Talk:Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair/Archive 1

message: I think thats terrible. Worst case scenario, really. An encyclopedia is to inform, not give a link to resources. Links (plural) are cool, but not instead of the article itself! Whats the deal? JackLynch 21:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now unprotected; I'm leaving my listing on Wikipedia:Protected pages for the time being though because the pessimist in me insists it will save time later. - Hephaestos 22:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who deleted everything and then blocked edits? 

message: Zero, the ADL did explain these allegations, which you would have seen if you had read to the bottom of this letter http://israel.georgetown.edu/ADL-letter.pdf , which I am adding to the links section. The explanations read as follows:
:::However, Mr. Finkelstein?s lecture was a one-sided program,
intended to promote hatred of Israel and perpetuate classic anti-Semitic stereotypes.
In his highly publicized book, ?The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the
Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,? Finkelstein argues that the Holocaust ?has become
a straight-out extortion racket.? Finkelstein is well known for his anti-Israel rhetoric
and his claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money. He has said
that he ?truly honored? Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon for ?having inflicted an
exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers,? and that, ?I can?t
imagine why Israel?s apologists would be offended by a comparison to the Gestapo.?
To have Georgetown University provide a platform for a Holocaust denier to spread
his hatred for Israel is profoundly disturbing to ADL. Finkelstein?s views about Israel
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are widely known.
Now, can you please stop removing essential parts of the article? Leumi 02:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I thought, you can't give any examples at all.  The above shows the ADL using the label "Holocaust denier" without giving a single example of Holocaust denial. Just like I said.--Zero 03:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not our business to decide the veracity of the accusations. We simply state facts, and the fact that the ADL has made this accusation, with examples they feel adequate, and is a major public voice, is enough to have it included.Leumi 03:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text:  They didn't even claim to be giving examples.  They just used the label as a smear.  You know that.  You are using it for the same reason.  --Zero 04:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to get angry Zero. For your convenience, I've specified the examples they use in their accusation, since you seem to have missed them in what I posted above. "Mr. Finkelstein?s lecture was a one-sided program,
intended to promote hatred of Israel and perpetuate classic anti-Semitic stereotypes." shows their example on the anti-semitism charge. Second, the quotes, "claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money." and "I can?t imagine why Israel?s apologists would be offended by a comparison to the Gestapo." are their examples of what they view as Holocaust negationism (and remember we don't discuss the validity of them, only that they're there), and "He has said that he ?truly honored? Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon for ?having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers,? " is the example of what they say about his incitement of violence against Israel. They have provided examples, and whatever you may think of their validity, that is not what we're discussing here.Leumi 04:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: What is "Holocaust negationism"? I thought holcaust denial was being discussed. The charges that you list above are not examples of holocaust denial. --snoyes 04:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Negationism article in Wikipedia says it is "the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term négationnisme, which means Holocaust denial". I considered it a (later clarification: slightly broader)synonym. Do you object? Leumi 04:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The French word negationnisme was coined to mean Holocaust denial but its use in English is sometimes wider.  Maybe Leumi is trying to play games with the words.  The key point is that the ADL has never given any examples of Holocaust denial on the part of NF, and as far as anyone has shown here they never "even claimed to give examples".  I don't believe such examples exist. --Zero 04:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I detailed the examples they provided above. As I said, it is not for us to decide whether the examples carry merit, only that they were given, which they were. Leumi 04:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. "it is not for us to decide whether the examples carry merit". I would tend to disagree with that statement. It is useful to point out if allegations are patently false, as they ammount to slander. Instead of being a holocaust denial, uttering the sentence "Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money." shows that one believes that the holocaust did happen. Hence the accusations of being a holocaust denier are plain false. --snoyes 04:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context I think ADL meant, "Holocaust Denial" referred to a broader matter of delegitimizing the Holocaust and what is viewed as it's unique role in history. As a form of compromise, perhaps Negationism, which I pointed out above, would be a better word for their accusations? Your thoughts?Leumi 04:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Denial is (quoting the m-w dictionary) "assertion that an allegation is false". Seeing as Negationism is a synonym, it is obviously not any better. Now we are dealing with an issue in which players such as the ADL have engineered the term "holocaust denial" to be much broader than mere denial. This with the intent to equate people who have legitimate criticisms with lunatics who deny that the holocaust happened. It is indeed difficult to phrase this correctly. I think the best is probably to address this (the 'normal' and the 'extended' definitions) in holocaust denial, and leave away the phrase that the ADL has not provided evidence of holocaust denial. Noting only that the ADL uses the expression in the broad/extended sense. --snoyes 04:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I will look for that. However for now, I think the text still qualifies as an example. One can dispute the accuracy of the example, but they obviously intended for it to be one, which is enough to qualify as providing one, as it was their intention. As I said before, we don't decide validity, only facts.Leumi 04:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The qualification of ADL allegations 

message: Who is 195.92.168.173 ? Are they the same as 81.130.175.55 ? Whoever you (they) are, will you please create an account(s)? Also, calling names (psychologically disturbed, for example) is unhelpful and not particularly scholarly. Thank you in advance for your much needed cooperation. JackLynch 19:58, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Given the close nature of their speech, sentence structure, insults and ideology, I think it is reasonable to assume they are either compatriots, or the same person. Personal attacks, might I add, are illegal under the rules of Wikipedia, and furthermore not constructive. I respectfully ask you to stop them and apologize for what I'm sure was something you regret, done in the heat of a passionate argument. Oh, and this is Leumi. I forgot to log in. Sorry about that. Leumi 21:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anonymous User, please stop attacking me personally. You recently put in the summary section the following "WARNING: LEUMI IS MAKING IDEOLOGICAL EDITS EVERYWHERE". That is highly unjustified, not in the spirit of proper debate, and without merit. I would like an apology please, but what's more important is for you to stop these personal insults. I thank you for your time. Leumi 23:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I suppose that will work. I did thing quip was a better manner of saying it, and that we could be reasonably sure it was his intention, given the sheer unlikeliness of him donating to the PLO ever under any circumstances. But I can definitely see how someone would have a problem with it, and it's by no means big enough to cause so much contreversy. No need to have a Stalingrad over such a slight difference, especially considering all the tank battles we've been having already. As for his user page, I wasn't aware he had one, as he is still operating only on an IP address and doesn't have a username. Leumi 00:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Ah, thanks for clarifying. I agree it was rather snarky. Do you think we should use the word "quipped" in relation to that? As you first brought up the word, I'll follow your lead on that score.Leumi 01:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it necessary to characterize parts of the debate. Stick with the nice neutral "said" -- nobody can complain about that, and it's cleaner writing anyway. --Mirv 01:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I think perhaps a better question is whether Dershowitz has been attacked by palestinians advocates similar to and including Cockburn, as his support for Israel is the reason some people think Dershowitz was attacked, as opposed to a personal issue. I'll look for examples of that. And Anonymous, I respectfully think you should heed Mirv's words on that matter. Leumi 02:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: So put an NPOV dispute header on it, and remember what I said about pots and kettles, and note that you reverted edits which Leumi did not make (the detailed exposition of the radio argument was mostly 168...'s), and try for constructive debate instead of name-calling ok thanx. --Mirv 02:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  psychologically disturbed Irgun sympathiser? 

message: User 195.92.168.174 has finally been banned, having apparantly crossed a red line when he attacked a medical condition I have. Here is the report I made in the vandalism section, followed by the sysops mentioning that they banned him/her.
While I will avoid commenting on whether I am please by this new event (you can guess) I will point out that we can now continue on in the editing of the article without one of the obstacles we had previously. I look forward to a more pleasant working environment. :)Leumi 02:58, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer a problem 

message: A recent statistical study [2] has found that about 80% of citations in academic literature are not derived from the originals, but copied from secondary sources. However, the authors of the study do not endorse or defend this practice.
:The link given is discussing only scientific papers, not historical ones.  I would be quite astonished if 80% of citations in historical works were actually cribbed from secondary sources. john k 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations. 

message: (Note: this issue also applies to Talk:Norman Finkelstein). The main (but not only) point of debate at the moment is about two links that user:Ragout wants to include. They supposedly support the claim he wants to include in the article that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" and, by implication, academic historical writing which is what this discussion is really about.
The first link,  is an anonymous web page with uncited information itself. However, from following the links, the claim refers to a single study of citations of a single scientific paper from 1974, not a historical paper.
The second link is subscription-only and should be removed for that reason alone. Ragout has changed it to a non-subscription version in Norman Finkelstein, but it is clear the study only applies to anatomical writing and the actual rate of citation without reading is fairly low (27%) which is not consistent with "extremely widespread".
I not only believe these links are inadequate sources to claim that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" but to use studies like this to make a sweeping claim about academia, a statement which is not in either paper, is an egregious violation of the "no original research" policy. If such practices are "extremely widespread" User:ragout should have no problem finding many reputable sources that say so explicitly. Deuterium 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is citing sources without reading them "extremely widespread" in academia? 

message: It's difficult to understand why there is an edit war over Finkelstein calling Peters book "discredited".
This is the exact word that Finkelstein used eg .
And the paragraph is intended to be a direct paraphrase of Finkelstein's words - what are people doing changing it? PalestineRemembered 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "a direct paraphrase" of someone's "words"?  When exact words are in dispute, please use exact quotations and proper citations.  Paraphrasing controversial and dubious and contested claims using POV is not permissible. --NYScholar 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein did say Peters book "discredited", there is no reason for an edit-war. 

message: This article is a mess.  It needs cleanup throughout with regard to removing POV and adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Wherever possible, primary sources, not the subject's personal website, should be cited as sources in bonafide notes, with proper format for notes citations. The References section needs total cleaning up, see the embedded editorial notes, and the External links section needs to feature only one reference to the subject's own website.  The rest of the items need to be converted to proper bibliographical references in the list prior to External links: last name, first name (linked as possible), using dashes for subsequent sources by same author, title of article or book, publication, date of publication, date of access.  I don't have time to convert all these problematic references.  The article needs work to be done by other editors.
Vigilance is key. See editorial interpolations in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and other tags added 

message: This also is not effective.  It needs a better organization and a clearer and more neutral presentation of topics within the subject (which one would think from the way that it is edited is Finkelstein; it is not; the subject is the controversy.  I think that "affair" is an overused word in Wikipedia articles dealing with such controversies--e.g., "Plame affair".  The word appears to be misused.  It is a controversy and could easily be called that.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a POV advertisement for people relating to its subject.  Its editors need to be neutral and to stick to facts, not to repeat everything Finkelstein says as if it were fact.  What he says is interpretation, not fact.  It is his interpretation.  Finkelstein's interpretations of Dershowitz's work are controversial and contested (by both Dershowitz and others).  This controversy (mostly about two books--one by Dershowitz and one by Finkelstein responding to Dershowitz) needs to be defined clearly and in neutral terms.  This is an article that deals with more than one living person; WP:BLP applies to both Finkelstein and to Dershowitz and to any other living persons mentioned in the article.  See the linked guidelines in the tags above and on the article page. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current article structure 

message: Singular possessive nouns ending in 's' still take an apostrophe and 's' after.  Thus, the possessive of Joan Peters is "Joan Peters's."  The labeling of "Peters's" with a [sic.] is in itself a mistake, as us using the improper form "Peters'".  Apostrophes without 's' are, in the case of possessives, used for _plural_ possessives, such as "The boys' books."  Consult any standard English grammar authority and you'll find that.
Rayamberg 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google "Singular possessive nouns" and first up is  where you find "3. If a singular proper noun ends in s, add an apostrophe.{e.g.,]Chris' exam scores were higher than any other students". And "Peters's" just looks UGLY to me (and doesn't sound right either). The position in the canon of a "standard English grammar authority" who says otherwise needs to be reconsidered, IMHO. Anyway, provide cites, please, or the [sic]s stay. Andyvphil 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ways are generally deemed acceptable. Example: "Some writers become confused when they must make a possessive of singular nouns that already end in s. As usual, you make the possessive by adding ’s to the word; however, some writers and editors argue that the two s’ are redundant and that therefore you can eliminate the second s, ending up with the s’. That is, they argue that there is really no need to include an s after the apostrophe, since the apostrophe already tells readers that the word is possessive. Others argue that you should drop the final s only on words of several syllables but retain it on short words. Since there is no agreement on this difficult problem, you must make your own choice. However, regardless of which option you choose, do remember to be consistent."  smb 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As long as I'm not asked to believe Rayamberg that Peters' is wrong, I can live without the (sic)'s (nb the unmentioned but valid extension of the third case at your cite). The implication that Desch is illiterate should be avoided if possible... That extra "s" certainly offends me esthetically, however. There must be statistics on the usage somewhere... Andyvphil 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't articles like this use the past or perfected tense in the main text-- I'm not talking about the quotes but the main text.--Bwthemoose 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar mistakes 

message: http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez04302007.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source to add to "External Links" 

message: I think it would be appropriate to add a list of mistakes Finkelstein alleges Dershowitz has made in his book, if such list exists. Currently it is quite difficult to find out what the dispute is really about. Perhaps Finkelstein made a such list himself? -- Heptor  talk 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of mistakes? 

message: This is a relatively minor question, but does anyone know the chronology of the debate itself? I am confused by what the videos show (since I didn't hear it when it was originally aired); in Part II of the video, Amy Goodman thanks the guests for coming on for a "second day", but in Part I she says that she is going to ask the next guest to wait because she thinks Finkelstein and Dershowitz are more important--implying that she is just extending the show. Also, in the second part both guests are wearing the same clothes, which seems odd if they bothered to come on the show then next day. I'm probably missing something. 71.76.134.116 18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: A recent statistical study [2] has found that about 80% of citations in academic literature are not derived from the originals, but copied from secondary sources. However, the authors of the study do not endorse or defend this practice.
:The link given is discussing only scientific papers, not historical ones.  I would be quite astonished if 80% of citations in historical works were actually cribbed from secondary sources. john k 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations. 

message: (Note: this issue also applies to Talk:Norman Finkelstein). The main (but not only) point of debate at the moment is about two links that user:Ragout wants to include. They supposedly support the claim he wants to include in the article that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" and, by implication, academic historical writing which is what this discussion is really about.
The first link,  is an anonymous web page with uncited information itself. However, from following the links, the claim refers to a single study of citations of a single scientific paper from 1974, not a historical paper.
The second link is subscription-only and should be removed for that reason alone. Ragout has changed it to a non-subscription version in Norman Finkelstein, but it is clear the study only applies to anatomical writing and the actual rate of citation without reading is fairly low (27%) which is not consistent with "extremely widespread".
I not only believe these links are inadequate sources to claim that citing sources without reading them "is extremely widespread in academia" but to use studies like this to make a sweeping claim about academia, a statement which is not in either paper, is an egregious violation of the "no original research" policy. If such practices are "extremely widespread" User:ragout should have no problem finding many reputable sources that say so explicitly. Deuterium 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is citing sources without reading them "extremely widespread" in academia? 

message: It's difficult to understand why there is an edit war over Finkelstein calling Peters book "discredited".
This is the exact word that Finkelstein used eg .
And the paragraph is intended to be a direct paraphrase of Finkelstein's words - what are people doing changing it? PalestineRemembered 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "a direct paraphrase" of someone's "words"?  When exact words are in dispute, please use exact quotations and proper citations.  Paraphrasing controversial and dubious and contested claims using POV is not permissible. --NYScholar 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein did say Peters book "discredited", there is no reason for an edit-war. 

message: This article is a mess.  It needs cleanup throughout with regard to removing POV and adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Wherever possible, primary sources, not the subject's personal website, should be cited as sources in bonafide notes, with proper format for notes citations. The References section needs total cleaning up, see the embedded editorial notes, and the External links section needs to feature only one reference to the subject's own website.  The rest of the items need to be converted to proper bibliographical references in the list prior to External links: last name, first name (linked as possible), using dashes for subsequent sources by same author, title of article or book, publication, date of publication, date of access.  I don't have time to convert all these problematic references.  The article needs work to be done by other editors.
Vigilance is key. See editorial interpolations in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and other tags added 

message: This also is not effective.  It needs a better organization and a clearer and more neutral presentation of topics within the subject (which one would think from the way that it is edited is Finkelstein; it is not; the subject is the controversy.  I think that "affair" is an overused word in Wikipedia articles dealing with such controversies--e.g., "Plame affair".  The word appears to be misused.  It is a controversy and could easily be called that.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a POV advertisement for people relating to its subject.  Its editors need to be neutral and to stick to facts, not to repeat everything Finkelstein says as if it were fact.  What he says is interpretation, not fact.  It is his interpretation.  Finkelstein's interpretations of Dershowitz's work are controversial and contested (by both Dershowitz and others).  This controversy (mostly about two books--one by Dershowitz and one by Finkelstein responding to Dershowitz) needs to be defined clearly and in neutral terms.  This is an article that deals with more than one living person; WP:BLP applies to both Finkelstein and to Dershowitz and to any other living persons mentioned in the article.  See the linked guidelines in the tags above and on the article page. --NYScholar 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current article structure 

message: Singular possessive nouns ending in 's' still take an apostrophe and 's' after.  Thus, the possessive of Joan Peters is "Joan Peters's."  The labeling of "Peters's" with a [sic.] is in itself a mistake, as us using the improper form "Peters'".  Apostrophes without 's' are, in the case of possessives, used for _plural_ possessives, such as "The boys' books."  Consult any standard English grammar authority and you'll find that.
Rayamberg 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google "Singular possessive nouns" and first up is  where you find "3. If a singular proper noun ends in s, add an apostrophe.{e.g.,]Chris' exam scores were higher than any other students". And "Peters's" just looks UGLY to me (and doesn't sound right either). The position in the canon of a "standard English grammar authority" who says otherwise needs to be reconsidered, IMHO. Anyway, provide cites, please, or the [sic]s stay. Andyvphil 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ways are generally deemed acceptable. Example: "Some writers become confused when they must make a possessive of singular nouns that already end in s. As usual, you make the possessive by adding ’s to the word; however, some writers and editors argue that the two s’ are redundant and that therefore you can eliminate the second s, ending up with the s’. That is, they argue that there is really no need to include an s after the apostrophe, since the apostrophe already tells readers that the word is possessive. Others argue that you should drop the final s only on words of several syllables but retain it on short words. Since there is no agreement on this difficult problem, you must make your own choice. However, regardless of which option you choose, do remember to be consistent."  smb 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As long as I'm not asked to believe Rayamberg that Peters' is wrong, I can live without the (sic)'s (nb the unmentioned but valid extension of the third case at your cite). The implication that Desch is illiterate should be avoided if possible... That extra "s" certainly offends me esthetically, however. There must be statistics on the usage somewhere... Andyvphil 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't articles like this use the past or perfected tense in the main text-- I'm not talking about the quotes but the main text.--Bwthemoose 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar mistakes 

message: http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez04302007.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source to add to "External Links" 

message: This is a relatively minor question, but does anyone know the chronology of the debate itself? I am confused by what the videos show (since I didn't hear it when it was originally aired); in Part II of the video, Amy Goodman thanks the guests for coming on for a "second day", but in Part I she says that she is going to ask the next guest to wait because she thinks Finkelstein and Dershowitz are more important--implying that she is just extending the show. Also, in the second part both guests are wearing the same clothes, which seems odd if they bothered to come on the show then next day. I'm probably missing something. 71.76.134.116 18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: The article mentions nothing of Dershowitz's list of proof for Finkelstein's dishonesty apart from the fact that he made one. For example a very good claim that should be included is where Dershowitz says: "Finkelstein claims (in Beyond Chutzpah) that in The Case for Israel I never once, I mean literally, not once, mention any mainstream human rights organization. Never a mention of Amnesty's findings, never a mention of Human Rights Watch's findings, never a mention of B'Tselem's findings, none. But a simple check of the index reveals that I repeatedly discuss and criticize the findings of these very organizations."What Finkelstein actually wrote in Beyond Chutzpah (pp. 92) was: "The most fundamental and telling fact about the chapters of The Case for Israel devoted to human rights issues is that never once does Dershowitz cite a single mainstream human rights organization to support any of his claims." a statement that is undeniably true. There are a few similar instances where Dershowitz misquotes to prove his case. I was pretty much neutral on the dispute until I looked past the plagiarism. As mentioned in the article Finkelstein himself has always said the plagiarism was of little importance (in fact it is barely mentioned in his book) as the false claims in 'The Case for Israel" are the main issue yet the article concentrates almost solely on the plagiarism which is POV as, if you ignore the plagiarism, Dershowitz  relies on ad hominem arguments to support his book and seems to have been unable to prove a single false statement in Finkelstein's. Wayne 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of plagiarism in the book partly because Finklestein had to remove it.  If you can cite a list of problems Finklestein has with the book, include it, otherwise it's original research. Bartleby 08:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing material? 

message: Here is the paragraph in question, unaltered, from The American Conservative:
In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues, Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigation-the details of which were not made public-that predictably vindicated Dershowitz.
Here is what I removed:
As Desch acknowledges in his book review of Beyond Chutzpah, "In the wake of a number of similar complaints against Dershowitz and two of his Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, former Harvard President Derek Bok conducted an investigation—the details of which were not made public—that...vindicated Dershowitz" (32, col. 3).
At best, the text I removed was added by an author who misunderstood the article and did not understand the importance of the word "predictably", which was elided in the paragraph in question. In case it is just a misunderstanding, let me make it clear that the word "predictably" is of utmost importance. One must infer that the author places little confidence in the investigation and the conclusion reached.
70.58.99.239 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Desch is an author who sides with Finkelstein, so using his article in the "Support for Dershowitz" section is problematic to begin with.  Secondly, the "predictably" only reveals his own suspicions or feelings about the investigation.  The point of quoting him there is presumably to reveal that an investigation took place that vindicated Dershowitz, not Desch's opinion of the investigation. Bartleby 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Dershowitz 

message: My understanding is that somethings are either similar or they are not. There are undisputed similarities between the texts (and references), whether these similarities are coincidence or not is what is being disputed. I am unaware of any reasons to include alleged in 'alleged similarities'. Delad (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, 'alleged' functions to confirm policy on WP:NPOV, practically it functions to insinuate that the case is not proven (in court or elsewhere). Menetrez's examination of the evidence is thorough, and one would think few scholars would doubt that, by any norms of textual analysis,  Dershowitz did get his quotes from Peters' text, for there is no other way of explaining the minute similarities. Menetrez has therefore 'proven' Finkelstein's case. It was not an 'allegation' (unproven assertion) except in a very loose use of the term (not proven in court) originally, since Finkelstein gave concrete evidence that has now been substantiated in great detail by secondary peer review, and Dershowitz, in his reply to Menetrez, made no effort, unusually for a brilliant defence lawyer, to pull Menetrez's evidence apart. If 'allege' is continually used, even at this point, its function is to assert that Menetrez's analysis is nothing more than a series of 'unproven assertions', which is untrue. To avoid these innuendos and complications I have suggested therefore that the heading read 'evidence given'. Eventually, if Finkelstein and menetrez's analyses are answered by Dershowitz and his allies, we shall insert these arguments in coprresponding order into the section.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Nishidani, that clears it up for me.  Delad (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly similar 

message: I think it would be appropriate to add a list of mistakes Finkelstein alleges Dershowitz has made in his book, if such list exists. Currently it is quite difficult to find out what the dispute is really about. Perhaps Finkelstein made a such list himself? -- Heptor  talk 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of mistakes? 

message: I made quite a few edits in order to make this article more readable, but it's still rather jumbled and confusing. I was trying to find another article that might serve as a good template and I came across Pál Schmitt academic misconduct controversy. I think that it's a little long, but is rather well organized and might serve as a model for this article. Capscap (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good template? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927185045/http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2462 to http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2462
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070908184549/http://sherman.depaul.edu:80/media/webapp/mrNews2.asp?NID=1655&ln=true to http://sherman.depaul.edu/media/webapp/mrNews2.asp?NID=1655&ln=true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927185045/http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2462 to http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2462
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. 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
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentkeydates.html
*Added  tag to http://sherman.depaul.edu/media/webapp/mrNews.asp?NID=1630
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=2462
*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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. 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/20071114124931/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F09%2F24%2F1730205 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F09%2F24%2F1730205
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218115934/http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218115934/http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html
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) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. 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/20080301223055/http://www.counterpunch.org/dershowitz02262008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/dershowitz02262008.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205060254/http://counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html
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) 08:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 28 external links on Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair. 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/20080224053121/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812032510/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=50 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=50
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812032510/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=50 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=50
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320203834/http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/timeline/index.html to http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/oneday/html/timeline/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604214612/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1287 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1287
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231094329/http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html to http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314041913/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=126 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=126
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231094329/http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html to http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102645/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=112 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=112
*Added  tag to http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/06/11/depaul.professor.ap/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226182649/http://normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=6 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102051900/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/265611 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/265611
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613134037/http://counterpunch.org/finkelstein03032010.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein03032010.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226144754/http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2005/arkes.html to http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2005/arkes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031211163043/http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10112003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10112003.html
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193455201&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378347880&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215233541/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=49 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=49
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327143015/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=122 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=122
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208140322/http://leitrimproductions.net/ to http://leitrimproductions.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115190822/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=597 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=597
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115185727/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=665 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=665
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228133429/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=109 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=109
*Added  tag to http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/03/28/Opinion/Politics.Rip.Through.Columbia-2027977.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110191251/http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon11082006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon11082006.html
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1154526022655
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216000347/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=68 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=68
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1157913606877
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029062444/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=f9a541e5-0c9e-428e-baaf-d3d3157cf4f5 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=f9a541e5-0c9e-428e-baaf-d3d3157cf4f5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210005627/http://www.alandershowitz.com/index.php to http://www.alandershowitz.com/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231094329/http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html to http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224053121/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231105342/http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html to http://counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703134550/http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez04302007.html to http://counterpunch.org/menetrez04302007.html
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) 20:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * The article gives undue weigh and coverage to one side, in a violation of WP:NPOV and in a clear political way. A typical instance for this is note number 43, which is a piece written 5 years later by Mr. Finkelstein himself, among other examples. 
* The article's sections should be better divided and first provide the background, then Finkelstein's criticism of Dershowitz (which will cover all criticism), Dershowitz's responses (which will cover Dershowitz's direct response to those points) and vise versa, followed by a public reception section. It is messy, and seem to cover more than just their 2005 affair.
* There are multiple dead links, archived and highly political sites. 
Just putting the notice here in hopes someone will take the time to fix this.  
Shalom11111 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still NPOV issues in 2023. Added POV tag for now. إيان (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This old article is in a mess and has several issues