Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust Industry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

GThis is a very inaccurate description of Finkelstein's book. It is not about the things listed here, rather about the current practice of seeking reparations from European governments. Finkelstein claims it is nothing but extortion by major Jewish groups and that real Holocaust survivors are getting little. (Note that I didn't give my opinion about the book, I'm just saying that this page does not correctly describe it.) -- zero 03:41, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking of merging the holocaust industry article into the Norman G. Finkelstein article. It seems the term holocaust industry is merely Finkelstein's pet term, rather than a generally acknowledged subject. --Uncle Ed 19:13, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On second thought, since 10 out of the first 10 hits on Google were about Finkelstein or his book, why not put it all in The Holocaust Industry - which will be about the book, its claims, and its author? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, since Finkelstein has done other work, like his study of Joan Peter's Since Time Immemorial which revealed the flawed data the author used. -- Viajero 09:26, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

His book has been criticised by some other scholars as being exaggerated. Some people claim his book represents Holocaust Revisionism and anti-semitism. He denies these allegations.

Do these scholars have names? Did they put their opinions in print? If we don't include who they are and where they criticized the work, this information is next to useless. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. DanKeshet

A good point. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,343931,00.html mentions some of his critics of him and of his book and research. The ADL is another critic. I'll add the link.Leumi

This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism

Your constant accusations against me are ridiculous. If you want to change something do so and give a reason, but don't keep on just making base and untrue accusations against my own person. This is an encyclopedia, it is not a battleground. With your personal attacks it is you who is perpetrating vandalism.Leumi
My accusations are ridiculous? Do you deny that put the same 'Finkelstein has been accused of being a Holocaust Denier, Anti-Semite etc' in EVERY article related to Finkelstein. Do you deny calling Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier in the Palestinian Refugee revision history, Do you deny that you then claimed in the Norman Finkelstein talk page that ' I didn't say the accusations were true'.
First, what I say in my own comments and off the articles is irrelevant. Second, when I said "I did not say the accusations are true, I was referring to the fact that I did not say that they were true on the articles, simply that there were acussations. Furthermore, I respectfully request that you take this to the conflicts between users page, and I will now remove your personal attacks against me from the places you have spattered them. Might I also mention and ask if you deny placing the words, "This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism" on almost every page I post in? Move this to conflict between Users 81 and stop bothering people who want to legitimately debate.Leumi

(another probably-doomed attempt at compromise) Raul Hilberg is a respected Holocaust scholar; I think the quote should be there, just not at such length: it shouldn't contain more text than the rest of the article. Also, 81, if you're going to remove redundant information, please be consistent; you left the part about Finkelstein being the son of Holocaust survivors, yet trimmed the other bit. Why? Mirv 15:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. The quote is not too long, ther article is too short. That way to get a better balanced article is to add more information. theresa knott 15:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. Has anyone here actually read the book? That would be great. . . --Mirv 16:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that we should add stuff and am working on that now, but I think we should add substance, not just a long quote. The quote should be there, but not in such a long form and with other quotes, and I have fixed that by adding a quote section. I do agree we need to add more to the article. Also, I removed the "son of holocaust survivors" because, while I think that should be there, I don't think it should be there without the mention that accusations of negationism and anti-semitism have been made against him. As you said Mirv both are necessary. Either both are included or none are.Leumi 16:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

These two quotes :

"I believe he is pathetic. I simply don't accept him as a researcher." -Elan Steinberg, Executive Director of the World Jewish Congress

and

"His approach is totally destructive. I find it revolting." Greville Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust


Are IMO pretty crap. ES can think what they like but does this particular quote belong here? I mean the quote doesn't actually apear to be about the book. Same goes for the GJ quote. Can we not find something that explains why the approach is destructive etc? theresa knott 16:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think while you may have a point about the first EJ quote, the GJ one is about his book's approach, not him. So hence that should be kept. I will look for better quotes though. Thanks. Leumi 16:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This quote:

"His approach is totally destructive. I find it revolting."

Greville Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust

...is a bit short on evidence. WHAT is destructive about F's approach? WHY does GJ find it revolting?

Without answers to these questions, it's just as bad as Finkelstein accusing Dershowitz of "plagiarism" on the radio but pointedly:

  • refusing to define the term, and
  • refusing to give an example which backs up his (undefined) charge.

Is that what these intellectual big shots spend all their time doing? Just slinging mud at each other? It's not providing me with any food for thought... --Uncle Ed 22:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, that we should get more information on the specific aspects of where people object. I added a sentence clarifying the feeling of many American Jews on his accusation that they are not practicing "real Judiasm". I'm going to add more soon. Leumi 23:11, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi, I don't understand your last edit. You restored a rather contentless quote from Janner and shortened a reasoned one by Hilberg (???). And you deleted this URL without explanation: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id48.htm Perhaps you could find a more meaningful analysis than the one offered by Janner. -- Viajero 23:40, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to delete that quote. I was operating from an earlier version so it must have gotten lost in that. I think you might have made the same mistake when you deleted my sentence on the feelings of American Jewry to Finkelstein's claim that they are no longer practicing Judiasm. I feel the Janner quote holds meaning as it shows the opinions of people on the book. While a better quote should be added showing why this opinion exists (of which I am looking for), all relevant concise quotes from reputable sources are good to add. The Hilberg quote is too long, in my opinion, and hinders readability. I think it would be better to keep the main part of the quote that holds most of the substance, and I felt that my edit kept the main body of the quote while keeping it concise. I'm open to other ways to go about that, but I think we should limit the length of the quote in question. Your thoughts?Leumi 00:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi, it appears that you are reverting entire edits without considering the changes. Viajero's edit looked good and the only part of it you have justified adequately is the shortening of the quote, which you could have done without a blanket reversion. Daniel Quinlan 01:05, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I do think that specifying one of the institutions was a good idea, and added that back in. However, I disagreed with the other changes and feel this portrays more accuracy. Leumi 01:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi: This quote does nothing to describe or explain the controversy; it simply an unqualified personal opinion and as such has no place in an encyclopedia:

"His approach is totally destructive. I find it revolting." -Greville Janner, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust

Please do NOT re-enter it. Thank you. -- Viajero 02:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You state a valid point in saying the second half of the quote should be removed, which, having thought it over, I now agree with you on. But the first part, "His approach is totally destructive." is a reasonable critique of the book, by a respected public figure in chrage of a major institution. As such, I feel it should stay on there. Is that an acceptable compromise Viajero? Leumi 02:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi, no, because it still doesn't tell us anything useful. Destructive of what? Look, the Holocaust is a profoundly emotional issue; the only way to deal it here, in this context, is with cold, clean logic. Go and search the Net for a review of the book which has a rational critique of it, that addresses the substance of his argument. Then maybe you can up with a quote or two of substance. -- Viajero 02:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Hi, I've come back to this article after 11 hours and find that despite numerous edits in the meantime the article is hardly any different than when I left it. It seems to me that far too much time is being spent on agonizing over a few quotes. May I suggest that everyone stops editing the article for a while while they do some research? What this article needs is content and plenty of it. I cant help but feel that if we all put some time in researching rather than reverting we could get a much better article than it is now. What I would like to see is something like this:

Introduction :This book was written by blah blah
Arguments :In the book he argues -blah blah. Maybe a paragraph long per chapter , Peppered with a few extracts from the book to give it authenticiy.
Critisisms:A detailed critism of the book, (not just a couple of one line quotes.
Praise: Some quotes from people who like the book, or at least repect the book.


I know that's a lot to ask for at this stage but we could make a start. This agonising over a few woeds here and there on a pathetically short article is IMO a waste of time. If everyone worked towards creating a proper article rather than a stub, we could spend our time far more productively. --Theresa



I do agree it needs much more content. Why don't we save the argument on that particular quote for after we have more in the article in general? Perhaps with more information over all it will be less necessary. I've introduced a compromise on the wording Viajero objected to, of which I hope you find acceptable, and I agree that we should all be working together on this, instead of fighting each other. I like your idea Theresa. Leumi 03:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone here except me actually read the book. Doesn't look like it. --Zero 03:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you think that means we shouldn't be allowed to add to the article? With respect, I note that the book "From Time Immemorial" By Joan Peters, which you called "a notorious racist forgery" and made edits on is probably not a book you own either. We have the same right to edit this article as you have Zero. Leumi 03:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that people who don't know anything about a subject should refrain from writing on it (thanks for your admission, by the way). As for FTI, not only do I have a copy but I spent weeks tracking down its sources and comparing them to what is in the book. That's why I can call it a racist forgery on the basis of my own research and don't have to rely on the work of others who have come to the same conclusions. --Zero 04:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Bravo for your hard work then, though I disagree with your conclusions. And I apologize for thinking you had not done so. My mistake, and I apologize. However, as the book is a topic of major controversy and has been discussed at length in many public forums and hence knowledge about is now in the hands of not only its readers, I don't think your restrictions on who should be allowed to talk and write about it are applicable. As for my "admission" I fully admit that I haven't read it as of yet, and I never said otherwise. I don't quite think admission is the right word, as it wasn't anything that I was hiding, per say but suit yourself. :) Unlike in the articles, there's no rule against stating your opinion on the talk page after all. Leumi 04:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous one, you can't just strike out stuff that reflects badly on Finkelstein. Try reading this review; it acknowledges many of the book's points while stating that Finkelstein "presents his arguments as if he were a small and angry young child." --Mirv 17:54, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi all, I read the book the earlier this year, and I have my copy at hand. And I agree with Ed and Theresa, this is a miserable little article. However, at the moment, I for one don't have the time to expand it; my interest at this point is keeping Leumi from making it any worse. Leumi: I very much appreciate your diplomacy on these pages, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you are continually trying to insert highly partisan material. You obviously feel strongly about Jewish issues; that's fine, most of us here have our causes as well. But after you have been here awhile, you begin to realize that feeling strongly about a subject doesn't necessarily qualify one for being the best person to write about it; in fact, the opposite may be true. In this sense, we all try to help keep each other honest. If you want to continue editing such highly contentious topics as this one, fine; go ahead. But you better learn really quickly what neutral, encyclopedic writing means. In the meantime, I and probably a fair number of others here will be watching every edit you make. -- Viajero 18:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I feel that my edits have been, on the whole, consistent with the nature of neutrality. I have left in many cases the opposing view to be written by others who sympathize with it more in order so that they may have the right to express their views, but I don't feel that my language has been un-encyclopedic or non-neutral. However, I do thank you for your advice, and welcome you to follow any edits I make and contribute to them however you wish, as I doubt any of us will get it right the first time around, without help from our fellow Wikipedians. Also, I do take slight offense at the comment "my interest at this point is keeping Leumi from making it any worse". Even if you disagree with my edits, I think it unfair to single me out in the debate on the article. Even should I look at the matter from the eyes of someone who disagrees with my writing, I would hardly think I represent the only or even the most egregious example of non-neutral and un-encyclopedic writing. Having said that, I look forward to working with you on future articles and have no problem whatsoever with you monitering my edits. Thankyou. Leumi 21:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
(weighing in on the above wrangle, most of which should probably move over to Leumi's talk page, eh?) I don't agree with all of Leumi's edits, but he's shown a willingness to debate and work constructively, to respond to arguments in a thoughtful manner, and to avoid yelling and name-calling. The anonymous user (who, despite entreaties, refuses to log in) also involved in these Finkelstein-related edit wars, on the other hand, has slung mud, responded to talk page debates with incoherent sentence fragments that either refuse to address the issue raised (instead going off on completely irrelevant tangents) or attack someone personally, and does not understand the concepts of neutral language (see [1]; without a court judgement saying as much, "libel" is not neutral) or compromise (see [2], which s/he summarized as "compromise" despite being a revert to his/her earlier edit). It is unfair to single out Leumi; the anonymous fellow needs just as much attention. --Mirv 21:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I stand corrected. -- Viajero 21:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi again Leumi,

This is getting REALLY tiring. In your most recent edit [3] you added the following text:

and feed into the hands of Holocaust Deniers and anti-semites, who have quoted Finkelstein extensively (although he has not given any statements of support for these individuals)

Please, try to understand: this is not neutral. You don't supply any evidence that this has actually happened. What will it take to make you understand that this is not encyclopedic. I am reverting it. -- Viajero 21:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I reverted Leumi's last edit. It was blatant POV. Daniel Quinlan 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think you may have misconstrued what I wrote. If you read the full sentence that I added it to it states,
"Others have said that the ideas are contentious and feed into the hands of Holocaust Deniers and anti-semites, who have quoted Finkelstein extensively (although he has not given any statements of support for these individuals)."
The feelings of the opposition are not POV at all. They are simple facts. That Mr. Finkelstein has been quoted by Holocaust Deniers is also not an opinion either or even necessarily a judgement on him. It is simply also a fact, which I feel should be included. You will note that I also added the additional clarification that he has not made any statements of support for these individuals and furthermore I see no reason why this addition is necessarily POV. As the last thing anyone wants is an edit/reverting war, I'm not going to readd it right now. But I'd like your response to my explanation of the NPOV merits of the addition, so we can discuss this matter. Leumi 23:24, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Others have said that the ideas are contentious, and play into the hands of Holocaust Deniers and anti-semites'

I want to add something like "But this isn't a sensible reason to gag him" in a NPOV way. Can anyone help me out? theresa knott 16:05, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But I do not believe that this is a sensible reason to gag him would be an NPOV equivalent since it states a true fact about your beliefs with which no one who believes that you are telling the truth can disagree. -- Derek Ross

Or in a less personal vein, But there are those who do not believe that this is a sensible reason to gag him -- Derek Ross

How about "Others state that this is not sufficient reason to prevent the discussion of his views."? We can't really use the word "I" so that works better. It seems to work, no?Leumi 16:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Others" cries out for names, and there is already a lot of quoting. It seems to me blatently obvious that historians shouldn't keep quiet in order not to play into the hands of their "enemies". But is that just my POV showing through? theresa knott 16:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well of course it cries out for names, Theresa. Sometimes NPOV is harder work than at other times but the names should be available unless the original statement is truly a personal opinion unique to yourself (It isn't -- I agree with you and no doubt others do too). In which case "but I believe that" is exactly the phrase you need to use in order to flag that this belief depends on the reader's POV. It may not be good but it's better than stating your opinion as if it were a fact. -- Derek Ross

OK I've added it in but it wouldn't surprise me if it gets deleted. In the meabntime I'll try and get some names to support my beliefs. theresa knott 16:44, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I found this page -- the president of Georgetown speaking on the Finkelstein issue and coming out, cautiously, in favor of free speech over censorship of distasteful ideas. Maybe there's something worthwhile in there. --MIRV 18:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have to say this, but I will: maybe it will clear the air somewhat.

I have not read the book. I have only read (1) the Wikipedia article; (2) some of the talk; and (3) a few on-line reviews.

But I think it's safe to say that the author feels that a lot of people are exploiting the Holocaust for their own personal political and financial gain.

Whether this exploitation is real or not, whether it's as blatant as he says or he's exaggerationg, I have no idea.

But can we all agree to say that the book criticizes those who exploit the tragedy of the Holocaust for their own personal political and financial gain? --Uncle Ed 19:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. Interesingly, this debate has made me decide to read the book for myself. Secretlondon 19:48, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
I am considering that as well, although I do not agree with the others public statements and ideology at all. As for the "criticizes those who exploit the tragedy of the Holocaust..." I think we should add, as you said, something like "the auther claims" in the interests of NPOV. Also, I really don't think it's proper, to have an "I" sentence in an encyclopedia article. I mean, the encyclopedia is by definition a joint project between hundreds of individuals. How can we say "I" without implying a decision by all of these individuals. I think "Others" is sufficiently vague, and not necessarily requiring names, though if any were found it would be excellent to have them. Regardless of all that, I'm glad we're making so much progress turning this from a stub to a real article. What do you people think of the issues I've mentioned? Good? Bad? In between?Leumi 20:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I moved this text from the main page here... It makes no sense in an article.
But I believe that this is no reason for his ideas to be gagged.
Pfortuny 20:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: the controversial "Leumi's POV" bits: Named and attributed sources are always good; otherwise, it smacks of weaselry. --MIRV 21:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Finkelstein himself admits that "Critics allege that The Holocaust Industry promotes anti-Semitism." in the following page. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id69.htm This is not my view, this is the view of many individuals and groups as Finkelstein admits himself.Leumi 21:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough; however, there's nothing about Holocaust denial there, so unless there's a source for that, I would have to agree that it should be stricken. --MIRV 21:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi, it would help if you could back up what you're saying with some supporting evidence. If it's just you that thinks this is the case, then we can't exactly document it in the article. In addition, your phrasing is somewhat inflamattory and not NPOV. Something like this would be more neutral phrasing, however, I'm not even sure it's true:

Some American Jewish groups have expressed concerns that Finkelstein's presentation of Holocaust reparations help feed anti-semitic sentiment.

Again, you can only say that in the article if it's true and verifiable. Daniel Quinlan 21:50, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I'll look for quotes to corroborate the playing into Holocaust Denial thing, but until then, that works perfectly. I'll go with that.Leumi 22:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Just to make things clear, that assertion does not go back into the text until you present documentary evidence that this concern was legitimate and widespread. Documentary evidence in this case means news reports from centrist mainstream news media. Got it? -- Viajero 22:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Was that really necessary? I really resent this hostility you have here. Number one, if that's our standards, I hardly call "Counterpunch" Centrist mainstream media and it's been linked to countless times. Shall we remove those links as well? Number two, I think you've been rather rude of late in respect to reverting my edits, calling them "Leumi's POV" instead of a simple "non-NPOV" which is what you are saying. Why do you insist on constantly making it an attack against me? Please, stop turning this into an issue of personal vendettas, instead of a discussion and attempt to make this into an article inclusive of all perspectives. If you disagree with something, state why on the talk page and let's discuss it civilly! Why go into a pattern of accusations and attacks that benefit nobody? Thankyou, and I hope we can get along in the future.Leumi 22:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think you anwered Viajero's question. If someone disagrees with you, it isn't a personal attack..
I didn't say it was. But calling a perfectly legitimate academic perspective "Leumi's POV" instead of debating it on merits is.Leumi 22:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(Not really fair to call it a "perfectly legitimate academic perspective" without referencing the perfectly legitimate academic source, is it?) Second, someone needs to read the book and summarize its contents right quick-like. Secretlondon is starting, I'm about halfway through it, Zero has finished it; race you to write decent chapter and argument summaries? (I'm not going to edit the article again until I finish the book.) --MIRV 22:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following quote is something we've been having some trouble with and I'm moving it to talk so we can avoid continuing the edit war:

":When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

I think that the quote, while a good idea to include, shouldn't be included in it's entirety, as it is too long, quite repetitive and the second half deals more with Finkelstein than the actual book. I proposed we include this part of the quote which holds the most important content:

"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track."

What does everybody think? Let's talk this through in Talk.Leumi 22:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how the second half deals more with Finkelstein than the book. It's impossible to talk about a book without mentioning the name of the author.
Actually it's not impossible, but that's irrelevant for the moment. :) The second half talks about the author's views, as it states that he is, "conservative" "moderate" "a well-trained political scientist" "has the ability to do research" etc. As you can see, it is discussing Finkelstein, and while it might have a spot on his biography, it shouldn't here.Leumi 22:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's not discussing Finkelstein on his own, it's discussing Finkelstein in the context of the book. It talks about Finkelstein's 'breakthough', which means his book, not his personal life.
I disagree. On the whole, it's discussing Finkelstein himself, and may have a place in Norman Finkelstein but not here. Leumi 23:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can you tell me how "I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough," is not about his book?
Can you tell me how "he was actually conservative, moderate" and "a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research," involve the book? Look, perhaps a different shortening of the quote is required? How about this for a compromise?
"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track...I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."
I think that keeps all the relevant parts on the book while taking out parts irrelevant. And might I add I'm glad we're talking about this instead of reverting constantly. This is much more effective. :) What do you think of the compromise?Leumi 23:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think you answered my question, so I'll ask again: Can you tell me how "I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough," is not about his book? What about, "I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results."? What does he mean by 'in retrospect' - he means 'after i have read this book'. What does he mean by 'he was actually conservative, moderate'. Notice he uses 'was' - meaning the writing of his book. What does he mean by ' and that his conclusions are trustworthy' - he means the conclusions in the book. The whole quote is about the book.
First, please don't put your response in the middle of mine. Second, you will note that I did include "I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough," in my compromise proposal, having noted what you pointed out. So I think that answers your question. Third, all of that is still discussion about him, not about the book and should go on the biography page. In fact, by cluttering the quote with unnecessary matters, you make it less readable and in fact damage your perspective. I've made a perfectly reasonable proposal to compromise and answered your questions.Leumi 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't answered it, you've avoided it. Not only that, but you've avoided my other points. Your idea of compromise is that everyone should agree with you, and if they don't it's a 'personal attack'. The Cry Wolf business is wearing a little thin. I'll repeat my arguments one by one The part of the quote: "I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results."

  • 'in retrospect' - he means 'after i have read this book'
  • 'he was actually conservative, moderate'. 'was' - meaning the writing of his book.
  • 'and that his conclusions are trustworthy' - he means the conclusions in the book. He is not talking about Finkelstein's childhood.
Look, frankly speaking, I'm tired of arguing this one little issue so much. I disagree it's about the book. I think that it's irrelevant here. But, taking a step back for a moment, I'm also beginning to think that it's not that important. Put in the whole text, because I don't want this to spark another edit war or anything of the sort, and I realize we're not going to arrive to a conclusion. I just hope you display the same willingness to compromise in the future. I wish we had come to a true compromise here, but since we're obviously not and it doesn't represent that big a deal, I'll concede for this one point. I hope you can be more flexible next time. Leumi 23:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your attitude is totally unacceptable, and I'm very dissapointed, shocked, and appalled by your behavior. Rather than attempt to answer my questions, you have studiously avoided them (twice). You then try and say that I should compromise, when you haven't even attempted to answer my points. Please do not lecture me on compromise when you have not even entered into a debate.
I have entered into debate, repeatedly, and just because you refuse to recognize the validity of my remarks does not mean that I have not addressed them. I have made absolutely every effort to compromise, be accomodating and considerate, and now I even state that I will not press the issue further and concede the point on this issue and yet you persist in being needlessly critical, rude, and all in all lacking in the least semblances of tact and respect for concept format of debate and other people's perspectives. I have been civil and reasonable in every respect and you have answered this with attacks, insults and hostility at every turn, even when I am no longer contesting the issue.Leumi 00:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


A couple of comments:
  • Would the anon user please sign his/her comments. It makes reading the debate extremely difficult if we have to go to the history to work out who said what.You don't need to use your real name - any nickname will do.
  • Secondly you two obviously have some sort of history, which i don't know about, nor do I intend to go into. It is clear to me though that Leumi is trying their best to be cooperative, and doesn't deserve this sort of hounding.That is nothing wrong with passionately arguing your point, but there is no need to be hostile.theresa knott 09:50, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Other holocausts

Does Finkelstein mention other groups like Armenians, Ukranians and Cambodians who have suffered large massacres? (The word 'genocide' may or may not apply, depending on how one defines the term.)

3/4 of all Armenians, 1/3 of all Cambodians, and just as many Ukranians (by Stalin) as Jews (by Hitler) -- and no one (contends Finkelstein) ever says that THOSE people ought to have special rights or consideration. --Uncle Ed 23:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He specifically complains about the minimization, or even denial, of the Armenian genocide (p. 70, 255); also, being Norman I-Wish-I-Were-Noam-Chomsky Finkelstein, he constantly rages against U.S. military actions -- the death toll in Vietnam and elsewhere comes up a few times. --MIRV 03:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Page is protected

While the page is protected, let's discuss proposed changes here.


Finkelstein further believes that many American Jews are not practicing Judaism but have replaced it with fund-raising for Jewish causes, a charge that has been condemned as encouraging anti-semitic stereotypes.


I would like to change this to Finkelstein further believes that many American Jews have replaced actively practicing judaism with fund-raising for Jewish causes, a charge that has been condemned by the (pro-Israel advocacy group) ADL as anti-semitic. Finkelstein rebutts the ADL's claim by saying that "It is primarily the ruthless and reckless tactics of the Holocaust industry that foment anti-Semitism"[4] theresa knott 12:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a bit difficult because the ADL is both an advocacy group against anti-semitism and against anti-Zionism. So it wouldn't be fair to just call them pro-Israel. I think it would be ok if we don't give any blurb on what the ADL is, but let the reader follow the link. (And find out some juicy details - like them giving awards to antisemites that have the redeeming quality of being pro-israel.) --snoyes 17:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Derek Ross
Also agreed -- explicit characterization of either side is unnecessary; let the reader decide. Also (to Theresa): Finkelstein has called that particular ADL attack "character defamation" (THI, 209), a description with which I agree. --MIRV 17:29, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK then how about this - Finkelstein further believes that many American Jews have replaced actively practicing judaism with fund-raising for Jewish causes, a charge that has been condemned by the ADL as anti-semitic. Finkelstein has called this ADL attack a "character defamation" and has rebutted it by saying that "It is primarily the ruthless and reckless tactics of the Holocaust industry that foment anti-Semitism"[5] theresa knott 19:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Why is this page protected? Who protected it? Is there some sort of dispute going on, regarding this page?

Does anyone object to the CONTENTS of my last few edits?

Does anyone think it's UNFAIR that I exercised my power to continue editing, while non-administrators were blocked from editing?

Anyone want me to go jump in a lake, and stay away from the article AND this talk page?

--Uncle Ed 19:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection log for who protected it, and Wikipedia:Protected page for reasons. Unless your question was a rhetorical one, in which case I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously it is unfair to others that were not involved that also want to edit but don't have any admin powers like you do. Why don't you just unprotect it if you want to edit it? --snoyes 19:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I can unprotect it? (A faint smacking sound is heard, and a quick glance toward Ed shows his hand rapidly receding from the vicinity of his forehead; apparently he hadn't thought of that :-) Okay, I will! --Uncle Ed 19:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe I should talk to Angela first... --Uncle Ed 19:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well I don't think that this page needs to be protected. Yes there has been an edit war, but progress is being made. Angela protected a number of pages at once. I have no opinion on the other pages just this one. theresa knott 19:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if it is all the same, I would prefer that the page is not unprotected for the time being, as I indicated on Wikipedia:Protected page. Unless we have a unified way deal with Leumi, the situation will repeat itself: he will try to insert is pro-Israel bias and I (and hopefully others) will revert it, and we will get nowhere. Despite the good will he expresses on the Talk pages, he has not given the slighest indication he understands what NPOV is. -- Viajero 22:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Viajero, I resent this. You speak as if I'm the only problem here. The fact is that I am trying to bring balance to Wikipedia just like you are. We may disagree on what constitutes that, but both of our intentions are good. Furthermore, my edits have been NPOV. You've reverted many of them because you don't believe in the perspectives I've brought up, but they are legitimately expressed by many individuals. I don't say, "This is the way it is" for what I write, I say, "Many people, such as so and so and so, think this is the way it is." Frankly, I think it's very NPOV to say that the perspectives I bring up are illegitimate, while the perspectives you do are not. (Your refusal to consider Daniel Pipes as a source as one example, and you're instance of keeping in that the refugees were forcefully removed when in fact that is a claim being another.) Also, I think it's slightly hypocritical, with respect, to demand that what you disagree with be taken out, but when I request what I disagree with to be taken out for discussion, you claim that it's illegitimate. I don't appreciate you viewing me as some sort of a troll or fool here. I follow the rules of NPOV just as you do. I simply add perspectives that you don't like. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, alongside opposing ones. An encyclopedia shouldn't only portray one sides views. I'm trying to contribute to NPOV here, not damage it and it doesn't help things when you talk about "a unified policy on Leumi" as if I represent the only major problem on this issue. Respectfully, I think I am not the only one who
should consider the meaning of NPOV. Leumi 23:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Earlier talk: Archive 1

Without prejudice to the issue, it is the Neutrality Policy of this website to describe each major point of view (i.e., "POV") on controversial issues. Clearly, the origin, living conditions and destiny of Palestinian refugees is a Controversial Issue. Several authors publishing in English have expressed views on this subject.

Agree with me so far? It doesn't matter whether /I/ endorse the views of the ADL, Arafat, Begin, Chomsky, Daniel Pipes, Finkelstein, Hilberg, Janner, Peters, Steinberg, or anyone else. If they or their views are popular, we had better mention their views in the article.

That doesn't mean we have to endorse anyone's view: the Wikipedia is not going to say:

  • they were forced from their homes; or,
  • they left their homes voluntarily

Rather it will say, it MUST say, that Writer X says they were forced from their homes and that Writer Y says they lef their homes voluntarily.

Our job is not to settle controversies, it's to describe them. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you Ed for your beacon of light in the haze of darkness. However, I would like to make the following points:
  • Given the polemical nature of the subject matter, we will make it especially difficult for ourselves if we include extremist standpoints, at least in the beginning. Can we aim for the mainstream in the spectre of opinion please? I would consider mainstream Jewish-American opinion best represented by the New York Times (although of course it is not presented as such), not the ADL or a similar outfit.
  • If Leumi insists on including viewpoints which are extremist to those of us who are not Jewish and have no great sympathy for the aims of the Israeli state, than I insist that they are labelled as such. That means calling a spade a spade, in accurate, neutral language. If Leumi disagrees with our labels, he can say so on the Talk page, and we can discuss it further, but I would like his word that he will not unilaterally modify or delete these labels from the articles. This issue is vitally important to me because I feel that Leumi doesn't yet understand that sources such Pipes and the ADL are highly partisan and must be presented as such. That being said, I appreciate that Finkelstein is radical for many American Jews people and he should likewise be clearly labelled as such.
  • By the same token, if Leumi inists that we include mention of From Time Immemorial in the refugee article (which I am not in favor of), that Leumi accepts whatever context we come up with to make abundantly clear that outside of conservative Jewish circles the book is widely considered to be discredited.
  • Finally, I would like to ask Leumi to indicate he understands the issues above by reverting as a gesture of good faith the following edit to Norman Finkelstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Norman_Finkelstein&oldid=1910085 (Removed non-neutral phrasing. ADL is not a pro-israel advocacy group.)
If Leumi agrees with the above and reverts the edit, I will withdrawl my request on Protected Pages, Angela can unprotect the pages, and we can continue editing them. For my part, these articles don't have to be perfect, just acceptable. -- Viajero 19:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've seen several mentions of the New York Time's scathing review of The holocaust industry but have been unable to find the actual review anywhere on the web. Can anyone source this article for me ? theresa knott 08:32, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Zero, do you have access to it? -- Viajero 09:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Go to nytimes.com and create a user account and log into it (this is free). Then search for "Norman Finkelstein" making sure you select "since 1996" as the time period. What you are looking for is a review by Omar Bartov on Aug 6, 2000. The full text is there. It is very vitriolic. Also possibly of interest is a news article on Feb 8, 2001, but that one is pay-per-view ($2.95). --Zero 11:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Zero I will do that. theresa knott 12:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well it seems even the Bartov review is pay per view now. I'm not prepared to pay for it so never mind. theresa knott 13:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I've found it now. Thanks again.theresa knott 13:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Here is the URL if anyone else is interested: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1DF163DF935A3575BC0A9669C8B63 -- Viajero 14:08, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yikes, that is quite a diatribe! Personally, I think the tone undermined the message. What do you all think, is it worth trying to extract a quote or summarize? Maybe something like this?:
In a highly critical review in the NYT, Omar Bartov said the book was filled with "shrill hyperbole" and dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory [...] both irrational and insidious."
Anyone else want to try? -- Viajero 14:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am in the process of re-reading it for the third time, with a view to extract a quote but it's difficult. There are no obvious "soundbites" and the sarcastic tone makes it even harder. I'll have a go later.

Sorry for the delay in answering, I was slightly ill recently and only just got to the computer. Viajero, while I appreciate your compromise offer and I hope we can reach one, I don't think you're speaking accurately when you state the view is represented only in "conservative jewish circles". I am willing to say "conservative circles", as that seems to be more accurate. Furthermore the ADL is an extremely respected organization, and Mr. Pipes is, while controversial (and should be mentioned as such, no more so than Norman Finkelstein, who is considered a radical in many circles, by no means limited to Jewish ones. Within your perspective, the ADL may be viewed as radical, but I hope you recognize this is not the mainstream opinion by any means. I do agree we should mention the controversial nature, in some people's views, of all these groups, however, and I hope we can come to an acceptable manner of doing so.Leumi 16:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi - can you make a suggestion for how to describe the ADL ? I have no knowlege of them, I am not jewish, not American, not a follower middle eastern politics. In one sentence or less describe to me what the ADL is all about. theresa knott 10:08, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League may help. One interesting controversy is regarding them giving an award to Silvio Berlesconi, for his support for Israel, despite the fact that the far-right are part of his coalition government. Shooting yourself in the foot, really. There have also been allegations connected with anti-apartheid groups and work with the security services. Secretlondon 10:21, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Sectretlondon but you've missunderstood my motives.(My fault for being too literal) I've read the ADLpage but I'm trying to get leumi to describe the ADL in a way that other users can live with. If they aren't a "pro isreal advocacy group" what are they ? (The question is for leumi)theresa knott 10:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why specifically Leumi? Is she/he any less partisan on the issue? And why is there even a need to describe them if we have a whole article describing them? The first sentence from ADL describes them: The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an American organization set up by B'nai B'rith that fights anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, racism, bigotry, and various forms of political extremism through an array of programs and services. As I've mentioned before, simply describing them as "pro-Israel" is wrong, because they are pro-Israel among other things. --snoyes 19:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why describe them here at all? The reader can always click on Anti-Defamation League if they don't know what sort of group it is. That's what the links are there for. Otherwise, we'd drown in a sea of labels: The notorious right-wing extremist Mr. A calls the well-known center-left writer Mr. B "a far-left zealot" and stuff like that. Better to say that A regards B as "a far left zealot" and let people follow the links if they really want to get into it. --Uncle Ed 19:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Someone suggested just this solution over at Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, but it bears mentioning again: when there's a controversy over labeling, let the reader decide. Otherwise, you might end up with something like this: "The ADL, which Commentator X calls a "radical pro-Israel advocacy group", and Commentator Y characterizes as a "moderate civil-rights group", and Commentator Z thinks is a "front for our Reptiloid slavemasters", says. . ." -- it just ends up looking silly. --MIRV 19:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
But they _are_ a front for our Reptiloid slavemasters! --snoyes 19:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand that we have to have an inclusive attitude towards viewpoints, but to completely dispense with qualifications... I don't know. Ok, for the ADL, we have an article. But say I come up with a bizarre claim in quote from a book by some obscure writer no one has ever heard of. I insist this POV is included. What are you going to do? There is no article on this book or writer in the encyclopedia. You are not allowed to label it, ie, say it is of an obscure historian, or it is a minority POV. The onus will then be on YOU to refute with documentary evidence, which may be easy or may take a major effort -- like going to the library and spending hours looking at microfilm. If we are lucky, we end up with a mishmash of competing quotes. If not, the article ends up some some extreme, completely unqualified assertion hanging there in bare space. I completely agree, let the reader decide. But readers also need guideposts, and this is especially so the further one gets off the beaten path. In an article on a Latin American subject, I wouldn't refer to a rebel group without offering the reader some kind of context, ie, a "Maoist insurgency group" or something, so that reader can evaluate the information that is presented. Obviously this is an editorial decision, which can be debated, but I don't think the device should be simply be discarded as such. The examples given above are a gross parody of how it could and should be done.

Also, as I said to Ed a day or two ago, I strongly believe that even though Wikipedia is not paper a Wikipedia article should be an organic whole; one should be able to print it out and have the integral story on that sheet of paper. Links are pointers toward additional information, not for supplying essential information. Obviously, this results in duplication of information, and from Ed's point of view this is inelegant engineering, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not programming a computer. -- Viajero 21:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for the late response. For the duration of this weekend I'm only going to be able to post sporadically due to a rather annoying infection. As for how to describe the ADL, "an organization whose stated goal is combatting anti-semitism and bigotry (though some accuse it of being overly politically partisan.)" Does that work for you? The majority of the description should go on the Anti-defamation League page, I agree, though a short description alongst the lines of the one Ijust descrbied should be included. Thoughts?Leumi 22:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What about the "fighting anti-Zionism" bit? This omission seems rather partisan. --snoyes 22:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A good point. It should be added in. "an organization whose stated goal is combatting anti-semitism, anti-zionism and bigotry" Thanks for reminding me. Any other suggestions? We might also add, as a different sentence in this case, "some accuse it of being politically partisan." That's up in the air though, as the including of anti-Zionism might take care of that. Leumi 22:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
By the look of this section on its website, "Advocating for Israel" http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/ , the ADL most definitely positions itself as a pro-Israel advocacy. -- Viajero 16:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It seems to me that if they "fight anti zionism" then it's reasonable to say they are "pro zionist" can everyone live with that? Also leumi could you please take another look at Viajero's proposal above where he asks you to revert an edit to Norman Finkelstein. If you agreeable to the revert, go ahead and do so, if not say that you will not revert and we can move on to another possible solution. I am very keen to see this page unprotected. There are a number of edits I wan't to make, plus several other wikipedians are reading the book as we speak and will probable want to edit. theresa knott 09:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

2003-12-15 There is no french-speaking page for this book (a later fr:L’Industrie de l’Holocauste ?), so I write here a french review : Dominique Vidal, « Ambiguïtés », Le Monde diplomatique, avril 2001, http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/04/VIDAL/15104 .


Finkelstein's anger dissipates - but hits home as well!

Finkelstein's concentrated burst of anger takes in many personal dislikes, and seeks to settle many personal scores. These aside, the book has one, towering message - the misappropriation of moral leverage that victimhood empowers. Finkelstein slays those that use this leverage to extract all kinds of monetary recompense, political advantage, 'trinket-selling in the Temple'. He blasts those that use the political sympathy - the memory of the 6,000,000 dead - to questionable, selfish ends. He has nothing but scathing - an excoriating, shrill voice - for those that descend to a kind of 'competitive victimhood' - a cat-calling "our bad-times, our trials are so much worse than yours - how can you even begin to compare yourselves with us?!?!?" Competitive victimhood so cheapens, so undermines, so dims the memory of the 6,000,000. The message from Finkelstein is loud and clear: no more shall the memory of the 6,000,000 be misappropriated, diluted, weakened, shamed! Never again shall the memory of the 6,000,000 be brought so low! Never again!

Criticism

NPOV means that the reviews section should mention the fact that most leading scholars rejected the book. (The word "leading" is necessary since there is no way of knowing about all reviews or comments published in obscure publications.) Also it should obviously quote Bartov's review that by any account was very significant. (This includes Finkelstein's own account.) --Denis Diderot 15:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be much better simply to note that there was a mixed critical reaction. I would be happy to add specific references to other critical reviews if you have any in mind, but the vague assertion that "most leading scholars reject [the book]" is a violation of NPOV and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. In the case of contentious issues relating to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, there is clearly very little consensus as to who consitutes a "leading scholar". For this reason, it is not NPOV for Wikipedia to make vague references to this class of people. Cadr 10:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"It would be much better simply to note that there was a mixed critical reaction." No. Because this is very misleading. Who is a "leading scholar"? Is it always POV to use this term? Then why don't you have any problem with this: "Raul Hilberg, leading Holocaust historian"? Though I agree with you that unspecified references to "leading scholars" or "leading historians" (more precise) may be dangerous and POV, they are not inherently so. In this case, for example, it's very unproblematic. If you can find a large number of postitive reviews by scholars, that by any reasonable definition may be called "leading", then please let me know. But if you have a problem with the label "leading", then how about using some other phrase that conveys the same thing instead of simply reverting back to the old misleading and biased version?
The main evidence for the claim is the absence of positive reviews in scholarly journals. Here is some additional evidence:
Peter Novick , emeritus professor of history at the University of Chicago: "Novick stated that Finkelstein is distorting the facts [...] and "displays a paranoid belief in some sort of global conspiracy of the Jewish elites in the U.S."
Prof. Israel Guttman, formerly the chief historian of Yad Vashem: "This is not research; it isn't even political literature,"
Prof. Michael Brenner, who teaches Jewish history and culture at Munich University: "There is a nucleus of justified claims in the book, including the stuff about the compensation issue, the lack of transparency of the Jewish organizations that are handling the matter, and the Holocaust obsession of the American Jewish establishment. Nevertheless, in order to gain a proper understanding of these claims, Novick's book was definitely enough. Finkelstein's style only makes it harder to accept these claims," says Brenner.
Prof. Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev: "He has not published any research to date that might be called a ground-breaking contribution. Essentially, the only book he published in the field is a collection of articles he wrote over the years, which do not make any unique contribution either, except for an interesting analysis of some research studies by other scholars," says Morris.
"Incidentally, in one article he also critiques my book 'Birth of the Refugee Problem,' claiming that I did not draw all of the appropriate conclusions regarding the State of Israel from the facts that I myself reveal in my book. My impression is that he is more of a pro-Palestinian propagandist than a serious scholar."
The German historian Prof. Hans Momsen: "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices."
Omer Bartov, Professor of History and European History at Brown University : "This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that "The Holocaust" will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious."
Steven J. Zipperstein, director of the program in Jewish Studies at Stanford University:"Imagine an old-style, sectarian rant, with its finely honed ear for conspiracy, with all the nuance of one's raging, aging, politicized uncle. Put it in a lovely, beautifully printed volume, place a respectable left-wing imprint on its title page and you have, in effect, Norman G. Finkelstein's new book."
--Denis Diderot 11:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You list eight negative reviews by professors of history. Now, unless the number of leading historians in the world is less than 16, the statement in the current revision of this page is incorrect. Presumably, you do not mean what you say literally, as suggested by your argument that "the main evidence for the claim is the absence of positive reviews in scholarly journals". So, I suggest that at the very least you use a more literal turn of phrase. For example, "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative", or "a number of prominent [less POV than "leading"] historians have written largely negative reviews". I'd accept this wording for the moment, but not necessarily indefinitely — we have to be very careful about these most/many/largely/etc. statements, since they're almost impossible to verify objectively. I expect you think the first sentence of this comment is pedantic, but we have to be pedantic here: we can't just say "most this" and "many that" without some pretty strong justification. Why not just list these negative reviews (in a more compact form) rather than making such generalisations? It would probably get your point across far more effectively than the borderline weasel-wording in the current revision. Cadr 19:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No they are not eight negative reviews. Most of them are comments made by the researchers when they were asked by a journalist what they thought about the book. It probably comes as a surprise to you, but History is a well established academic discipline. Respected historians don't generally make things up as they go along. When 8 leading historians make unusually negative judgments about a book, certainly some other historians may disagree, but the notion that the next 9 leading historians asked would disagree substantially is completely implausible. Your suggestion that "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative" and your presumption that I don't mean what I say literally, indicate to me that you probably don't understand how the system works. If some academic writes a book full of nonsense, for example claiming that the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conventional bombs, you shouldn't expect to find that "reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative". The only reviews you would find would probably be in "Journal of the Yellow Danger" or similar publications, as well as perhaps a few successful placements by proponents of the thesis (or friends of the author) in "scholarly" journals without proper quality control. (I'm not in anyway implying by this example that Finkelstein's book is full of nonsense, I'm just trying to make the point as clear as possible.) It is instructive in this regard to make a comparison with Novick's book which was published a year earlier. Novick's book was also controversial and was severely criticized by some reviewers, but it was treated with respect as a scholarly contribution. It was reviewed in a number of reputable journals, such as American Historical Review and Journal of American History. Finally you haven't explained why you don't think a quote from Bartov's review should be included. Bartov is a generally respected researcher, the review was published in the New York Times Book Review, and according to Finkelstein it was very important for the reception of his book in the US. --Denis Diderot 10:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
You didn't source your quotes so I presumed they were from articles. It makes no essential difference where the comments come from anyway. Just say, "several prominent historians have been critical of the book" (with a list of the names if you like, and a few example comments). How about that? I have to say, if these are just offhand comments from these historians and not actual reviews, they have very little merit as actual criticisms, but I have no objection to including them. I totally agree with you that the fact that the book has been ignored to a large extent is significant, but I'm not sure we can reallly work that into the criticisms section -- best to stick with actual criticisms and not speculate as to why historian X or Y has not reviewed it. Re Bartov, I don't have any objection to his quote being included. If I've given any other impression I apologise, but I've never actually been against any particular quote being included.
Re literal interpretation, you can't possibly have meant what you said literally, simply because you didn't qualify "leading historian" in any way. (I assumed that you meant something like "leading historians with an interest in Jewish history/the Nazis/the Holocaust", but you didn't say so in the article, and once you start trying to define this class of historians things get more slippery.).Cadr 10:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello there, just wanted to say I added some information about Raul Hilberg on the page. All the stuff I added was simply taken from other Wikipedia articles -- it seems fairly NPOV to me.

In my view, mentioning for any book that "most leading experts praise/condemn it", without explaining how they condemn it, is the equivalent to 'argument by authority' in rhetoric. There is simply no reason in an article to make a generalized statement like that, except to assure the reader that 'people in the know' think you shouldn't pay attention to it--which is why people find it POV. This neither means that people can't be cited, nor does it mean you can't say make comments about 'leading experts' and 'most people in the field', because those comments can be relevant in instances. In this case, it would be made relevant if there was spelled out a reason in the same sentence why its rejected. But in this case, its hard to do, because the different historians that user:Dennis Diderot quotes actually say different things. Hans Momsen, for instance, just mentions that the book is trivial and that people who are anti-semitic will find it appealing; while others call the facts distorted. some of those critics call Finklestein a fanatic, others just call him unoriginal. it might be fair to say that "this book was poorly recieved by most scholars on Jewish history"--although one would have to mention that the author of that major book on the Holocaust supported Finklestein. 'This is my point': I actually disagree with the bad and extreme interpretations of the NPOV policy, which call for everything it deems a 'mainstream opinion' (which can be POV itself) to be outlined. This method doesn't help Wikipedia, its just as easy to be mired in a POV article based on attempts to report what mainstream views are, subject to equally distorted revisions. But I also think Wikipedia should try to be NPOV and unbiased. That means however, more than a knee-jerk referral to the NPOV policy (like knee-jerk referrals to rhetorical terms like argument by authority, btw). It means there needs to be less meta-discussion, and more actual discussion of the real subject of the article. In a way, I think an article has to be formed like an argument, which can be badly formed. If its badly formed, it could be because of POV, like a badly formed argument can appeal to authority. However, it doesn't mean an article has to list every opinion--in fact there are some articles where it is better if reports of any opinions at all are left out, because they aren't very relevant and often distracting to the article as a description of the subject. But people think they can avoid discussion of the facts by meta-discussing the politics of the facts---to avoid arguments. It doesn't work. Brianshapiro

Category:Holocaust denial

Why is this article in that category? Whatever we may think of Finkelstein or this book (and I tend to accept the world of the numerous historians who think it's dubious), it simply isn't a book of holocaust denial. As far as I am aware, it is not arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that standard accounts of it are wrong, or that there weren't any gas chambers, or whatever. Would it be acceptable to remove this category? john k 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

At no point does Finkelstein claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. He is not a historical revisionist or a denier. He is saying that certain inviduals and organisations within the Jewish community (a minority of Jewish people) are using the holocaust as a way of milking their host gentile populations for reparations.Also that the holocaust is often used as a political weapon by certain Jewish people and organisations. What he says is true and can be seen happening on a daily basis in America. At no point does he say this behaviour is engaged in by a majority of Jews or deny the Holocaust took place, its a small minority of scheming hand rubbing money obsessed people of Jewish descent that are the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.115.225 (talk • contribs)
Well I guess it's because some people think that slightest criticism, questioning, or deviation from Holocaust Orthodoxy equals Holocaust denial... In any case, to my knowledge, Finkelstein doesn't deny the Holocaust. He is simply critical of how it has been handled by politically influential Jews. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes. Corrected the misleading impression that his parents were combatants in WW2. This is worth remarking on since Finkelstein has come under attack for bringing the subject up and relates details of his parents experience in the book.

Inserted a key theme of the book that wasnt really touched on- the claim that the Holocaust is used as a 'shield or 'alibi' for activity by Israel/Zionist. Tidied up some references and quoted from Omer Bartov in context- the 'Protocols' point is one that was repeated elsewhere by other critics if memory serves. A more substantial rebuttal from Finkelstein might also be worth including but I think the collection of articles on his site that is linked to works just as well. DJSemtex 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust_Industry/Archive_1&oldid=251510775"