Talk:The Case for Israel

message: Basically the whole article is a small criticism section. I'm sure Wikipedia writers and people knowledgeable about the book can do better right? Drsmoo 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, having just read the book I'll try to fix it up a little. LK 13:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty new at editing so please correct and format my edits properly if there's a need. LK 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article

message: Remove unnecessary disambiguation.
*Support. grendel|khan 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :"The book has received a positive review from President Bill Clinton."
There is no citation for the above sentence thus it has been moved here from the article.  --70.48.69.236 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim moved from article 

message: The whole first paragraph, unfortunately, I think must go.  I refer to:
"The book is widely regarded[citation needed] as an authoritative and scholarly text on the intricacies of Israeli history and outspoken in what Dershowitz holds to be the validity of many Israeli policies. Dershowitz has received numerous[citation needed] praises for the eloquent articulation of arguments that many in the pro-Israel community have traditionally held."  
Phrases like "eloquent," "widely regarded," and "many," if ever used, must be well cited.  I've added the cn tags for now, but I think that if these statements are seriously revised, they must be removed. Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Reception  

message: No adequate explanation has been given for the recent deletion of material cited to an academic source and it should be restored per WP:NPOV. Also further changes were made to the article without explanation and restored without explanation after I reverted the changes as unexplained. Dlv999 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Explanations were given -  You may not agree with that viewpoint, but please don't misleadingly claim that no explanation was given. To repeat - what you refer to as an "academic source" is a reprint of a Counterpunch article. We should not be using things like that in an encyclopedia, regardless of who reprints them. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The University of California press has decided that Metranez' opinion is significant enough to publish under their imprint on this topic. Our policy states that we include all significant published opinions on a topic. The cited source is a University of California press publication (an academic source). Despite requests here and in my edit summary, no explanation has yet been forthcoming for the other changes and deletion of content originally made by Brewcrew and repeated by yourself. Dlv999 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text: No, that's false. The publication in question is Finkelstein's book, to which the reprint was added as an afterward. Finkelstein may think a grad's student's "analysis" of his argument with Dershowitz, published in an online rag is significant enough to be an epilogue to his book (Not surprising, since the student supports him wholeheartedly, and there are apparently no notable academics who are equally fawning), but this is just Finkelstein' opinion, so it belongs under the heading of Finkelstein's allegations. This is a serious encyclopedia, not a forum for political debate. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finkelstein didn't publish the book. It was published by the University of California press. Dlv999 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It' still his book. I heard your argument, you heard mine (and Brewcrewers). Let wait for a consensus, preferably hearing from users who are not as involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Stuck in SD with Yaming (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I have reviewed the commentary above and cannot find any case for the omission of Menetrez from the article.  It is obvious that Menetrez's charges and the ensuing argument between him and Dershowitz are a part of the history of this book.  It was a very public slanging match that is notable even if a version of Menetrez's article wasn't published by a university press (but it was).  So, in some form, it definitely belongs here.  I'm not impressed by stunts like calling Menetrez a "student" (he had a PhD already when his first article on the subject was published in 2007, see here).  I'm also not impressed by the misrepresentation of the case as in the sentence "Dershowitz once (accurately) quotes a remark by Mark Twain using the same ellipses as Peters did when she used the same quotation in her book" (no, Dershowitz used wrong page numbers, joined together two passages that are far apart, and deviated from the edition he cited in multiple places, in all cases following Peters). Zerotalk 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have restored the previous edit on these grounds. There was no legitimacy to the complaint in the first place, as Dershowitz himself has responded to Menetrez, hardly dismissing him as a lowly law student. Menetrez is a law professor and his arguments are very much part of the public feud. The attempt to dismiss his comments is a blatant NPOV violation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.5.73 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletion of material cited to academic presses without explanation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Case for Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327143707/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=98 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=98
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page is a mess. Everything on this page doesn't have to be about Norman Finkelstein's criticisms of the book. There is already a Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair page with all that info. The section on Norman Finkelstein outweighs everything on the page and should be trimmed and other information should be added to make it more objective. There are tons of information about the book that are not here: the fact that it was reviewed widely in various publications and none of those reviews are cited, and in relation to the Finkelstein affair, the fact that Dershowitz was cleared by Harvard after an in-depth investigation is only mentioned in one sentence. Perhaps the reader should know more about the Harvard investigation. I think the Norman Finkelstein section should be changed to "Reception," some of that information should be trimmed and other reviews of the book should be added. Wayn12 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: To the biased editors that want this page to be about Norman Finkelstein and not an objective Wikipedia page