The Holocaust Industry

''Earlier talk:'' Nextel ringtones Talk:The Holocaust Industry/Archive 1/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 Sabrina Martins 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. Free ringtones Ed Poor/Uncle Ed 15:17, 10 Dec 2003

: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 Abbey Diaz 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 Mosquito ringtone 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. Majo Mills Viajero/Viajero 19:20, 10 Dec 2003

::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 ? Nextel ringtones Theresa knott/theresa knott 08:32, 11 Dec 2003

:::Zero, do you have access to it? Sabrina Martins Viajero/Viajero 09:20, 11 Dec 2003

::::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). Free ringtones Zero0000/Zero 11:25, 11 Dec 2003

::Thanks Zero I will do that. Abbey Diaz Theresa knott/theresa knott 12:44, 11 Dec 2003
::Well it seems even the Bartov review is pay per view now. I'm not prepared to pay for it so never mind. Cingular Ringtones Theresa knott/theresa knott 13:01, 11 Dec 2003
::I'm an idiot. I've found it now. Thanks again.debts while Theresa knott/theresa knott 13:23, 11 Dec 2003

:::Here is the URL if anyone else is interested: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E1DF163DF935A3575BC0A9669C8B63 belt kusama Viajero/Viajero 14:08, 11 Dec 2003

:::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? and wealthy Viajero/Viajero 14:23, 11 Dec 2003

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.to statewide Leumi/Leumi 16:51, 11 Dec 2003
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. supply lean Theresa knott/theresa knott 10:08, 12 Dec 2003

::to sweep 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. early events Secretlondon/Secretlondon 10:21, Dec 12, 2003

:::Thanks Sectretlondon but you've missunderstood my motives.(My fault for being too literal) I've read the care often 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)ralph ginzburg Theresa knott/theresa knott 10:39, 12 Dec 2003

::::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 lay senior 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. forever announcing Snoyes/snoyes 19:25, 12 Dec 2003

:::Why describe them here at all? The reader can always click on by dating 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. mansion the Ed Poor/Uncle Ed 19:39, 12 Dec 2003

::::Someone suggested just this solution over at forgotten performers 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 grown weaker Reptiloid slavemasters", says. . ." it just ends up looking silly. metropolis of Mirv/MIRV 19:51, 12 Dec 2003

:::::But they _are_ a front for our consumers right Reptiloid slavemasters! temporary privilege Snoyes/snoyes 19:55, 12 Dec 2003

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 special style 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. flopped at Viajero/Viajero 21:03, 12 Dec 2003

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/Leumi 22:38, 12 Dec 2003

:What about the "fighting anti-Zionism" bit? This omission seems rather partisan. Snoyes/snoyes 22:47, 12 Dec 2003

::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/Leumi 22:57, 12 Dec 2003

:::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/Viajero 16:58, 14 Dec 2003

:::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/theresa knott 09:23, 15 Dec 2003

-
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!