holocaust survivor is a fake, a thief, and a liar. As far as I can tell, this charge rests solely on this one statement: "In his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Professor Finkelstein wrote, "'If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,' my mother used to exclaim, 'who did Hitler kill?'"" Note that Finkelstein is quoting his mother, not making the statement himself. Secondly, how does even this statement equate to "Finkelstein has called nearly every self-identified Holocaust survivor is a fake, a thief, and a liar"? Only by the wildest stretch of imagination could it be thus characterized. It is in other words a totally unsubstantiated, defamatory statement, that has no place on Wiki. Gatoclass 13:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass. I couldn't agree more. By 'self-identified' I meant to allude to Horowitz's crap version, not to Finkelstein's version. The point is, if one wants to muckrake, get the details at least right, and impeccably sourced. I'm sick and tired of pages being built up from the tertiary chat and hackwork flooding the Internet. What's the point of working freely to help form a global communal encyclopedia if no one actually reads sources, and if those who do try to cull those sources get drowned out by a huge tsunami of sewage from the cosmic gossip factory? Nishidani 14:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a statement is "unsubstantiated", "[a]s far as [you=Gatoclass] can tell" doesn't mean it is in fact unsubstantiated. It seems NF does indeed put quote marks around "six million" (perhaps the Die Welt interview was by email?), albeit only in favor of 5.1m, and it may well be that NF has indeed said something closer to what DTN said he said about "'self-identified' Holocaust survivors" than what you assume is DTN's source. I'll bet the ~"Zionists are Nazi's"~ quote is word for word and unsalvaged by context, so why should I think he is incapable of saying something equally intemperate about "'self-identified' Holocaust survivors"? No one is saying we should use DTN, unchecked, as source of facts in maintext. But there is Althien's deficit to be made up, and the DTN material ought not be hidden from the inquiring reader until such a time as it is made up. Andyvphil 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil 'Seems' 'may well be' 'I'll bet'. If you want to 'think' he is incapable or capable of saying something or other, that is your right. But wanting to think someone is (in) capable of saying something is a personal issue. If you want to know what he thinks, you should cite him, nor people who, as shown, have a record for misrepresenting what he is on record as saying. DTN is tripe, Alithien has given the nod to erase the profile section, whose imbalance worried him, I and Gatoclass concur. Alithien's deficit doesn't have to be made up (I hope you perceive the irony of this in connection with DTN's 'made up' material?). It can be satisfied by erasing the controversial crap in the first place. That is the simplest solution, and leaves us time to get onto the serious business of parsing what NF writes, and what his critics write of his work. DTN material is not being hidden. It is being rejected after being identified as trash, and trash is not allowed to source a page dealing with BLP.Nishidani 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Althien's deficit" is and was not merely a matter of imbalance in the Profiles section. He asked whether NF was indeed "controversial" and now that DTN has helpfully provided the ~"Zionism = Naziism"~ quote from Finkelstein's book I am prepared to take ownership of that complaint. Your comments about the personal nature of my opinions are a bit of misplaced wikilawyering. I am not saying that we should insert the Z=N quote in maintext because I believe DTN is quoting him accurately (though I do tenatively believe in that accuracy). I am responding to Gatoclass' assertion that DTN saying Finkelstein has said "nearly every self-identified Holocaust survivor is a fake, a thief, and a liar" must be a "scurrilous accusation" merely because it is so obviously over the top. If the Z=N quote is accurate then NF has a record of saying over-the-top things and the fact that DTN claims he has said something over-the-top is not evidence that DTN is lying. Which is what I asked for. Andyvphil 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I missed the "self-identified" caveat, but I think the original statement is made in such a way as to intentionally blur the distinction. Regardless, claiming that Finkelstein has denounced "nearly every self identified Holocaust survivor as a fake, a thief and a liar" is a sensationalist characterization of F.'s views that in my opinion would require direct verbatim quotes or direct evidence of such in the article itself. As Wiki policies state, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this is particularly true of BLP pages. But the only "evidence" provided in this case is an oblique reference by F. to a sarcastic remark made by by his mother. I think we can safely assume, given the intent of this hit piece, that if the author had any better evidence to present he would have done so.

Furthermore, I happen to have read "Holocaust Industry" and as I recall, F. has next to nothing to say about allegedly fraudulent Holocaust survivors as individuals. What he regards as fraudulent are the numbers touted by what he terms "the Holocaust industry" - by which he means the Jewish elites who have led the charge for financial recompense against European banks and institutions. In other words, F. is implying that the steady expansion of the numbers of "Holocaust survivors" arises not from an army of "frauds" at the grassroots level as the DTN piece states, but rather through a constant redefinition of the meaning of "Holocaust survivor" by these same Jewish elites for their own financial gain. In fact, it's not even clear that F. believes these numbers really represent any real persons at all. This is just another reason why the DTN claim looks like a gross misrepresentation to me. Gatoclass 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil - I looked at the DTN article and was under-whelmed by it. It's a "guide to the political left", so it's not just "POV" (clearly most people are), but "partisan" in a way that rings alarm bells. It states two main charges against Finkelstein (which is good) at the top of the page ("Asserts that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and exploited by Jews to justify Israeli human rights violations and crimes against humanity" and "Supported Hezbollah's "armed resistance against the Israeli Army in Lebanon") but they're political charges couched in political terms, not scholarship ones. The first paragraph kicks off with "Born in December 1953 to parents who had survived the Nazi Holocaust in Europe" which is misleading (they survived the actual camps, a far more appalling thing to happen) and the second paragraph starts with a statement so misleading as to amount to a straightforward lie "Professor Finkelstein is a disciple of the discredited historian and Holocaust denier David Irving, who he considers an authoritative scholar".

Under the circumstances, I don't believe we should quote from this article, and I'm dubious about including a link to it (though maybe that's necessary). It's scholarship is below the standard we should consider acceptable. No "surprising" charges found in there can be given any credibility. PR^talk 06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

.Andyvphil As often, small points inflate till sight is lost of the obvious. You note:-

"Althien's deficit" is and was not merely a matter of imbalance in the Profiles section. He asked whether NF was indeed "controversial"

Well, 'controversy' is all over the page, the word occurs at least 9 times by my rapid count. So, do we really need to add the 'adjective', and a section? The page amply illustrates that Finkelstein is frequently associated with controversies. You don't need junkmail in the postbox, when it's full of letters. Gatoclass's reasoning, technical and otherwise, is impeccable here Nishidani 09:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Z=N statement is attributed to Finkelstein all over the web[5], but a Google book search (eg, [6], but also a specific search of the book DTN mentions) shows it doesn't seem to be in Finkelstein's books. The misattribution may have come from here[7], where it is included in a block of comments immediately following Finkelstein quotes. So I'm withdrawing my acceptance of DTN's attribution. (As with most DTN entries, it's a gloss on the articles listed in the left column, and in this case the error goes back to the earliest article listed.[8]) Andyvphil 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. The attribution error goes back at least to Plaut. The citation to The Holocaust Industry seems to be DTN's contribution, misreading Plaut. And the DTN profile is virtually identical to the entry on Finkelstein in Horowitz's The Professors,[9]. Plaut is given sole credit for research, but I can't tell exactly what that means since p.401 doesn't display in the Google Books preview. Andyvphil 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if NF is the victim of multiple smears - and I believe Plaut is notorious for the same kind of behaviour. Under the circumstances, our default position should be extreme caution about anything said on the subject of Finkelstein's views. More than most, he needs "innocent until proved guilty". PR^talk 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations - as the web multiplies it becomes more and more important to apply careful examination to sources, as you've done. PR^talk 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you discovered the "basically Nazis with beards and black hats" quote didn't come from Finkelstein. I was just reading through this thread and was about to post a correction.

The only reason NF gives a figure closer to five million than six is because he accepts the findings of Raul Hilberg's canonical 3-volume history of the subject, The Destruction of the European Jews, more or less en toto. Finkelstein doesn't do research into the history of the Holocaust, and doesn't present himself as having done research into it. It just isn't his area of interest. He has also stressed that the margin of difference is of historical interest but no moral consequence. The ironic quote he attributes to his mother is meant to underscore, not downplay, the magnitude, efficiency, and scale of the Holocaust. It's a reductio misrepresented by his opponents as a straight statement – a fairly familiar smear technique. NF routinely underscores this magnitude in order to buttress his central argument about the "industry," which is not that the Holocaust itself has been exaggerated, much less that individual claims are suspect, but rather that statistical claims about the numbers of survivors still alive today (pardon the tautology) have been exaggerated by lawyers and institutional actors, and that proceeds from reparations lawsuits do not find their way to actual survivors, many of whom are living in penury, but rather line the pockets of said lawyers and institutional actors. He has a secondary, more interpretive argument, that there's a corollary ideological "payoff" for other institutional actors seeking to justify the Israeli occupation. Hilberg, a conservative, moderately pro-Israel Republican and so-called "dean of Holocaust studies," gave his complete endorsement to the empirical dimension of Finkelstein's research, while respectfully withholding judgment about the ideological component.--G-Dett 01:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Please resolve the NPOV situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a link to the nomination discussion? Andyvphil 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is stable, there are no NPOV tags and no ongoing disputes. Can you clarify your reasoning for failing the article as GA? If you don't provide a significant basis for the fail, I'll nominate it again. Avruch^Talk 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My error, there apparently was a POV tag at the bottom of the page in the external links section... I'm not sure what it relates to, and there isn't as I've said an ongoing discussion about NPOV. I've removed the tag. Avruch^Talk 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Good article reassessment to contribute to a discussion on the reassessment of this article as a GA. Avruch^Talk 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Andyvphil,

To quote the template:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

• Unsourced, controversial material must be removed immediately. It is the responsibility of the editor adding controversial material to ensure that it is appropriately cited from the beginning, not the responsibility of other concerned editors to follow people around and search for cites to specious edits. Your accusation of 'IDONTLIKEIT' reversion is uncalled for and inappropriate in the context. Avruch^Talk 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My "specious edit" supplied a non-specious cite, and did so easily. My restoration was then reverted on specious grounds. So I'll call a spade a spade, whether you think it "appropriate" or not. Get over yourself. Andyvphil 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mommsen "quote"

Andyvphil keeps adding the sentence "In August 2000, the leading German historian Hans Mommsen wrote a very hostile review of Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, calling it "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices"." His source for this is not the review itself, but rather a Google Books extract [10] from a hostile polemical book,The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders, by Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor. Although the quote in the online extracr is footnoted, the page with the relevant footnote is not available online, so it is not possible to see whether they have quoted Mommsen directly, accurately and in context. In another location [11], Bogdanor does provide a citation, to an article in Haaretz by Yair Sheleg. A search of the Haaretz archive fails to find this article; but Finkelstein himself helpfully reproduces it on his own websiite [12], where it is apparent that Sheleg too gives no source.

A Google search does not find any direct link to Mommsen's alleged review; the only sources cited are Bogdanor, Sheleg and Wikipedia. In the absence of any direct link to Mommsen's own words, this "quote" should not appear in the article, and I have removed it.

It is considered very bad Wikipedia practice to cite material to an alleged primary source, rather than the secondary source in which the material was found; PalestineRemembered was nearly banned for life from Wikipedia for this![13] The most we can say is that right-wing pro-Israel polemicist Paul Bogdanor alleges that Mommsen made such an assessment; and this is far too weak an allegation to be included in the article.

If anyone can find a direct link to Mommsen's own words, please provide this. Otherwise, I remain sceptical of the veracity of this quote. RolandR 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, I don't keep adding the quote, I keep restoring it. I don't know who added it originally, but RolandR's "scepticism" is an inadequate reason to delete it. The relevant test for inclusion on Wikipedia is "verifiability" using a WP:RS. Contra RolandR, I have never "cite[d this] material to an alleged primary source" -- my first restoration cited Bogdanor, whose status as a RS is unaffected by his hostility to Finkelstein. The relevant test is the existance of editorial oversight by his publisher. And, now, thanks to RolandR, we know he also published it in Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, so that Bogdanor's reproduction of it has at least twice survived editorial review. Further, we now know (again thanks to RolandR) that Bogdanor's source was Yair Sheleg, in [Ha'aretz], another WP:RS. It would be nice to know more about Sheleg's source but, again, the existance of Ha'aretz editorial review is sufficient, by policy, for us to rely on him.

So I've again restored the sentence, now citing Sheleg directly. The quote is also, btw, in Mommsen's Wikipedia article, so if you want to satisfy your skepticism, and can read German, you might look at the one "reference" dated 2000. Or you might inquire of the editor who added the quote there, or here, whichever occurred first. But, again, your skepticism is not the test of whether the quote from Mommsen can be used here. Andyvphil 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil The problem is that Mommsen thought highly enough of Finkelstein's work to write a preface for the German version of his and Bettina Birn's critique of Goldhagen, which came out in 1998, and secondly via a colleague let it be known that he thought Finkelstein's new book on the Holocaust Industry was not something German scholars should get mixed up with since it they are under no obligation to take positions on what is fundamentally an American polemic over the Holocaust. Cf.

Deutsche Historiker uneinig über Debatte zur „Holocaust-Industrie" Hamburg (dpa) -- Instrumentalisierung und Ausbeutung des Holocaust durch jüdisches „Establishment" in den USA, unkorrekte Verwendung von Entschädigungsgeldern und Unkorrektheit auch bei den neuen Entschädigungsverhandlungen. Sind solche Vorwürfe für eine große öffentliche Debatte in Deutschland geeignet? Der Historiker Hans Mommsen (Feldafing) verneint. Sollte das umstrittene Buch des Politologen Norman G. Finkelstein (New York) „The Holocaust Industry" sogar auch auf dem Deutschen Historikertag in Aachen (26. -- 29. September) diskutiert werden? Mommsens Kollege Eberhard Jäckel (Stuttgart) ist strikt dagegen. Jäckel und Mommsen sehen in Finkelsteins Thematisierungen in erster Linie eine Sache der Amerikaner. „Warum sollen wir zu jeder Polemik, die uns nicht betrifft, Stellung nehmen!" sagt Jäckel. Was den Historikertag angeht, so sei der „nicht dafür da, aktuelle Reaktionen abzuliefern". Für Mommsen gibt es bessere Arbeiten über die „Amerikanisierung des Holocaust". Sie seien aber bedauerlicherweise im wesentlichen an der deutschen Öffentlichkeit vorbeigegangen. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Finkelstein/finkelstein10.html

.

I have often see the passage you allude to, cited endlessly, but never specified as to where in Mommsen's articles or writings this judgement occurs. Until you can get a reliable source, and not hearsay, it shouldn't be in here.Nishidani 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that something qualifying as a WP:RS does not mean that it is actually reliable. But Sheleg is a "reliable source", and if the quote is "cited endlessly" and denied never I'm going to have to see a stronger argument for its falsity than I've seen so for before I allow it to be suppressed here. (And I don't read German, so that part of your argument is lost on me.) Andyvphil 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on this. What is curious about the Shelag quote is the phrasing, 'a most trivial book, which is not what the usual German sources on the net give (ungewöhnlich triviale Untersuchung = 'an unusually banal investigation/piece of research'). Since the phrasing is similar, one is tempted to deduce that Shelag is translating from a Hebrew rendition of the German, back into English, and not, as is proper from German to English. In any case, the quote is wrong, because Shelag's version distorts Mommsen's judgement. Mommsen is, from the evidence here, saying that F's 'Holocaust Industry' is 'unusually banal' (for a Holocaust scholar or for Finkelstein, whose work he previously appraised positively). From the passage in German I cited above it is clear that Mommsen and his colleagues thought German scholars should not get mixed up in what struck him as an inframural American controversy (i.e. they should stick to the history of the Holocaust proper). They shouldn't meddle in the Americanizing of Holocaust issues that don't concern them. Trivial/banal here means, for German Holocaust scholars, piddling, off-topic, and, implicitly ('Für Mommsen gibt es bessere Arbeiten über die 'Amerikanisierung' des Holocaust'), that what Finkelstein's polemic argued was handled better by Novick. In short, Mommsen is quoted inexactly here. There's no hurry of course, but the quote should be sleuthed to its original source, if only to met high standards of quality control. Nishidani 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, you may be right that Sheleg (not Shelag) is quoting from another Hebrew translation of Mommsen's alleged review. But a Hebrew Google search does not turn this up, or any comment by M on F. And searching for the German phrase you quote turns up only German Wikipedia. So I remain sceptical that Mommsen ever wrote this, and agree that we must find an original source, not an unsourced quote in an article by a critic of Finkelstein. (Off topic: my online spell-checker wants to replace "Finkelstein" with "Frankenstein"; just what is the monster here? RolandR 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So by now, the first part of the quote is put into context (being: a US-subject is not relevant for the German situation, and not: 'poorly researched' as is now in the article). So this is not relevant here, because it has a link but no relation to the subject. Then there is the second part in the quote, 'appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices', as an example of the article's 'and/or allowing others to exploit it for antisemitic purposes'. If the quote is correct (and we are still looking for that, innit), it should be removed for a different reason. the fact that others (than F.) can exploit it for anti-Semitic prejudices, well, what has that to do with F. or the book? I expect that to be in the article, ehm, "Others". Of course every book about a jewish subject can be used for that purpose. Now that is a trivial fact. In fact, too trivial to be in this encyclopedia. -DePiep 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DePiep. I don't think the quote can be removed on the grounds that it has nothing to do with F. The criticism is directed at F. I agree that it is trivial: distinguished historians can say trivial things like the rest of us. Being distinguished, their trivia assumes a mantle of oracular portentousness that such remarks would not otherwise bear, were they to come from the lips of the rest of us. Most quotations from the men who manage the world are trivial. GWB on anything doesn't sound much more astute than my dog gnawing at a bone thrown his way. But since he wields huge power, his inability to rise to the verbal occasion, and say something intelligent, means that whatever he does say, is quotable. E.g. 'we're gunna kick arse in Eyerack' is what most gungho marines probably say every day. But when GWB said it to the Prime Minister of Australia, it naturally assumed different weight.

RolandR I got several German pages, not referring to the Wiki German page on Finkelstein. None of them clarifies where Mommsen said or wrote this. Personally, I think that sort of remark is meaningless in an encyclopedia, because it is, if true, an obiter dictum quoted for effect simply because of the stature of the scholar associated with it. These remarks, if said, are picked up rather thoughtlessly, and used against 'controversial' thinkers, because the eye is caught by the adjectives ('trivial') and the name. But I am not in a rush to exclude it a priori because as the section stands, it is well balanced by the Hilberg quote, which says what should be obvious: quality research is done regardless of consequences. Hilberg himself said things that antisemites could exploit (re certain rabbinical negotiations with Nazis, as with the infamous case of the extraordinary Salonika community (of whom Primo Levi writes so wonderfully), where a trade-off was made to send Jewish communists and Jewish poor to the crematoria to save the bourgeoisie etc.,) and that's why, despite his being one of the finest historians of modern and ancient times, he had a hard and relatively unacknowledged (till late) career (I hear that the Hebrew version is only coming out this year).

Mommsen, in his German preface to Finkelstein's collaborative work on Goldhagen, had very favourable things to say of F's critical work, because the American was writing something which non-Jewish Germans had difficulty in saying. The remark attributed to Mommsen some years later is interesting because, from what I can gather, he does not reciprocate. Finkelstein got into the German debate on the Holocaust, Mommsen wishes to keep out of the American debate, on the Holocaust.

But I digress. I see the Sheleg quote as a self-inflicted wound, basically, and think it sits agreeably there with Hilberg's remark. I agree with both of you however that it has to be sourced from a more reliable report, if only because it looks like a misquote, as far as I can establish. We're supposed to get things right here, at least on those rare Wiki pages that aim for quality.Nishidani 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm perhaps not following you here. Whether or not Mommsen thought German scholars should be involved in criticism of the "Holocaust industry" in other countries seems beside the point. How is "most trivial" very different from your offered translation, "unusually banal"? Do I understand that you think Mommsen thought that what was unusually banal from Finkelstein would nonetheless be insightful scholarship from a more ordinary historian? Andyvphil 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Banal" and "trivial" are not synonymous. However, I'm thinking perhaps the Mommsen quote should be removed because it is outdated. It was made after publication of the first edition, Finkelstein almost doubled the amount of content in the latest edition which means it is virtually a different book. Gatoclass 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"'banal' (adjective) boring, ordinary and not original. 'trivial' (adjective) having little value or importance. [14]. Different, but if it's banal, it's trivial too. And, no, a new edition doesn't make Mommsen's comment "outdated". That he thought the first edition was banal is still a notable (ordinary, not WP:N meaning) fact. Andyvphil 10:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That he allegedly described the first edition as "trivial" or "banal" is only notable if it can be reliably established that he really did say it. Find a source first, let's check the actual terms used, and then we can make a decision. RolandR 11:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a quote from Ha'aretz ought to be a good enough source, at least until we can find a better one. As for AndyV's comment that a statement about the first edition is notable - maybe so, but then at the very least it should be made clear that the statement is about the first edition. Gatoclass 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection to that. OR rules do not, btw, prevent us from emailing an inquiry to Sheleg. (I emailed Bogdanor, though it bounced -- perhaps due to a transcription error on my part, and I didn't pursue it since RolandR had discovered Bogdanor's source.) And the editor who first supplied the quote to this or Mommsen's article ought to be queried, as his source was not merely Seleg, since he provided a date that Sheleg does not. And if there's a Mommsen bibliography that date is a strong clue... But, yes, contra RolandR, Sheleg's authority is sufficient to use the quote in the article, until we get stronger reason to disbelieve him than I've seen so far, as I've explained already. Andyvphil 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. The additions were by an unregistered editor, here and here, so we can't ask him. Andyvphil 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil You write:-

Do I understand that you think Mommsen thought that what was unusually banal from Finkelstein would nonetheless be insightful scholarship from a more ordinary historian?'

My point was, there is little on the net to clarify exactly what Mommsen's position was. I made some notes to clarify how what little I found might be interpreted, and my intuitions, nothing more, on this indicate that the quote from Sheleg would, were they true, be misleading. I concluded therefore that it was an 'unstable' piece of material because, like so much thrust onto these pages, it is noise that doesn't reflect precisely the original context and source, being perhaps distorted by both translation and recycling. As the other editors agree, that this may or may not stay on the page depends in the long term on securing its accuracy, and context, as a reflection of what Mommsen actually said, wrote or thought. Wiki has very complex rules. I prefer to stick to my own academic training, which is summed up quite simply: ad fontes.(and secondly, serious sources, not second or third hand decantations of original thoughts). p.s. there is a decisive distinction between 'trivial' and 'banal'. The former refers to something not worth noting. The latter indicates something that is obvious, because clichéd (noticed too frequently). Arendt did not write a book on 'the triviality of evil' but on the 'banality of evil'.Nishidani 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that "banal" and "trivial" are synonyms, but Mommsen's subject is the book by Finkelstein, not the subject of the book by Finkelstein. If Finkelstein's observations are banal then his work is trivial even if his subject is not. Thus "a most trivial book" and "an unusually banal book" are not very different observations. Andyvphil 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a direct quote from Mommsen (rather than an unsourced claim), and we can then discuss whether he wrote "trivial" or "banal", and what he was referring to. RolandR 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil. All very trivial, and hence fascinating to an occasional garbage-fossicker in the rubbish dumps of subacademic bychat like myself. You are quoting Sheleg's loose translation of hearsay about what Mommsen may have said or written, one does not know where. Einstein said Velikovsky's catastrophism was 'fascinating'. Virginia Woolf thought Joyce's style was that of a snotty boy. Kristeva thought American university doctorates were just churnings from a garbage-machine. Schopenhauer thought Hegel a great flatulent gasbag. Nietzsche thought John Stuart Mull a boring English swine. Bradlaugh called the Gospels a halfwitted tale in garbled Greek by some provincial hacks. All fascinating trivia, having nothing to do with the respective subjects at hand, but thanks for adding this piece to my private pile. Nishidani 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, Ha'aretz is still a reliable source in my book. As for "banal" vs "trivial" - I very much doubt Mommsen called the book banal, banal books don't raise hackles as this one did. My money is on "trivial" because I've read the first edition of the book, it's only 150 pages long and quite frankly, I too thought it lacking in substance - at least, the second half of it where F. is trying to prove that Jewish organizations ripped off Holocaust survivors. F. seems to return again and again to the same two or three pieces of information, but his case is far from convincing although it is at least intriguing. I think that's probably why Mommsen criticized it as he did - that in failing to adequately make the case, he thinks the book has little value as a work of scholarship and thereby can only do harm as a weapon in the hands of antisemites.

The second edition of the book is much more substantial, running to 286 pages, I haven't read it but I assume F. quietly took note of the criticisms of the first edition and presented a more solid case. Gatoclass 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets review.

1. An anonymous editor added the "trivial book" quote. He's not using Shelag or Bogdanor as his source because he provides a date, August 2000, that is in neither.
2. Avruch deletes the material as "uncited criticism".
3. I restore it, having Googled up a cite to Bogdanor.
4. RolandR deletes it again, calling Bogdanor an "unsourced allegation in an extremely POV polemical attack". Actually, he says Bogdanor cites it, but that the cite isn't available online.
5. I restore it. Bogdanor's book qualifies as a WP:RS.
6. RolandR deletes it again. He's found Bogdanor using the quote again, this time visibly citing Sheleg in Ha'aretz, but dismisses it as "hostile alleged source".
7. I restore it. Ha'aretz is also a WP:RS. Gatoclass and RolandR strip off the uncited characterization of Mommsen and his "hostile revioew" and date, but he quote remains in the article.
8. Nishidani weighs in, saying he thinks the quote is inaccurate, inasmuch as Mommsen had praised Finkelstein two years before, and anyway a better translation from the German would be "banal" rather than "trivial". RolandR still characterizes Sheleg's as an "unsourced claim", which of course it is -- but, crucially, in a WP:RS. Which is why the next step is not for me to locate its original existance (I don't read German, and cannot) but for the individuals who dispute its existance or the accuracy of Sheleg's translation to follow up on the clues they have. Notably, the date. If I had a notable English-writing historian it would not be difficult to find what he had written in August 2000. Is the situation different for Google.de? Andyvphil 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no onus on the editors who dispute a quote to do the impossible and hunt to prove that it was never said; the onus is on those who would quote to find an accurate source. If Mommsen did indeed write this, it is available somewhere. Meanwhile, the only source we have is Sheleg, which is why the article states that "according to Sheleg" Mommsen made this statement. That is accurate, but we have no authority to establish that Sheleg is quoting him truthfully, accurately and in context. Without a citation, we simply cannot state that Mommsen made this statement. RolandR 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "quote" was originally added by an anonymous editor, apparently in Texas, whose edits to another page were reverted by another editor (not involved in this page, or any Middle East-related editing as far as I can see) as "rather like an POV attack".[15]; I certainly wouldn't rely on this editor for the accuracy of the August 2000 date. RolandR 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in error. Once the quote has been traced to a WP:RS it is indeed your obligation to disprove it before you remove it. It can be done. It was done, to my satisfaction, with an attribution to Finkelstein at DTN (see above) and I will not unreasonably withold approval of your disproof if you succeed. You just haven't done it yet. However, I have no problem with the attribution you've inserted. Andyvphil 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a world of difference between a major paper like Ha'aretz and an attack rag like DTN. I think this comment is unlikely to be disproven, although there may be a slightly different translation somewhere. Gatoclass 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)