Talk:Norman Finkelstein

Adding popular interview with Finkelstein to external links or videos section

September 2020 interview with Finkelstein has over 16k views on youTube and more views on the interviewers website. The interview is titled "How true academic freedom creates intellectual conflict" Finkelstein talks about his career and why he struggled to conform to academia.

I would like to add

• Interview with Norman Finkelstein, "How True Academic Freedom Creates Intellectual Conflict" September 2020

GA Reassessment

Norman Finkelstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A controversial figure; difficult to write a GA about. Article has not been maintained to standards since 2007:

• The lead dedicates no time to his views or academic work, but an entire paragraph to two incidents in 2007/2008
• Contains overly long quotes throughout the article. Many from Finkelstein himself, giving me some NPOV concerns
• One cn tag.
• Too many external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, not great. There are a huge number of quotes sourced directly to Finkelstein himself, making them primary with no real sense of the appropriate weight for the extracts established in secondary sources. A large volume of material is self-published on his personal website. To produce a B-class article, let alone a GA status article, this page would basically need to be half-scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Like many GAs listed in 2007, it is not worthy of the status. Definitely one for delisting. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[126] "Dershowitz and Finkelstein: comrades at heart?". The Electronic Intifada. June 28, 2013. Retrieved October 4, 2020.

As the now former footnote was from a deprecated source and concerning BLP (RFC: Electronic Intifada), I have temporarily removed it. If there is an alternative reliable source, I do not disagree with someone re-adding the source. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein's Parents

The article, in the Early life and education section describes Finkelstein's mother as a pacifist and both provided links are broken. However, in a recent interview on Al Jazeera with Marc Lamont Hill, he describes both his parents as ardent, lifelong Stalinists. The interview is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNr_ro97MI Kasablanket (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We need secondary reliable sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. His interview on Al Jazzeera is not a secondary source. JimRenge (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 112

Per this RFC, the use of Mondoweiss on controversial topics and BLP is not optimal. Is there a better citation for the sourced claim? FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It would be more helpful if you actually described your issue with the source rather than just waving at an RFC that doesn't prohibit its use in this case. Parabolist (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, thank you for your response.

Per this RfC: that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people.

While the other uses are covered by aboutself or acceptable for other reasons, 112 was not. Based on the person, the source and the topic, I was BOLD, reflecting my understand of the limited permissibility of fringe source citations for BLP. In my opinion, the other uses are (at least with the current close) acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The RFC allows use with caution. You haven't actually explained the problem with the usage here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a rather critical review of Finkelstein (though while I am not generally opposed to those, being not ‘radical‘ enough is definitely the rarer type of criticism). The content is harmless - and if I recall, there is a video somewhere, though I couldn’t find it - and isn‘t the primary concern: I’m a lot more concerned about citing non-experts (and basically reprinted) SPS/statements about a BLP, and would prefer if we just got the content from him directly. FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

So your issue is that you think the source is "basically reprint[ing]" his words, and the solution is that you want the words from him directly? Seems like the source is exactly what you want? Parabolist (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The most important issue is the other stuff inside the article, such as:

• the tag as „activism“ (compared to other tags, such as „news“
• the use of non-expert non-journalists to make a claim about BLP, something that should be avoided in cases that are equivalent or worse than Wikipedia:RSEDITORIAL in combination with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, mentioning This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.
• for this person and topics (see this talk page), the standard is rightly higher than usual, him being a highly controversial BLP (see also, the recent RSN discussion) active in one of the most controversial issues of our time. An argument can be made for inclusion (and was made below), but saying „ah it’s probably fine“ is not the standard for BLP, we need a source reliable for BLP or a selfsource, particularly based on the mix of aggregating circumstances.

The redeeming factor here, as stated by @Aquillion below, is that the actual claim is so mild that all of those concerns can be ignored in favour of a „this is so minor it isn’t an issue“ style approach, which probably can be covered by 'great caution, if at all‘ FortunateSons (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's definitely something to be cautious about, but I think at least this usage is fine - in the context of the rest of the section (which makes it clear he supports the two-state solution), him saying he supports it because he thinks it's more practical is fairly anodyne; it's neither BLP-sensitive nor exceptional or potentially unencyclopedic in tone. The other usages are perhaps more serious in that they attribute relatively sharp words and major statements to him using only his WP:ABOUTSELF statements in Mondoweiss as a source, so it would be ideal to find other sources for those, but I don't think we need to worry so much about a comparatively bland statement that the reason why he supports the two-state solution is because he thinks it's more practical. --Aquillion (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that makes sense, thank you. I was also concerned with the source content and context, and not just the specifically cited section. I would still strongly prefer removal here as well, but understand that this is unlikely to find consensus unless I find a better source. Thank you all for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't feel strongly about this but I think that now there is an RfC closure that we should only use this source with extreme caution in a BLP, it is appropriate to boldly the onus should be on those who want it included to secure consensus for that by showing why it is exceptional. Otherwise we have a community consensus that is meaningless. In this particular case, the contentious source was removed with a clear edit summary in line with that RfC closure, but replaced within two days on the basis that it "appears to have been removed for no good reason" - when really consensus should have been reached first. The quotation is from from a critique of the subject of the BLP by somebody who is neither notable nor noteworthy ("a regular commenter on this site, Daniel Crowther, who works in Boston in the technology development industry") summarising the BLP subject's position. Surely we can find a reliable source to summarise his position from? While the quotation isn't itself contentious, I think we have the duty to find a better source for it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely agree, thank you!

  Regarding a replacement, I have been looking a little but can’t find anything great. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the sake of due diligence: we currently have five citations of MW, citing three different texts. This is the only one that seems problematic to me. His comments on on B’Tselem’s "apartheid regime" designation for Israel and an interview with his thoughts on BDS are both used for his own words, so that seems fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

NF connection with Unz Review

@Makeandtoss you claimed that my edit on this subject contained "ADL (ironic) defamation". Can you explain? As far as I'm aware what I wrote there in the name of the ADL had never been denied or claimed to be defamatory. Vegan416 (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It is synth to collect information from multiple sources and coming up with one's own conclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But there was no conclusion in my edit. At any rate, I didn't ask you about SYNTH, because I don't have time now to debate what is SYNTH and what isn't. I asked you specifically about your seeming accusation against the ADL as if my edit contained some defamation that came from them. Can you explain what you meant by that? Vegan416 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it was SYNTH and also that the text exceeded what was in the source. This is all the source says, with no dates: The most prominent and clearest connection between the Alt-Right and conspiracy theory sites in our conspiracy theory selection is called The Unz Review, which appeared very frequently amongst the Alt-Right twitter handles. The Unz Review is a "mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 ‘truther’ and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to ‘Holocaust industry’ critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians".

This bit isn't SYNTH, but it only has a primary source: In 2014, in the preface to one of his books Finkelstein thanked Ron Unz for his "friendship and support". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the ADL is a usable source for saying that Finkelstein received funding from the Unz Foundation: The Unz Foundation has also given grants to Mondoweiss, an anti-Israel blog run by Philip Weiss, which regularly reports on and promotes the initiatives of some of the more prominent leaders and groups associated with the domestic anti-Israel movement, including Ali Abunimah, co-founder of “Electronic Intifada”; Alison Weir, the executive director of If Americans Knew; and Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Israel speaker whom Unz also funds.[1] But we might want to wait until the ADL RfC plays out before adding that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We have also a public admission of NF to that effect in the preface to another of his books. See here: "I am grateful for the Unz Foundation support". Vegan416 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)