Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  "To do" list 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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, but it's still pretty gross. It has no place in the references of this article. PRtalk 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: linking to DTN

message: Please resolve the NPOV situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a link to the nomination discussion? Andyvphil 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AvruchTalk 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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. AvruchTalk 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WP:BLP