Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 435

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 430

←

Archive 433

Books by Norman Finkelstein

Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature.
Thanks, — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.

Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others

Nothing about those accusations even begins to approach credibility. This is just FUD.

the Holocaust

What "fringe views" do you think he has on the Holocaust? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that they are pretty credible, but as neither of us are scholars, I think we do have to refer to those (discussed below)

They were discussed elsewhere here, and are on his wiki page, particularly in the way education about it should be done. FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers

Nothing in the linked source supports such a flagrant miscontruction of his views. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the source cited on Norman Finkelstein: “Holocaust denial does constitute an actual or potential contagion”, then it should be taught in academic institutions “to inoculate students”.

He continues: “To profess both that Holocaust denial shouldn’t be taught and that it poses a clear and present danger defies logic. [1] FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So what? nableezy - 10:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just responding to the question at hand (and his direct response to my comment), specifically the question of highly biased or fringe views regarding some topics. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The question at hand being "is Norman Finkelstein a reliable source for verifying claims regarding I/P"? I understand the OP included the Holocaust in their post, but frankly I would be shocked if there's a Holocaust article that would be incomplete without citing a work of his. Remsense诉 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue would probably more apparent in cases of alleged instrumentalisation of the holocaust, where this sort of opinion (on how it should be thought) may be significant FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That says that students should be taught Holocaust denial as a topic as part of the syllabus to inoculate them from it. This is the opposite of saying it should be taught to students "by holocaust deniers", which seems like a BLP violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s the context for the quotes in the article, the relevant direct passage is „that Holocaust denial should be taught in university and preferably by a Holocaust denier.” FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that quote. That's clearly a tongue-in-cheek piece of commentary with some layers to it, but it definitely does grant some lenience regarding the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he was denied tenure because of a targeted harassment campaign does not negatively affect his credibility. And accusing him of Holocaust denial is such a flagrant and obvious BLP violation I am absolutely dumbfounded this is allowed to stand. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [1], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree he should be taken seriously and may be due to mention in articles. Don't think that means he is "reliable for verifying general statements" as per OP's question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [Update: while I still hold this basic position, I believe that his books published by academic presses might be usable as sources for facts on I/P in some cases and are more reliable than those of the non-academics he criticises (e.g. Peters, Dershowitz) where he disagrees with or is contested by other scholars (e.g. Shapira, Morris) we should never use his claims in our own voice but attribute and also include and attribute disagreements. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)]
In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you highlight Moshe Zuckermann as particularly notable? His citation metrics seem low-middling, including in contrast to some other reviewers, but perhaps I'm missing some other indication of his high relevance here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zero^talk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.

"deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.

But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).

More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.

So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.

Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.

If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).

and its reference list

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable specifically regarding American Holocaust consciousness from 1948-1967 as argued in The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein and Novick both played a role in promoting and popularizing this idea, but reviewers of Hasia Diner's 2009 book We Remember with Reverence and Love universally suggest that this conception lacked substantive empirical backing to start with and has been dispatched by Diner's work. For instance, Kevin Spicer in his American Historical Review piece says: "In this work, Hasia R. Diner dismantles the claim promoted by Peter Novick and Norman G. Finkelstein, among others, that American Jews 'made little of the Holocaust, pushing it to the hidden corners and indeed, under the rug of their communal lives' until the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial, which brought the horrors of the Nazi period into prominent focus (p. 4). By contrast, through extensive archival research Diner more than convincingly reveals the opposite." Henry L. Feingold in the Journal of American History concurs that Diner "completes the process of putting those false charges to rest", while Stephen J. Feingold in the American Historical Review states that "the evidence... is quite overwhelming. So resourcefully has Diner tracked down sermons and song lyrics, posters and programs, that this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims that an explicit communal consciousness of the Holocaust did not really surface until the 1960s."

For what it is worth, scholars questioned Finkelstein's spotty archival work shortly after publication of THI. David Cesarani points out many major productions and publications Finkelstein missed or downplayed in his 2000 review for Times Higher Education alongside other critiques, for instance. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement from other scholars is not a case for unreliability. Zero^talk 07:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

True, but widespread disagreement from actual Holocaust scholars should make us use him as a source on the Holocaust only with extreme caution and attribution, making sure to triangulate with other scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein is an actual Holocaust scholar, and this effort to redefine scholar to only include people you agree with is not in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. nableezy - 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finklestein is not, in fact, a Holocaust scholar. WWII/ Holocaust scholars roundly reject the work of Holocaust denier David Irving, who Finklestein regards as a great scholar. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody is citing David Irving, so I dont see the relevance, but Finkelstein's work The Holocaust Industry received positive reviews from Raul Hilberg for example. Yes it also had negative reviews, but so do most academic works. That doesnt diminish that they are works of scholarships written by scholars. nableezy - 16:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's true that Hilberg (a great Holocaust scholar) did to some endorse Finkelstein's book, but he is an outlier. Finkelstein was a scholar of the reception of the Holocaust, not of the Holocaust itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is, but sure fine on the rest of the statement. nableezy - 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein could think Hitler was a swell guy, it would still have nothing to do with the reliability of his published works. The way we know that The Holocaust Industry is an WP:RS is all the journal reviews and the 900+ citations. "The author has an opinion that's wrong, therefore his works are unreliable" is just nonsense. To show unreliability, you'd need to show his work being debunked, not his opinions being unpopular. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's true of every author. That doesn't make an author not an WP:RS. Again, Benny Morris is the quintessential example of an RS that most scholars in the field disagree with strongly, but still an RS. Scholars disagree with each other, it's what they do. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein's self-description is that he is not a scholar of the Holocaust itself, but only of its popular interpretations and uses. When pressed in 2015 on his figures by Medhi Hassan, he says: "I don't claim at all to be an authority on the Nazi holocaust. The book The Holocaust Industry is not about the Nazi holocaust. It's a book about how the holocaust has been rendered in popular opinion and in so-called scholarship." Of course, I argue that he makes errors beyond this, but at the very least he says himself not to be a scholar of the Nazi genocide (though he defends the statements he makes, naturally). Freelance-frank (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To ground this more concretely in guidelines, a quote from WP:RSAGE: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." I argue that a statement from a review like the one I quote above indicates such a development ("...this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims..."), which is a statement on both academic consensus and validity of the older argument.

The next paragraph says, "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery". I argue that this is not an issue with Diner's book based on the following parenthetical, which suggests "awaiting reviews that validate the methods". The three reviews satisfy this. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable: as an exceptionally knowledgeable subject-matter expect. I find it surprising to even see this questioned. If his views are left field then they should be attributed, as should any views, from anyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment Most arguments made above are rather poor and miss the point, and that applies to both the arguments for and against Finkelstein. The real question should be on his academic credentials. There as well, there are pros and cons. In his favour, his books are often published by high quality academic publishing houses, that definitely helps. Against him, he has not held any academic position for a very long time. Those aspects should both be weighed, but whether he is controversial or not is not the question (or should not be). The question is what his academic credentials are. Jeppiz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Worth bearing in mind that his lack of tenure has itself been the source of controversy, see Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, so a slightly murky and muddied metric in this case. Better to defer to his academic citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The Dershowitz affair was nearly two decades ago. It would be silly to suggest his inability to find work in academia to this day is not because of that incident alone. Toa Nidhiki05 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean, "his inability to find work in academia"? What is that based on? He publishes a book like almost every year. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
He has not had a full-time job in academia since 2006, Levivich. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights.

"People clamoring for his insights" ... hmmmmm... Levivich (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Does it define who these people are? But again, like I said before, he doesn't work in academia and hasn't in several decades. That is a mark against him. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Publishing academic books counts as working in academia. And the same source you cited says he has worked at universities, but sporadically and as a low paid adjunct, since being denied tenure. That isn't "not working" that's "working." Also, he was denied tenure in 2007; that's not "several decades" ago, it's 16 years. You are not being accurate in your statements here. And his subsequent employment history has no bearing anyway on the reliability of his published works. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And he has held multiple academic posts since then. nableezy - 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Which academic positions has he held since 2007? Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
At Sakarya University Middle East Institute from 2014-15. nableezy - 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That's an honest mistake, but teaching for a year at a university is not the same as holding an academic position. I can understand the confusion, but lots of universities have occasional lecturers who may teach for a semester or a couple of semesters, but who are not part of the faculty. There is no indication Finkelstein ever held a faculty position at Sakarya. Also, as you wrote that he has held "multiple academic posts", could you please name the others you had in mind? Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
That Finkelstein's academic career prospects were crushed by political pressure which led the university to ignore the very strong support he had both from faculty and his students in favour of tenure is well known, not controversial. When you are denied tenure, and your teaching terminated, it virtually condemns you to unemployment because any other university mulling hiring him would have to evaluate whether the inevitable public (sectorial) outcry and hullabaloo was worth the candle. When 11 years later, the University of California published his book on Gaza's Martyrdom, it flagged an acknowledgemen that his scholarship was still of the fine order demanded by that high quality academic publisher. There's no need to rub his face into the ground remarking on his poverty, unemployed status as if he were somewhow culpable. Most academics get their Phd published to secure tenure, and, once secure, enjoy their sinecures and leisurely teaching. It takes an exceptional character to bear the humiliation he suffered and still persist in the careful scholarship he manages to sustain even in very difficult personal circumstances. Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats just silly, I didnt say he was part of the faculty, but an adjunct professor is an academic position. I may have been mistaken on multiple however, seem to recall reading about a position in Europe but I cant find it now. But regardless, he continues to be treated as an academic expert by well regarded publishers, like the University of California Press. Unless you are of the belief that just any random schmuck can get through their review process? nableezy - 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Academic credentials, at least as far as professorship alone, do not seem to be terribly useful indicators of reliability. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, aren't their creationist and climate-denying and heavens-knows-what-else professors out there? And of course, Alan Dershowitz has tenure ... Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

How about publishing works through prestigious university presses? nableezy - 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely not nothing, but heaps of academic garbage get through peer review, with that problem more acute in some circles than others. The arguments above about citation metrics are somewhat more compelling to me than the argument about peer review alone since high citation metrics suggest people (whether in agreement, disagreement, or ridicule) at least seek fit to reference Finkelstein's work. Regarding his I/P books, plenty of the citations are to heavy hitters who I assume are referencing Finkelstein substantively. Exploration not only of the numbers, but also highlighting of some of the individuals using Finkelstein and how they are using him might improve the arguments so far, as would discussion of reviews. From poking around a little, there are some nice reviews one could reference, though some of the reviews themselves underline Finkelstein's presence at only the margins of academic discourse. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Scholarship reliable This is a malformed request, because questions of source reliability go beyond authorship and include considerations of peer-review, editorial board review, and publisher oversight. Nevertheless, where Finkelstein has been published by an academic press there is no doubt his books or journal publications are highly reliable on the topic. His work is rigorous and maintains a close and careful attention to detail. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a very good point. We shouldn’t be making a blanket assessment of his reliability. We can assume that his book published by UC Press has gone through a more rigorous editorial and fact checking process and therefore would be considerably more reliable than his self-published blogposts, articles published by the Nazi magazine Unz Review or his book on the ICC published by OR Books, which calls itself an “alternative publisher”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
That isn’t how we treat established experts published by serious university presses, an expert source writing in yellow ink in the snow is still a reliable source. nableezy - 09:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. Well-sourced works significant in the field. His works are indeed strongly positional. Under our policies, sources are allowed to take strong positions without becoming unreliable. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. Very well sourced work; I cannot recall him ever being found to factually wrong? Huldra (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

break (Syndication in Unz Review)

Bobfrombrockley I actually had not known Finklestein publishes his work in the Unz Report, which is a virulently far-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic outlet. This has actually attracted negative attention from academia - this article from Portland State University says "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”. Finkelstein is, evidently, funded by the Unz Foundation as well. Add that as another strike against his credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
If only Finkelstein wasn't "academia" you might have a point. nableezy - 23:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's possible for academics to be unreliable and criticized by other academics in their field. This has happened with Norman Finkelstein. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
There remains zero evidence for that statement. nableezy - 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy

I suggest you look at NF wikipedia article under the section "Reception" and "Criticism". Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Well aware of it. You also don’t need to ping me here. nableezy - 10:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not an article from Portland State University, it's a conference paper written by two people who work at PSU. The paper is partially quoting an op-ed by Cathy Young in The Federalist, but the full quote is more nuanced:
The Unz Review, founded by maverick businessman Ron Unz as a forum for non-mainstream perspectives, is somewhat more eclectic; but much of this eclecticism 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.
The Wikipedia articles on The Unz Review (and Ron Unz) have additional sources. While I wouldn't consider The Unz Review an RS, just because Finkelstein is published there or receives money from them doesn't have any bearing on the reliability of his works published elsewhere, e.g. university presses. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, at this point we know he's praised the scholarship of notorious academic fraud and Holocaust denier David Irving, and that he writes for and is paid by a website that is notorious for white supremacy and antisemitism. Additionally, he's not been in academia for nearly two decades, and his work is not uniformly praised in academia itself. I don't really see the merits of using him on this encyclopedia, honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat my responses to all those points as they have been well covered above. The merits of using him on this encyclopedia is that NPOV means we summarize all significant viewpoints, even the viewpoints we disagree with. To do otherwise would be censorship. We are neutral to the viewpoints of reliable sources, and so long as Finkelstein's works receive many citations, and he's published by academic publishers and cited by other scholars in the field (all of which is indisputable), he is an RS. Controversial scholars are still scholars, and former professors with many Google scholar cites who are published by university presses are scholars. There is no guilt-by-association exception to WP:NPOV or WP:RS. His books on the Holocaust Industry, or on Gaza, don't suddenly become non-RSes because of what he says about David Irving, or because he's published by Unz. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
And I'll say it again, for what it's worth: being published by a genuine white nationalist outlet is an enormous red flag, in my opinion. It's far from the only reason I'm skeptical of using him, but association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 03:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
See also association fallacy. nableezy - 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It’s not an association fallacy when, presumably, he’s the one who chose to write for a far-right website. I’m not accusing him of being a white nationalist, but writing for fringe, far right websites is not typically a hallmark of an indisputably reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 05:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to characterize it as a red flag, that's fine. The question then becomes "to what end?" You can't just gesture to it repeatedly unless it might actually mean something, something which you've yet to articulate.

Can you point to any examples of specific problems with his actual work you'd like to discuss? Preferably beyond mere disagreements with colleagues, per above. Frankly, that's the only worthwhile focus for this discussion, the rest has so far amounted to hot air, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, a publication dedicated to publishing non-mainstream views that publishes both far-right and far-left views is not a far-right website or a Nazi website. Finkelstein is politically left-of-center not right-of-center, and he's the son of Holocaust survivors, so obviously nobody thinks he's a white supremacist. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Can't believe I'm having to prove this, but the Unz Review is, in fact, uniformly regarded as far-right, white nationalist website:
The Guardian: "carries columns from avowed neo-Nazis and racists... a one-stop shop for hate from many different vantage points"
Seattle Times: "a far-right website criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as hosting racist and antisemitic content"
Rolling Stone: "antisemitic blog"
Anti-Defamation League: "a fringe platform that regularly hosts bigoted content"
CNN: "a website that has published Holocaust denialism and columns in support of White nationalism"
Southern Poverty Law Center: "white nationalist publication"
Mother Jones: "white nationalist publication"
Kansas City Star: "a website that includes white nationalist and anti-Semitic content"
New York Times: "far-right"
This was all from a cursory 10-minute search. I am not arguing he's a white supremacist (although he does hold a number of views associated with the far right, including transphobia and supporting Russia's genocidal war against Ukraine, neither of which are especially relevant here). But I do strongly believe that writing for a white nationalist website is a massive, massive red flag for credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Forum, including ad hom attacks, irrelevant to reliability

Is Norman Finkelstein now a white nationalist? Is that what you’re arguing? nableezy - 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I said? Because if you did, you'd find the answer to what you're asking. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm amazed you think that list of quotes supports "white supremacist." Just to take the first one, "a one-stop shop for hate from many different vantage points," well "many different vantage points" doesn't mean one vantage point (white supremacy, or far-right). Also, are you of the belief that "far right" and "white supremacy" are the same thing? They're not. White supremacy is far right, but there are also Black people on the far right, and Jews on the far right, e.g. non-white-supremacist far-right. White supremacism isn't the only kind of racism. There are far-right Israelis who are not white supremacists, for example. Maybe read Far-right politics and White supremacy. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I did, you said he is not a white supremacist and then claimed he holds "a number of views associated with the far right". So despite your claim that you are not arguing something it sure looks like you are. Either way, not liking where somebody is published does not, in any way, detract from his scholarship or somehow make him not a scholar. nableezy - 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I also said neither of those views are directly relevant to the topic at hand - I only mentioned them because of Levivich's assertion he's uniformly left-of-center, when the reality is more complicated than that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It's actually not that complicated. It seems Finkelstein would gladly join hands with anyone who is anti-Israeli. While Finkelstein himself is probably from the extreme left, he has no problem associating with people from the extreme US right, like those white supremacists in Unz, or from the extreme Muslim right like Hamas and Hezbollah, just because of their common hatred towards Israel Vegan416 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Not forum, again. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I just answered @Nableezy's question "Is Norman Finkelstein now a white nationalist?". You can't ask a question and then when someone answers it, claim that it is not the forum to discuss this question. If it's not the forum then why did you ask that question here? Vegan416 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I advise you to refactor that personal attack before it is reported. nableezy - 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What personal attack? Against Finkelstein? Was anything I said here about him incorrect? Vegan416 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
"he has no problem associating with people from the extreme US right, like those white supremacists in Unz, or from the extreme Muslim right like Hamas and Hezbollah, just because of their common hatred towards Israel" Levivich (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What part of this is incorrect?

He did publish in Unz. He did went to Lebanon to visit the Hezbollah. He publicly praised Hamas October 7 attack on Israel.

https://www.unz.com/nfinkelstein/

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/norman-finkelstein-claims-that-hezbollah-represents-hope

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/anti-israel-activists-celebrate-hamas-attacks-have-killed-hundreds-israelis Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
"because of their common hatred towards Israel" Levivich (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you denying that Finkelstein, Unz, Hamas and Hezbullah all hate Israel??? Vegan416 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Which reliable source says that? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, what does "hate Israel" mean exactly? Hate the current Israeli government? I hate the current Israeli government. I hate what they're doing in Gaza. Does that make me a white supremacist or far-right? Does that mean I share with Hamas and Hezbollah a "common hatred towards" the current Israeli government? Yes, actually, I guess I do share a common hatred towards Bibi's policies with Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and probably all Palestinians, all Arabs, all Muslims, and like half of the rest of the world, and lots and lots (hundreds and hundreds) of scholars.

But I don't hate Israelis, I don't hate the state of Israel itself or in its entirety (I hate parts of it, the far-right parts), and I don't hate Jews. I don't think Finkelstein hates any of those either, even if he hates the current govt or certain past govts, or policies, or specific politicians.

So, yeah, big ^{[citation needed]} there for Finkelstein's "hatred towards Israel." Levivich (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a bright line here between criticism of Israel and hatred of Israel. It's the celebration of the October 7 attack. Finkelstein celebrated the attack. I sincerely hope that you didn't. Vegan416 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You are overstepping here and not the first time, either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "overstepping"? It is a fact that Finkelstein celebrated the October 7 attack on Israel:

https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/john-browns-body-in-gaza/

And what is this reference to "not the first time"? Vegan416 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This isnt a Zionist project, where only sources that support Israel are welcome. Unless you think that supporting what the International Court of Justice has said is plausibly genocide rules out a source, the views of our sources is not what determines their reliability. Anyway, he has said that his initial comments regarding the attack were based on the information that he had, and that he regretted his inital commentary. But even if that werent true, this isnt a project where we determine what views are allowed, no matter what somebody thinks of them. nableezy - 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Please read carefully what I wrote here. I didn't say anything about "not allowing his views". I'm just explaining here why I think that he hates Israel. From my point of view anyone who celebrated the October 7 attack has shown by that he viscerally hates Israel, even if later he tried to walkback from this initial gut reaction for PR reasons. Vegan416 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, and what you wrote has jack to do with reliability, which is the topic under discussion here. Once more, I do not care about your view on who hates Israel or how much they do, it is not relevant to the topic in any way. nableezy - 18:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually it is relevant to the subject of reliability. It is called "bias" and "partisanship". Sources that are clearly extremely biased on some topic are deemed generally less reliable as a source of facts on it than sources who are not. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should not be used altogether, because sometimes people can be biased but reliable, but caution is needed when using those sources. Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Try again. nableezy - 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
? Vegan416 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You realize that the source you brought says exactly what I just said? Vegan416 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Read it more carefully. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The personal attack was the like some of his groupies here. nableezy - 17:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a personal attack if I didn't mention any names whatsoever. But whatever. It was removed incidentally when I refactored the entire paragraph to clarify what I said about Finkelstein. Vegan416 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I do see how, and if you make more I will be reporting it. Toodles. nableezy - 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibility … It’s not an association fallacy. Too easy. nableezy - 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
By this logic, your "his books have been published by academic presses, which means he's a reliable academic" argument doesn't hold water either. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Reliable publishers convey reliability; they don't convey political or ideological slants, which is what you are deducing from an online publisher. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s not my argument, that’s Wikipedias. nableezy - 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
And they also note what I'm saying in WP:QUESTIONABLE. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The only thing questionable here is the beating of the dead horse. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No, thats about sources that dont have a track record of being published by highly regarded university presses and peer reviewed journals. What actually is relevant to Finkelstein is WP:RS/SPS where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Finkelstein is an established expert in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 15:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

OR Books also publishes work by Bill McKibben, Simon Critchley, Slavoj Žižek, Patrick Cockburn, Douglas Rushkoff, Moustafa Bayoumi, Barney Rosset, among many others... lots of established writers and thinkers in their fields. I don't think it matters if they call themselves an "alternative publisher." I'm not really perceiving a difference between OR Books and other progressive publishers like Zed Books. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
My point was simply that reliability isn't by author alone, but also by publisher. While OR is not necessarily unreliable it's clearly not as reliable as a university press (while it is clearly more reliable than Unz or Sublation). (FWIW I think Zed - like Pluto or Verso - is a cut above OR in terms of peer review and editorial process.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I completely agree with that. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In no uncertain terms, Finkelstein has done some of the most careful, erudite scholarship in the history of history, period. It is ridiculous how error-free his oeuvre has been for its sheer size. I am not impressed by the arguments to a comparative skepticism above, because they show a basic lack of familiarity with his work or its place in the field. It's necessary to make this clear because otherwise chatter in a vacuum can be given disproportionate weight, so I'm putting my thumb firmly on the scale: if there's such a thing as a reliable source about a contentious topic, it's Norman Finkelstein.

I would sometimes recommend attempting to read a scholarly work of before asking here whether it should be considered reliable. If anything, it would give the discussion more to work with than aspersions. Remsense诉 04:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

When you say "his place in the field", which field do you mean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Caution: My position is that like in any case of a scholar who seems to be far from the consensus in his field, we as non-experts should prefer the consensus. Though the consensus can sometimes be wrong, and the outliers right, more often it is the other conventional way around. So it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims. Vegan416 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
On what, exactly, is Finkelstein far from the consensus in his field? And how does "it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims" differ from how we would treat any other RS? Levivich (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. That's why we should prefer to look close to the consensus in any field. Vegan416 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, who's peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Any person with enough talent can peddle BS in a shiny format, that for a layman in the field would be indistinguishable from real valuable research. That's why we have to rely on other experts in the field to detect it. And that's why in wikipedia, as well as in real life, it is always advisable to rely on the consensus in each field rather than on outliers. Even though sometime it turns out eventually the outliers were right and then the consensus changes, it happens quite rarely, and as a general rule it is still a much better bet to rely on the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So which experts are you relying on? And what BS did they detect that made NF an outlier? Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. What experts I'm relying on regarding what question? Vegan416 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This supposed "consensus" that NF peddles BS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say there is such a consensus?? Try reading my words carefully again. All I said is that it seems that NF is far from the consensus in his field of research (by which I mean in this context the IP conflict). Do you think that he is part of the consensus in this field? Vegan416 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It is for you to prove your assertion or withdraw it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. A scholar operating within the consensus in his field wouldn't need to publish anything in a site like the Unz Review (titled "An Alternative Media Selection"), as he would have much better venues open to him... Vegan416 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Unz isn't that it's an alternative outlet, it's that it's a white supremacist, far-right, antisemitic outlet, and no self-respecting scholar worth their salt would write in it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not an answer to my question. As I said at the outset of this discussion, we have articles about his books full of reviews with praise for his work and his work is WP policy compliant but we are supposed instead to pay attention to some random voice on the web saying he peddles BS? I ask again, who is peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just read the sentence again, this time carefully. Here it is: The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. It's not difficult to understand, but you still failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier

Since it seems you failed to understand my words even with careful reading then let me explain it to you in other words. I didn't accuse anyone of peddling BS. I only said that it is not always possible for the layman to distinguish between those who do real valuable research and those who peddle shiny BS research. So reading a book of some author would not necessarily enable you to judge the quality of his work. Certainly not better than the consensus in his field. Vegan416 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your words all too well, thanks for the concern though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can literally type unz.com into your browser and get articles like:

Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence which opens with a quote from famous anti-Semite and white supremacist Adolf Hitler [2]
The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids written by Andrew Anglin [3]
The Primacy of Anti-Semitism, which argues for a "rational anti-Semitism" because the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption. [4]

These are all on the front page of Unz right now. There's no need to bother with what reliable sources describe Unz as when its writers are openly proud of being anti-Semitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What is "the consensus in his field of research"? And what is Finkelstein's views that are far from that consensus? Levivich (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is valid for science. In any field of the humanities, it becomes far trickier, and this is particularly true of subjects with the potentiality for a high degree of political fallout. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

But the same principles apply nonetheless. Otherwise you will not be able to make a distinction between acceptable theories and narratives and fringe theories and narratives. Vegan416 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And there are too many comments here that veer from the issue, and show total unfamiliarity with Finkelstein's work and actual life, like 'It's actually not that complicated. It seems Finkelstein would gladly join hands with anyone who is anti-Israeli.' Those who have continued to follow his work all know that he is in bad odour with the BDS movement, and even friends otherwise critical of Israel like Tariq Ali. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05

I agree of course with all you said. But my stress here was that the fact that he felt the need to publish there shows that he is far from the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not for general statements, I would say that they're a reliable source but should be used with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I note that all of the nonsense about him and the Unz Review speaks in the present tense, i.e. he is paid by, publishes in. . .The first item here is reproduced from Mondoweiss, and such appears to be the case with several others of the 13 items. We don't know of the financial relationship and payments for material of his which, clearly, he does not object to being reproduced there. This 'rumour-mongering' is amply evidenced in many hostile sources. Same with David Irving. He was considered an extremely promising and original young historian and later became a nutter. But some of his early work is first rate, if one trusts TLS reviews, and Finkelstein doesn't abide by a world of taboos and clichés that skewer this or forbid that. He exercises his judgment whatever some 'consensus' might tend to state. People who see the word 'consensus' on something and therefore on the strength of that word, adopt the said view (without troubling themselves to famniliarize themselves with the topic ) remind me of Nietzsche's remark that subscribing to public opinion is tantamount to not having a personal opinion. You can always rely of Finkelstein to provide, when asked, meticulously documentation for whgatever position he takes, which is rather rare these days, even among general commentators and academics.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Depending on the rights signed over to Mondoweiss, the material could be syndicated entirely without his permission. It's impossible to tell without knowing the terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani

Actually according to the site 30 items by him were published there in the years 2015-2017. And the question of payments is not relevant at all. Even if he wasn't paid at all it is still quite telling that he was ready to associate his name with this site. In fact it might be even worse. People might be excused for doing silly things out of financial necessity, but doing silly things for free is more troublesome.
Your last comment against the "consensus" and about asking NF for documentation to check his claims seem to to contradict the logic behind WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.

Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe he just doesn't care where his material is published so long as it is broadcast for the world's attention. Finkelstein has always been substance over style, so it has to be considered that he simply didn't even deign to consider the petty bickering that might one day arise over the choice of venue – because a venue is all a website is. Just as when one is having a serious discussion in a pub, one doesn't tend to give a rat's arse what the political opinions of the pub's owners or frequent customers are. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. But would you say the same thing if a pro-Israeli researcher would have published in this site? Anyway did NF ever explain his connections with this site? BTW even more shocking to me than everything he said about Israel, is his comparison between the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and Julius Streicher. Such a statement casts severe doubt about his professional judgment. https://aa.com.tr/en/politics/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/82824

I think I'm finished with this discussion. Good night. Vegan416 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to dislike Charlie Hebdo cartoons. They're unwitty garbage, frequently bigoted and would have been best left in the 20th century. If they hadn't become a target, few in the world would ever have heard of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

You completely missed the point here. I didn't say that anyone has to like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. But my point is that comparing Charlie Hebdo to Der Sturmer shows that NF doesn't understand even the basics of his alleged field of expertise - the holocaust. There is absolutely no similarity between the papers, their methods and their intention. Der Sturmer was an antisemitic paper aimed mostly against the Jews with the intention of encouraging violent persecution of them and even genocide. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper that intends to make fun of everyone - Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people from the right and from the left. And it has absolutely no violent or genocidal intentions. It is unhinged to say they are the same. Vegan416 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Iskandar323, the Unz Foundation (which runs the site) awarded Finklestein $108,000 in 2009 alone, and has also paid him since then. I highly doubt his work there is being published without permission. Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ron Unz funds anti-Zionist activists – that's not a news flash, and his website provides a venue for them. Freedom of speech. If you have been watching the news over the last six months, you may have noticed that media outlets that stray from a staunchly pro-Israeli government position are few and far between. All the ADL attests to, as linked above, is that some items on the site occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic trope to them and have been used by antisemites. So even an ADL entry on the subject leaning into the smearing only offers a very modest critique of the site. Meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Describing the Unz Review as a site that "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes" is at odds with reality. Go read The Primacy of Anti-Semitism which is currently on the front page of Unz. In it, the author says:

We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by—embracing them. The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly. The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

He then proceeds to use several anti-Semitic tropes in describing Jews. If an article directly calling for anti-Semitism by name isn't an anti-Semitic article I don't know what is. Maybe Andrew Anglin's recent frontpage piece in Unz called The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids in which he denies the Holocaust and says bombing Gaza is as evil as being gay, because Jews are like homosexuals in that both are public exhibitionists (I'm paraphrasing, not agreeing). There are a lot of publications that are pro-Palestinian that aren't anti-Semitic. The Unz Review, however, openly brags about being both. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant what Unz is or isn't, because it's already deprecated and NF hasn't published there. There is content attributed to NF from 2015-2017, including three interviews and three series of articles syndicated from Byline. If NF was handed a large check for the privilege of the syndication, well ... ? He's a scholar, not a saint, and more online publication = more eyeballs on your ideas. But again, this is a dated, brief snapshot of a publishing period for some very specific content. It has little bearing on anything else, let alone NF's books published through university presses, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

In September 2018 Ron Unz, the owner of the site, published in the Unz Review an article blaming Israel for perpetrating the 9/11 attack. The Unz Review is a hotbed of crazy antisemitic conspiracy theories. The fact that Finkelstein worked with this site casts serious doubts on the soundness of his professional judgment. Vegan416 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If somebody tries to cite that feel free to challenge it. It has nothing to do with if a noted expert in the field of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a reliable source however. nableezy - 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely does matter that he writes there. Credible academics don't write for outlets like this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Benny Morris wrote something on American Thinker, Efraim Karsh as well. Does that mean they can’t be cited? Of course not, this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt at censoring views one doesn’t like. Finkelstein’s work meets all the requirements to be considered a reliable source, and all that has been proven in this ridiculous sized section is that a handful of Wikipedia editors reaaaallllyyyy don’t like that. Tough. nableezy - 12:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say writing for American Thinker would be a red flag as well (to my knowledge, they've written a fawning profile of white nationalist Jared Taylor, although I don't know if they've ever stooped into outright neo-Nazism like Unz has), and I'd appreciate you not stoop so low to personal attacks. We're required to assume good faith, and declaring anyone who disagrees with you "intellectually bankrupt" people attempting to "censor" people is just not productive at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You aren’t the thought police here, you don’t get to decide that if some website makes a reliable source unusable for their association with it. There is nothing in WP:RS that backs up a thing you’re claiming. And criticizing your argument is not a personal attack. nableezy - 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the thought police, but it's incredibly rude to say that everyone who disagrees with you is "intellectually bankrupt" and trying to "censor" people. We have civility policies here, and I'd advise you follow them. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I didnt say that, I said the argument used here is that. this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt is not you are intellectually bankrupt. Id advise you to not continue making arguments divorced from our policies. The argument advanced here, that Finkelstein published work at some BadPlace™ makes it so his work that has been published by well regarded university presses is somehow no longer reliable is intellectually bankrupt, it would, if it were done with any consistency at all, would rule out a plethora of highly reliable sources, including Finkelstein and Benny Morris. That argument has no basis in anything resembling our policies and guidelines, it is a basic association fallacy and it is only being used here to attempt to rule out a scholarly source. Aka censoring views you dont want included. nableezy - 16:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to censor anyone, and I don't appreciate you claiming I am. This is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I only see three interviews and some syndicated content. That's not actually writing there AFAICS. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

He was paid $108,000 by Unz and additional sums later on. He's absolutely a writer there, or absolutely was one. Can you at least acknowledge Chess's point that the site does't just "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes"? Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Chess doesn’t have a point, or at least not a relevant one. nableezy - 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What's he written that's not an interview (not his writing) or syndicated content (originally published elsewhere)? The $108k figure you're flashing around is for an academic grant in 2013, not for writing in 2015-2017 (and the Free Beacon is also incidentally unreliable). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There are 30 articles by NF published by Unz, each saying they are published with his permission, all dated from the mid-2010s. He didn't write for Unz, it was one of his publishers. (Just noting this in the interests of accuracy, as I was the first person to mention Unz on this page, not intending it to become a focus of discussion, not sure any of this discussion is at all relevant to the original question posted in this section.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Academic grant" by an organization that seeks to promote anti-Semitic falsehoods is a clear conflict of interest. Put it another way. The academic consensus in the medical field is that smoking causes cancer. Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars on academic grants to researchers through places like the Center for Indoor Air Research or the Tobacco Institute. Coincidentally, scientists affiliated with these institutes consistently published research that benefitted their sponsors and went against the academic consensus in their fields. Is it proper to cite them when they're following the tobacco industry playbook?

This is the same thing Norman Finkelstein has done:

The Unz Foundation's goal is to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that go against the consensus of the academic community.
One of their goals in doing so is to promote the Palestinian cause.
Norman Finkelstein has taken money from the Unz Foundation for his research.
His research benefits the goals of Unz by promoting the Palestinian cause.
Like Unz, he promotes historical claims that are not in line with the consensus of academia.

I think the burden to prove that Finkelstein is unreliable isn't just that he takes money to promote Palestinian causes. That would be the association fallacy and there is nothing wrong with being pro-Palestinian. The burden is that that the organization is paying him to distort the historical record in support of the Palestinian cause. This is a high burden, but it's one that can be met.

Point 1 is easily proven by Unz posting anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jews doing 9/11. Point 2 can be seen by going on unz.com and looking at how their entire site is currently pro-Palestinian opinion pieces (that often use anti-Semitic tropes). [5] [6] [7] [https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/can-bibi-be-stopped/ Point 3 has been shown by Toa Nidhiki05 who quantified it as $108k. Point 4 is shown by the fact he publishes in Unz, thereby supporting them specifically and their goals. Most people here would also agree he takes a pro-Palestinian stance on the conflict (which isn't inherently wrong).

The only real dispute is over point 5. Has Unz influenced Norman Finkelstein to be less reliable? The answer is yes. In addition to what everyone else has said, since taking money from Unz, he praised Holocaust denier David Irving as a "very good historian" [8] and says students should be taught the controversy about the Holocaust. [9] This is against the scholarly consensus, to say the least. Going back to the start of this comment, it's similar to how the tobacco industry funds academics to invent a controversy over proven facts. Unz gave Finkelstein a bunch of money and now he spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1 to 4 has nothing to do with the discussion, 5 says "Like Unz", oh please. This just reads like I can't get him on anything else so I am going to get him because of an association with Unz. Irrelevant drivel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

One more time, not liking his views is emphatically not a criteria for his reliability, and you tried this guilt by association thing with Counterpunch as well. Finkelstein's work has been published in peer-reviewed journal articles and by respected university presses, he meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. No matter how many people say "but Unz", that remains the fact. There remains zero evidence that he has distort[ed] the historical record and you remarkably close to a BLP violation in writing that here. nableezy - 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Because my goodness, everything is broken and my attempt to fix it made everything worse, I'm so sorry.

My view is he is very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict, but higher-level analyses should be attributed, as they are stridently based in his very particular ideology and he does not make any efforts towards any notion of neutrality.

I haven't read or engaged much with his work about other topics, including the Holocaust.

I am flummoxed that people are seemingly freely casting aspersions about Finkelstein's reliability for statements of historical fact when there has been no evidence for why offered whatsoever. The closest we've gotten are the very appreciated notes by @FortunateSons and @Doug Weller, which I think are important to consider, but do not translate into outright skepticism of his reliability for the purpose stated above. Remsense诉 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt we should use him for statements of fact, and indeed I think it would be a NPOV violation to deliberately exclude him. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@RemsenseI don't understand what your view that he is "very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict" is based on. Are you an expert in this field? The fact is that several leading experts in it have criticized his work very sharply.

Examples from here and here:

“No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites,” (Novick, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 7, 2001)

"Norman Finkelstein is a notorious distorter of facts and of my work, not a serious or honest historian." (Benny Morris)

"it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations" (Omer Bartov)

Furthermore, NF academic credentials look unimpressive even from a dry statistical analysis. He didn't manage to get tenure in any university. Most of his books are published in non academic avenues. And in an academic career of 40+ years it seems that he published only 19 articles in peer reviewed journals (according to this Jstor search, if you try to replicate the search. please take care not to confuse him with another scholar with the exact same name who is an expert in Jewish literature and is responsible for most of the articles there) and of these only 5 in the last 20 years. Vegan416 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself ad infinitum. Have you ever read any book by Finkelstein, as apart from giving me at least the impression that the net is being scoured for dirt on him (this thread has taken on the lineaments of an attempt to conduct a trial on Finkelstein as a person rather than face the obvious fact that opn the I/P conflict he has distinguished himself by writing several forensic studies of the dissonance between the way information is packaged for one POV to damage the other POV, by measuring the disconnect between public rhetoric and the factual record?

That is all that interests us here, not vague guilt by association insinuations. That Unz picks up some of his interviews and republishes them or that he remarked on the dissonance between the way we viscerally react to the obscenity of the attack on Hebdo (and one still grieves to recall there the murder of Elsa Cayat) and how we would react were some inflamed Jews to make a similar lethal attack on a a paper routinely publishing antisemitic cartoons, is neither here nor there. He stated that while antisemitic cartoons are repulsive and universally condemned, cartoons that skewer by gross ethnic caricature a figure sacred to a billion Muslims evokes no such distaste. His point is WP:Systemic bias, and while I, for one,might perhaps strongly disagree, his analogy forced me to rethink a sensitive issue. That is one of the primary functions of controversialists. His scholarship uses other principles: few can find any factual misrepresentations in them. Thisa thread should be archived as unproductive, unfocused and all over the place without any prospect of conclusiveness. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I might have wanted to respond to you but I kind of got lost in the postmodernist jungle of your second sentence... Anyway I agree that this discussion leads nowhere, so I'm leaving it. Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The most concrete concerns provided in your links regard his aforementioned quotation of Benny Morris et al. I will reproduce an example here, apologies in advance for excessive quotation, but I think a complete-ish example of what we're talking about is needed here:

Passages by Benny Morris (1987) and Finkelstein (2001)

In The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1987)—which I think was the first book-length work on the subject, based on documents that were newly declassified at the time—while discussing the exodus of Palestinians from Haifa, Morris quotes a statement Ben-Gurion made in 1949. Here's both the footnote and the paragraph it's attached to:^[1]

Mapam's Arab Department, probably in part on the basis of Krischer's report, in March analysed the Arab flight from Haifa. The department noted the Arabs' "fears ... for their future," both in the transitional pre-State period and under Jewish rule, and pointed out that it was mainly "Christians, professionals, officials" who were leaving. By 1 March, the mainly Christian districts of "Old Carmel" and Wadi Nisnas were "almost completely" empty. "The flight is less marked in the eastern parts of town, where the poorer classes, who are under the influence of the extremists, are concentrated," stated the Department. According to this analysis, the Christians were mainly worried about the transitional period, between the end of effective Mandate government and the start of effective Jewish government. They felt that they would then be "between the hammer and the anvil, the Arab terrorist operations and Jewish reactions." Arab public servants feared that their advancement would be blocked by their "lack of Hebrew." Arab railway workers worried about the fate of the railway under Jewish rule.^[54]
54. LPA 48/23 aleph, protocol of the meeting of the Mapai Centre, statement by Ben-Gurion, 24 July 1948. Ben-Gurion's statement was revealing about his attitude to the Palestine Arabs, especially in the light of their behaviour and flight during the war. "Meanwhile," he said, "[a return] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table ... and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nonetheless, we did not flee en masse. [And] so far no Arab Einstein has arisen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer."

Finkelstein in turn quotes this in his own footnote while discussing how he feels Morris's work dispels myths about the period while simultaneously creating new ones in his Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (2001): once more both footnote and a paragraph of context:^[2]

Morris repeatedly warns readers to treat with extreme circumspection the diary entries and public pronouncements of Ben-Gurion, yet uncritically reports certain of his conclusions. Morris notes that Ben-Gurion's testimony cannot be trusted because he was ‘driven ... by concern for his place in history and the image of himself and the image of the new state he wished to project for posterity' (Birth, p. 165; cf. Birth, pp. 136, 218, 292–3, 329–30, note 24, 335, note 40; 1948, p. 113). For example he ridicules Ben-Gurion's repeated assertion in 1948 and 1949 that 'Israel has never expelled a single Arab' as ‘a lie that even the most gullible journalists and UN officials found hard to swallow' (Tikkun, p. 82) Indeed, Morris singles out Ben-Gurion’s own 'histories' (the quotation marks are Morris's) of the Yishuv and Israel's first years as the 'purest expression' of the highly tendentious 'old' history (1948, p. 5).^[12] Yet he cites without irony or qualification the 'major political conclusion' (Morris's phrase) Ben-Gurion drew from the Arab exodus from Haifa and elsewhere. Speaking to the People’s Council in early May 1948, Israel's first prime minister made the claim that no Jewish settlement to date had been abandoned in the war – in contrast with 'some hundred Arab settlements'. The Arabs, Ben-Gurion asserted, had abandoned 'cities ... with great ease, after the first defeat, even though no danger of destruction or massacre ... confronted them. Indeed, it was revealed with overwhelming clarity which people is bound with strong bonds to this land' (Birth, pp. 4–5) In fact, as we shall see presently, virtually every Arab settlement was abandoned precisely because of the 'danger of destruction or massacre'. What is more, at the exact moment that Ben-Gurion was sounding this 'major political conclusion', the Palmah was massacring some seventy Arab prisoners near Ein az Zeitun and several Arabs in the village itself (Birth, pp. 102, 321, note 133).
12. Another reason that Ben-Gurion’s testimony cannot be trusted is that he was so extreme a racist, indeed, comically so. Thus, he observed that Arabs were not entitled to the same respect accorded Jews because 'so far no Arab Einstein has arisen. ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer' (Birth, p. 331, note 54). Incidentally, Morris's study reveals that even the findings of Zionists renowned for their sympathy with the Palestinian Arabs must be handled with some caution. Thus a Mapam leader and secretary of the League for Arab—Jewish Rapprochement and Cooperation, Aharon Cohen, early on in the Arab exodus sought to minimize the responsibility of the Haganah by faulting the British for 'sow[ing] panic' among the Arabs – a claim for which there is apparently no supporting evidence (Birth, p. 317, note 73; cf. Birth, p. 319, note 93). Cohen’s contention in this regard is consistent with the central thesis of his major study, Israel and the Arab World, New York 1970, namely that the British were the villains of the Palestinian tragedy – a claim for which the evidence is equally scanty. Cohen and the Mapam became convinced by mid-1948 that the de facto Zionist leadership was engaged in a systematic expulsion policy; see pp. 74–5 above.

Really hoping this doesn't amount to copyvio, it's the smallest usable chunk I could directly honestly point to, I can't quote any further spidering of cross-references—but I hope this is at least an illustrative core of what we're talking about here. I simply am not able to see this as a dishonest distortion of either Morris or Ben-Gurion, to the best of my ability. It is simply a biased analysis. I don't really see it as sloppy scholarship, either. If one did have an issue with this, I cannot really wrap my head around it would amounting to a persuasive piece of evidence toward wholly disqualifying Finkelstein as a RS for the scope I've mentioned.

References

^ Morris, Benny (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge University Press. pp. 43–44, 331. ISBN 0-521-33028-9.
^ Finkelstein, Norman G. (2001). Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. pp. 54–55, 188. ISBN 978-1-859-84339-0.

There are inherent limits to rejecting making your own judgments as to uphold WP:NPOV. I am not an expert in anything, never mind I/P, but I am fairly literate. That's what these discussions are for, we can and should pass most of the buck to reliable sources, but ultimately we have to operate the scales when weighing them. That's all I've done. Remsense诉 14:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, as I told @Nishidani,

I was thinking of leaving this discussion. But since you took the trouble to respond to me at length I'll reciprocate and stay here. However, I 'm not sure I understand the purpose of the quotes you brought. I didn't mention his example in my comments, and I don't know where you got it from. I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?
However if nevertheless you want to go into specific examples then it does seem that in this case he misrepresented Morris at least. If I understand correctly what's going on (which is hard from this partial text) it seems NF claims that BM said that BG was racist whereas I don't see that BM said that. And here is an example of another error in NF work, this time quite egregious, that can be easily understood without being an expert. He claimed in one of his books that prior to 1967 only two Jewish American intellectuals supported Israel. This is patently false as is proven at length here. (The quotes from Einstein are particularly interesting to me since, coincidentally, I made a few edits on Einstein views on Zionism several weeks ago without any relation to NF. The fact that Einstein was pro-Zionist is very well known and it is bizarre that NF seems to have been unaware of it.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?

To be clear, no it is not: it's a basic discussion and interpretation of sources so we can figure out how to use them; as I've said, this is required in editing unless there's some way to fairly represent sources without interpreting them first that I'm not aware of. Original research would be if this went into an article itself as wikivoice analysis.

The "two Jewish American intellectuals" claim is a bit of a head-scratcher for me, I will freely admit. Remsense诉 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Camera is yet another crap source, proving nothing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

But as @Remsense said the discussion here is not bound by the regular rules of WP:OR and WP:RS. We are now on a mission of fact checking to determine the reliability of a source, not of writing an article. So do you suggest that when CAMERA quote NF as saying that there were only two Jewish American intellectuals who supported Israel before 1967 it is a fake quote and he didn't write this in his book?

Taking a break for a while, but I will return Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying: the above was an example cited in numerous places, including Camera. I'm basically just reproducing it here so we know a little directly about what the field is. Sorry for not being clear about that. Remsense诉 16:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No hurry. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323@Selfstudier

Since some people here seem to cast doubt about whether NF really said this thing about Jewish American intellectuals before 1967 I went to the primary source, and found this:

"Telling irony: Just about the only two public Jewish intellectuals who had forged a bond with Israel before June 1967 were Hannah Arendt and Noam Chomsky".

This is patently false, in addition to the names of Jewish American intellectuals who publicly supported Israel before 1967 that are mentioned in the CAMERA article (particularly Einstein) I can also add several more names just of the top of my head: Mordecai Kaplan, Abba Hillel Silver, Leo Strauss, Eli Wiesel, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Vegan416 (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(To be totally clear, when I said it was a "headscratcher", I meant I do not understand what Finkelstein was getting ~~out what~~at when he said that, and he's obviously straightforwardly wrong.) Remsense诉 06:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking here about you. Vegan416 (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are not going to convince anyone that NF is unreliable based on a couple of examples of details that you claim (without sources) are incorrect. Aside from the blatant cherrypicking of your approach (versus addressing NF's entire corpus of work), even pointing to a couple of errors would not make NF not reliable. Generally reliable means generally correct, not infallible. To attest NF as not GREL, you will need to prove a well-evidenced pattern of errance running through his entire body of scholarly work, or find a source that has already demonstrated the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, can you explain what these extracts are showing? I don't think we can determine general reliability ourselves via close analysis of extracts. Presumably, if you showed us some carefully chosen extracts of David Irving, we might think it looks reliable. This is why we avoid original research but go with the scholarly consensus. You've said that NF is a leader in his field, and the way to show this would be to show that a considerable body of reputable scholars in his field (the fields raised by the OP were the Holocaust and Israel/Palestine) consider him a good source and that few consider him dishonest or sloppy. I don't think you can do this based on close reading of his own work. Or is your intention to show he's better than Morris? But that's irrelevant here, as that's not the question at hand. Maybe I'm missing the point? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is this is the most persuasive critique of the reliability of Finkelstein's work by his peers for our purposes that I've read so far. I have reproduced it here so people can more easily begin analyzing what we are talking about. Remsense诉 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense. In re-reading I realise your point was clearer than I thought. On reflection, my conclusion from your analysis would be that in a case like this, where two scholars disagree with each other, we should cite neither of them as a source for facts without attribution, but where they give the same factual information we could cite both without attribution. Using our own reading of the sources to let us assume that either Finkelstein trumps Morris or vice versa would be original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Levivich, Finkelstein is a scholar whose opinions will often be due weight to attribute in prose. His writing is significant and reliable for some types of fact, but in a subject area where even many foundational, major events are interpreted differently by academics of different perspectives. — Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Scholars who cite Finkelstein

Let's look at what we're actually supposed to be looking at:

Nur Masalha 2012, pp. 79, 180-181, 192 (citing Finkelstein's 1991, 1995, and 2001 works)
Benny Morris 2004/1988, p. 64 (citing Finkelstein 1991)
Ilan Pappe 2017, pp. 78 ("As Norman Finkelstein has rightly noted, if you wanted to destroy what was left of the Jordanian army and retain your relationship with the one Arab country most loyal to Israel, a short operation in the West Bank, without occupying it, would have sufficed.") and 147 ("In his typical way Norman Finkelstein takes the official narrative of Israel as presented by one of its best articulators, Abba Eban, and demolishes it.")
Rosemary Sayigh 2013, p. 58 "Norman Finkelstein’s loss of his post at Hunter College and tenure denial at DePaul University is only the best known of numberless cases of dismissal, suspension, and delays in the appointment of junior faculty who have ventured into the forbidden realm of Palestinian studies."
Rashid Khalidi 2020, p. 252 ("The book was mercilessly eviscerated in reviews by Norman Finkelstein, Yehoshua Porath, and numerous other scholars, who all but called it a fraud.") and p. 290 "Two excellent books on the Gaza wars are Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018)..."
Avi Shlaim 2009, p. 369 "Finkelstein's career illustrates the venom with which the debate about Israel is conducted in America. Finkelstein is one of the most hard-hitting critics of the official Zionist version of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But while he uncompromisingly rejects the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line, he fully accepts Israels legitimacy within its pre-1967 borders. His position is coherent and consistent. Finkelstein specialises in exposing spurious American-Jewish scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Ahmad H. Sa'di 2007, p. 305 "Nonetheless the recent surge of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism in the West following the events of 9/11 and the United States’ pursuant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq enabled Dershowitz to resurrect these myths, requiring Finkelstein (2005) to painstakingly debunk them yet again."
Ronit Lentin 2010, pp. 109-110 " Indeed Morris’s failure to ‘join the dots’ and see that the mass of documentation that he unearthed points to a policy of expulsion has been severely criticised (Pappe 1992; Finkelstein 1995) as has his failure to contextualise the events of 1948 within the overall framework of the Zionist plans for transfer (Masalha 2003) ... Indeed, right-wing Israeli intellectuals are increasingly comfortable with the idea that their country was built on ethnic cleansing (Gutwein 2002) with Morris expressing his disappointment that the Nakba was not more thorough (Shavit 2004; for a trenchant critique of Morris see Finkelstein 1995)."
Neve Gordon et al. 2020, pp. 245 and 259 (citing Finkelstein 2018)
Neil Caplan 2019, ch. 4 ("For important critiques of this work, see Finkelstein, N.G. (2001)."), ch. 12 ("In the US, nationwide campaigns were organized with the aim of destroying the professional reputations of, or denying tenure to, outspokenly pro‐Palestinian academics like Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, and Nadia Abu El-Haj."), and elsewhere
Mark Tessler 2009, pp. 879-880 "For a forceful rebuttal to Morris's conclusion, which contends that the Israeli scholar's own documentation demonstrates the existence of a systematic Zionist plan to expel the Palestinians, see Norman Finkelstein, "Myths, Old and New," Journal of Palestine Studies 81 (Autumn 1991): 66—89. This issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies also contains another critique of Morris's study and a strong response by Morris. A further rejoinder by Finkelstein appears in volume 82 of the journal."
Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg 2018, p. 37 (citing The Holocaust Industry)
Helena Linholm Schulz 2003, p. 30 "Palestinian (and other) authors have challenged the main line of Morris’s argument, arguing that Zionist policy was before, during and after the war bent on ‘transfer’ or ‘expulsion’ of the Palestinian population from Palestine (Finkelstein et al. 1991; W.Khalidi 1992; Masalha 1992, 1997a, 2001)."
Jerome Slater 2020, p. 432 (citing Norman Finkelstein, “The Camp David II Negotiations,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 2007.)
Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2019, pp. 110 and 115 (citing Finkelstein 2015 and 2018)
Marouf Hasian Jr. 2020, p. 2 (quoting Finkelstein 2007)
Marcy Jane Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 21, 47, 79, 114 (extensive quotation from and discussion of The Holocaust Industry)

This wasn't methodical, just searching my personal collection of works for "Finkelstein". Also, my apologies to the community, I should have just done this first, instead of spending days arguing with people on the internet. Levivich (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that considerable effort. A pity its evidence will be talked past, but one must get used to that on wikipedia. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to foreshadow it if it's so inevitable. Yes, thank you Levivich. Remsense诉 11:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable work Levivich. Just one observation: Almost all of these citations relate to I/P and not to the Holocaust, with two of them relating to his book The Holocaust Industry, neither of which I can actually read online so not sure how they use him, and the second of which (Knopf-Newman) is probably not a scholarly I realise that my first comment in this section didn't fully absorb the OP's question, which is whether his books can be used as sources for facts re I/P and the Holocaust. While I strongly hold to my view that his non-academic articles should be avoided (and haven't been convinced that he is either a "major political scientist" or the best historian in the history of history), there is no doubt that many of his published books on I/P and on the Holocaust "industry" are generally noteworthy (specifically Image and Reality, The Holocaust Industry, Beyond Chutzpah and Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom; I don't think his I Accuse, let alone his most recent book about wokeness, fall into this category). Given that he is not a Holocaust scholar, I cannot imagine why we would use his books as sources for facts about the Holocaust when there is so much good Holocaust scholarship available, but I think there are times when he might be usable as a source for facts on I/P or on the memorialisation of the Holocaust. However, these uses, many of which refer to his criticisms of or arguments with other writers, do not dispel my belief that we need caution, as pretty much all of his books are critiques of other writers, some of whom

(Peters, Dershowitz) are not reputable scholars but some of whom (Morris, Anita Shapira are; in these cases, I don't think we should cite him as a source for facts without attribution, but rather attribute and triangulate with the attributed views of those with whom he disagrees. In retrospect, the generalness of the question that opened this noticeboard section has meant it has been a extremely unhelpful discussion; it would have been much better to discuss specific examples of types of uses. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course when there are scholars that disagree with other scholars what we should be doing is attributing each view, so I don’t see anything either wrong or out of the ordinary with that, but that doesn’t require some sort of caution. That is just standard practice regardless. nableezy - 10:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I guess that's right, but it is particularly important to bear in mind in his specific case because so much of his published work takes arguments with other scholars as its starting point, rather than e.g. taking particular research questions or archives as a starting point - his role, as Nishidani said earlier, is that of a "controversialist" - whereas there are plenty of sources (e.g. Abdel Monem Said Aly, Dov Waxman, Ian Black, Neil Caplan) that represent the scholarly consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because I made the list by searching my own little collection of Nakba works. I didn't search any Holocaust works. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my comment was not intended as criticism. Reviewing his reception, I cannot find any Holocaust scholars using him as a source on the Holocaust, whereas I can find quite a few I/P scholars using him as a source on I/P. The OP combined both topics in one question, and I think it's important to differentiate them in answering. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Bob, I appreciate the distinction you are making, but with a reservation. Finkelstein's early life was lived in the shadow of the powerful memories of two parents who both survived the Warsaw Ghetto and several concentration camps, making him an importantr secondary witness,an experience that most Holocaust scholars over the last few decades do not, fortunately, have (to bear). That he is fluent in the literature comes from the special relationship he had with the founder of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, but, most importantly, an integral part of Holocaust studies is the way it is remembered and studied, as our own article on it underlines. And in this respect, Finkelstein is a leading scholar of its reception and the uses to which it has been put. Whether Holocaust scholars cite this or not is therefore immaterial, since they are focusing on the events 1933-1945 and he on the post-war (esp.post 1967) uses to which the Holocaust is put in the long aftermath. He is certainly a major source on the latter part, Holocaust historiography. I agree that given the thousands of scholarly works on the Holocaust as an historical period, there is no need for him to be cited for that reconstruction of events. If he is then a simple {{better source}} tag is all that is required.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I know what you meant, I didn't take it as criticism :-) I was just saying the only reason the list skews towards works on the Nakba is because I searched my computer folder "Nakba" that has sources I used for the Nakba article. So it's a very not-methodological search, like literally just the Nakba books I happen to have lying around. But you reminded me that I have a computer folder of Holocaust works as well, which I will search. First hit, BTW: Finkelstein is cited by Christopher Browning in Ordinary Men, p. 355: " The two most detailed and sustained critiques of Hitler's Willing Executioners are: Ruth Bettina Birn, “Revising the Holocaust,” Historical Journal 40/no. 1 (1997), 195–215; and Norman Finkelstein, “Daniel Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique of Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” New Left Review 224 (1997): 39–87." I'll add more cites/quotes shortly. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I searched my "Holocaust" folder for "Finkelstein":

Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men [10], p. 355: "The two most detailed and sustained critiques of Hitler’s Willing Executioners are: Ruth Bettina Birn, “Revising the Holocaust,” Historical Journal 40/no. 1 (1997), 195–215; and Norman Finkelstein, “Daniel Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique of Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” New Left Review 224 (1997): 39–87"
Dan Michman 2019 (chapter 19 in Beyond "Ordinary Men", I don't have a page number): "However, precisely because of its growing centrality and the recognition of its “Jewishness” and its unique features, the memory of the Holocaust – denounced by Norman Finkelstein as a “Holocaust Industry” - became also heavily politicized and criticized, especially since the late 1990s. For extreme critics of Israel (and Zionism), Israel, and especially post-1967 Israel, “benefited” from the global centrality of the Holocaust (and according to Finkelstein Israel and its supporters even invented it in order to thwart criticism of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Ghaza), and thus its uniqueness had to be negated and the ways Zionism and Israel benefited from it had to be exposed and emphasized." and "The book [The Holocaust Industry] was translated into many languages and embraced by both extreme left-wing anti-Zionist circles and Eastern European right-wing anti-Semites. For a scholarly critique see Alvin H. Rosenfeld, “The Assault on Holocaust Memory,” American Jewish Year Book vol. 101 (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2001): 3-20."
Dan Stone (historian) 2013, p. 160: "First, there are attacks on ‘memory studies’ in general. Among these Norman Finkelstein’s polemic against the so-called ‘Holocaust industry’ is probably the best known: ‘Currently all the rage in the ivory tower, “memory” is surely the most impoverished concept to come down the academic pike in a long time’. Indeed, Finkelstein’s ‘Holocaust industry’ could be seen as a subset of a wider ‘memory industry’ (Klein’s term).", p. 163 "Manea’s criticisms, however, remind us that this is not an antiquarian enterprise or a fruitless postmodern game, as Finkelstein would have us believe, but that the study of memory may itself contribute to the creation of an ‘age of commemoration’ in which all memories other than the celebratory and efficacious are smothered or occulted." and p. 166 "This is a way of understanding memory that does not see it only as embedded in sites such as memorials; rather, Confino and Fritzsche point up the real weakness of Finkelstein’s claim, by showing how collective memories are created and passed on to some extent by design but also unconsciously, by virtue of, and in the process helping to define, existing social structures and networks."
Donald Bloxham 2009 p. 319: "As far as the strictly historical scholarship is concerned, the uniqueness ‘debate’ has lost most of its steam. Yet the idea of uniqueness, and thereby universal significance, is important to the establishment of various Holocaust memorial days and museum exhibitions across the Western world. If there is a ‘Holocaust industry’, these areas of didactics and commemoration are its workshops and uniqueness one of its most important raw materials. It is no accident that assailants of that ‘industry’ have directed much of their energy at the uniqueness claim.", citing (p. 381 n. 46) Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life
Donald Niewyk and Francis Nicosia 2000 (Columbia Guide to the Holocaust), p. 89: "This sweeping monocausal explanation of perpetrator motivations has attracted little support from scholars, some of whose reactions may be sampled in Norman Finkelstein’s A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth." and pp. 359-360, discussing Finkelstein and Bettina Birn's "A Nation on Trial" book: "The authors dispute Daniel Goldhagen’s controversial argument that the Holocaust must be explained solely in terms of an antisemitism unique to Germany, one that embodied a national will to exterminate the Jews."
Adam Sutcliffe in Journal of Genocide Research 2022, "Several trenchant critiques of the sentimental and political instrumentalization of the Holocaust appeared around the turn of the millennium, but these arguments did not gain traction and were widely rejected as distastefully hard-hearted or cynical," citing The Holocaust Industry as one example, along with Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life and Tim Cole's Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold [11]
Tim Cole 2004 (chapter 4 in The Historiography of the Holocaust edited by Dan Stone (historian)), p. 68: "Damning what he saw to be the emergence of a fully-fledged ‘Holocaust industry’ from the late 1960s onwards, Norman Finkelstein mocked Steven Katz’s thesis of the uniqueness of the Holocaust: ‘To avoid any confusion, Katz elucidates that he uses the term phenomenologically “in a non-Husserlian, non-Shutzean, non-Schlerian, non-Heideggerian, non-Merleau-Pontyan sense.” Translation: The Katz enterprise is phenomenal non-sense.’" and cited elsewhere in the chapter
Zoë Waxman 2004, p. 487 (another chapter in the same Dan Stone book): "Against the prevalent idea that survivors have only recently come forward to tell their stories out of a new, flourishing culture of witnessing (a view espoused by Norman Finkelstein in his polemical attack on the so-called ‘Holocaust industry’), witnesses were aware of the historical importance of their experiences as they unfolded."
Stanislav Kolář in Geneology (disclosure: it's an MDPI journal) 2019, p. 8: "My Holocaust is Reich’s response to the abuse of Holocaust commemoration, to what Norman G. Finkelstein (2000) has termed the Holocaust industry, exploiting the memory of Jewish suffering for political and financial gain."
Judith Hughes 2022, p. 131 lists The Holocaust Industry as a general reference in the bibliography
Nawal Musleh-Motut 2023, p. 4 (passing mention of 2009 post on Finkelstein's website)

Again, this is a very non-methodical search of books that I just happened to have on my computer. But for me, this kind of settles it: at the point at which you're being cited by the likes of Brown, Stone, Bloxham, Michman, Nicosia, or being mentioned in the same sentence as Birn or Novick... this is kind of a "who's who" of Holocaust scholars, if they take Finkelstein seriously enough as a scholar to cite his works alongside other serious scholars, even if they disagree with his conclusions, it's demonstrable proof that Finkelstein is not fringe or anything like that, he's "in the club," a bona fide scholar cited by other bona fide scholars. There is no reason not to consider his works RS. And I don't care if he is published by Unz, heck he could be published by Stormfront, he could be the Grand Wizard of the KKK, it doesn't matter: he's clearly widely cited, including by other preeminent scholars in the field of Holocaust Studies, and in the field of I/P. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And the fact that this same Novick, whom you praise so much here, described Finkelstein scholarly work on the holocaust as "trash" and "a twenty-first century updating of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and “As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) ‘debate’ but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites" doesn't bother you at all? True, it is common for academics to have personal rows, but it's not so common for one to describe the other's work is such sharps terms. Vegan416 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You are sidestepping Levivich’s serious evidence and much else as you persist in scouring mediocre sources for ‘dirt’ on Finkelstein. Did you read all of the article (the second above) by Isi Leibler (I grew up enjoying his once informed opinions in Australia)? It is a defense of the superiority of Alan Dershowitz’s book, which has no standing in scholarship, over Finkelstein’s work, part of which demolished D’s book’s pretensions to be original research. But what you missed is the following admission by Leibler (who has no grasp of the scholarship by the way)

Finkelstein's ravings are boosted, among others, by a long parade of academics of Jewish origin praising his lies and describing his distortions as scholarship.

Leibler calls the ‘long parade of Jewish academics in Israel and beyond who praise Finkelstein’s work as ‘renegades’, a particularly odious label since there is a mitzvah which dictates death to those who renege Israel (the slip/faux pas/gaffe is typical of such cheap polemics). In other words, he admits the record shows Finkelstein has many scholarly admirers, but they are traitors to their people. You cherrypick for the smear word 'trash' without even troubling yourself to carefully evaluate the abysmal quality of the source you adduce. The careless, and ineptness is embarrassing. And you are bludgeoning the page in repeating yourself. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems highly irrelevant. While it's clear that Novick and Finkelstein have differences of opinion, it's not our place to adjudicate who of the two is right merely how have they been received by the field. The answer is that they've been received very similarly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's extremely common for scholars to describe other scholars' work in such sharps terms, and I think nowhere is it as common as it is in the fields of Holocaust Studies and Israel/Palestine Studies. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Was any of the others holocaust scholars that you mentioned above criticized in such terms? Do you have an example? Vegan416 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Listen - I read a lot of Philosophy works and a lot of critics of Foucault call him everything under the sun from the killer of truth, the enemy of reason or even "ontologically evil." When you read enough of this sort of stuff it's kind of par for the course. Does that mean I want to trawl through the criticism of a bunch of holocaust scholars just to appease your curiosity? Absolutely not. It's irrelevant and immaterial. In the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't say that I disagree with this criticism of Foucault's work. Despite the fact that he was pro-Israeli :-) In any case I give up on this discussion on NF. He is not important enough for me to be accused of "bludgeoning" over him. Vegan416 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You know what I noticed is that all the quotes of Peter Novick calling Norman Finkelstein's work "trash" seem to come from second-hand sources, e.g. none from Novick himself, and I can't seem to find where Novick supposedly said or wrote this. Same goes for that inclusion of this material in the Wikipedia article about Norman Finkelstein; I wonder if it's true.

Anyway, Novick himself is no stranger to being called names. His NYT obit notes people called him a "self-hating Jew" for his work on the Holocaust, and quotes a review that calls his work "a tough-minded work, sharp, brusque, and sometimes nearly Swiftian in its acerbities."

Same in I/P. That 2004 Benny Morris book I cited above, in that same book, p. 8, this is what he says about Efraim Karsh: "his criticisms are of such brazen mendacity and distortion – regarding what I wrote and what is in the documentation – that they are not worthy of detailed treatment."

Meanwhile, here is what Nur Masalha 2012, which I also cited above, says on p. 157 about Benny Morris: "his illiberal conclusions and subsequent support for the racist, murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestine.", p. 170, "Morris began his scholarly career by arguing for ‘shared responsibility’ for the Palestinians over their catastrophe; he ended up with the claim that the Palestinians had brought the Nakba on themselves. He became the symbol of a ‘new history’ in collusion with ethnic cleansing, neo-colonialism and war crimes in Palestine, past, present and future.", and on p. 175 here's what Masalha says about the rest of the New Historians: "Almost inevitably, since the late 1980s the Israeli ‘new historians’ in general and Benny Morris in particular have come to be seen in the West as the ‘ultimate authority’ on 1948, the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem and the Nakba. The ‘new historians’ fitted the bill. They were all Western-educated (with connections to Oxford and Cambridge universities), male, white, young, Ashkenazi descendants of the ancient Hebrews, highly professional and scientifically minded and authoritative; their work is grounded in official documents and state archives, and so they could now represent everyone, especially those indigenous Palestinians located at the bottom of the pile. Exaggerating the impact of ‘new history’, and trumpeting their newly found fame, the ‘new historians’ even sought to patronise the ‘annoyed’ and ‘jealous’ Palestinian historians."

Sharp words are par for the course in these topic areas. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I already announced leaving this debate. But since you asked about the ultimate source for Novick's quotes on Finkelstein here it is:

Peter Novick, “Offene Fenster und Tueren. Ueber Norman Finkelsteins Kreuzzug”(Open Windows and Doors. About Norman Finkelstein’s Crusade.) in Petra Steinberger, ed., Die Finkelstein-Debatte [The Finkelstein Debate] (München: Piper Verlag, 2001), p. 159 Vegan416 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are different sorts of sharp words here.

Masalha is sharply critical of Morris' interpretations and conclusions but crucially does not say that Morris is unreliable for facts, whereas Karsh and Finkelstein accuse Morris of lying. Morris responds to Masalha much more respectfully than he does to Finkelstein or Karsh, seeing Masalha as wrong in his interpretations but Finkelstein as actively dishonest about the facts: outworn preconceptions and prejudices prevail. These underlie -and tarnish- Finkelstein's and Masalha's articles. In the case of Finkelstein, the critique is accompanied and reinforced by innuendo and distortion. Morris and Masalha are both biased scholars working in a controversial area, who we could cite without attribution as a source for facts unless their claim has been specifically disputed. Same with Novick: he was attacked by activists and journalists, but not accused of distortion or dishonesty by mainstream scholars.

To me, Karsh is the mirror of Finkelstein. Despite his academic affiliation and publication by academic presses, I don't think that we should ever cite Karsh as a source for facts without attribution, as his views are extremely controversial (like Finkelstein, we could use Nishidani's word "controversialist" for him) -- although like Finkelstein the number of people cite him, often as an example of an extremely partisan position on this controversial area, so his opinions might be noteworthy.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich for the thorough work again. I think this shows that he is very much noteworthy in debates about Holocaust memory but that he is viewed as controversial. Few if any of these are citing him as a source for facts; most are citing him as an example of the polemical intensity of debates at the turn of the century. I keep having to remind myself of the question the OP (Davest3r08) posted: are his books reliable for "verifying general statements in [I/P and Holocaust] related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature"? I'm not sure what was meant by "general statements" but if it means "can we cite him without attribution for facts about the Holocaust?", then I don't think these scholarly citations enable us to do that. However, I think the case that his opinion is noteworthy in articles about the history of the post-67 reception/memory of the Holocaust is now pretty definitively made. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP original request was "Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter (my italics), and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature." This question is about the IA conflict specifically and not the Holocaust. Of course, that he is also cited by scholars for Holocaust material merely adds to his standing in general. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thx Selfstudier. I don't think I got the significance of "on the latter" and I seem to have introduced a major distraction. Sorry. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes on LateNighter source

Since I've seen this source used a lot (mostly in SNL or late-night television-related topics) so I would like to give my notes on the source.

LateNighter was founded and is run by three television veterans: Bill Carter (previously of The New York Times and CNN, author of The Late Shift and The War for Late Night), A.J. Katz (previously of Adweek as the editor-in-charge of its TVNewser section) and Jed Rosenzweig (previously of Yahoo and also runs the site Primetimer.) (source)
Most (see notes below) contributors and writers of the site are established journalists. For example, Jennifer M. Wood works for The Daily Beast and has written for other sources such as Vanity Fair, The New York Times, etc. Dennis Perkins wrote for The A.V. Club and Paste, and Nick Ricardo's work has been featured in Splitsider, Buzzfeed and Screener TV.
I'd say the source is generally reliable for entertainment topics and opinions should be treated with caution per WP:RSOPINION. Be careful with the Saturday Night Network podcast; this podcast is fan-run (occasionally featuring journalists) that has existed before LateNighter's creation. I think interviews on the podcast should be fine to cite (more reliable sources are preferable), but other episodes should generally be avoided.

Spinixster (trout me!) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a cause for this post, has another editor questioned it's reliability? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

itbusiness.ca

I have been looking for sources on the early development of the Presto card and found this 2004 article from a source I have never encountered. While the source itself seems fine, I have no familiarity with its editorial practices and would like to confirm it is okay to use for non-controversial claims. ~UN6892 ^t_c 12:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears to have some use as a reference in other reliable sources, it should be reliable for non-controversial claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Global Village Space

I wouild like to seek the community's input on addressing a Pakistani news website called globalvillagespace.com operated by a controversial journalist Moeed Pirzada. This website lacks an editorial team and appears to primarily generating news articles through AI or possibly functions as what an IP referred to as "a spam mill". It's troubling to note that this source is being utilized in over 200 articles, including numerous BLPs. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

One way to confirm if the source is reliable or not is to see whether there are reports in other reliable sources contrary to what they have reported, I have not seen anything like that yet. I only remember using it at one occasion and the content reported by that source was confirmed in other reliable sources such as this report at GVS is confirmed by this and this thus in my opinion, this source is reliable unless proven otherwise. That being said, I do not think this source should be allowed to be used on the article about Moeed Pirzada since the website according to Saqib is owned by him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this news website operates on AI-generated content, so theoretically, it should cover everything reported by other news sites. You need to see what the Washington Post / AFP has to say about this fake news website. NewsGuard also categorized this website as an AI-generated website, @SheriffIsInTown, please exercise caution with AI-powered news sites, as many have emerged recently, even in Pakistan. Your argument that every news source is considered reliable unless contested is not advisable, particularly coming from an experienced editor like yourself. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Even generally reliable sources can get things wrong, editors always need to question the reliability of sources. The opposite can also be true, a site may have many articles that can be backed up by other sources but still be generally unreliable.
For sources that is relatively unknown see what other sources are saying about it can be a way of understanding it's reliability. Do other outlets quote the sources, do they republish it's stories, are their articles that talk directly about the reliability of the source.
When it comes to BLPs you need to be using the best sources possible, one option is if a more known sources also backs up a story use that instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Since you inquired, yes, just a day ago I raised the issue on this talk page that we shouldn't use this particular source on a BLP after @SheriffIsInTown added it. Now given that we have evidence indicating that this is an AI-generating fake news website, I propose removing this source from over 200 articles and consider banning it usage altogether. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence is simply a tool, capable of being employed for both positive and negative purposes. Merely utilizing AI does not inherently signify that the source is fraudulent. AI can be utilized to produce authentic content or fabricate deceptive content. The crucial factor lies in the veracity of the content itself. Is the content on GVS corroborated by other sources? If so, the tool used becomes immaterial. However, if the content lacks verification from external sources, then it could raise concerns, regardless of the tool employed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be overlooking The Washington Post story, which clearly labeled the website as a fake news website publishing satire news articles. It's surprising to see your continued defense of this website and reluctance to consider its removal from BLP Sher Afzal Marwat. I had assumed your WP experience surpassed mine, but it appears otherwise now. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Racing-reference.info reliability for non-NASCAR aspects

The website racing-reference is officially owned by NASCAR, so I would think that sources to historic NASCAR/Indycar/other NASCAR sanctioned series would be reliable, however, it also hosts content from other racing series. Would those be reliable options to cite? Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

University publications for retired faculty member

I have been working on an article for Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander and I am finding that most of the sources are from the University of Georgia's publications (e.g., "Terry Magazine, Red & Black, UGA News).

My understanding is that they are not necessarily considered objective sources and should not be used at all or sparingly. Is it acceptable to use one or two articles? This one is my top pick: [12] It summarized her career when she retired in 2020.

Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Independent sources are usually preferred but that's probably okay for non-controversial claims. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate/blacklist The Skwawkbox

As suggested by a user on Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings, there is significant reason to deprecate or blacklist this website, which is already listed on WP:RSP as being unreliable and biased.

The Skwawkbox published an article [13] that took at face value baseless lies by neo-Nazi Thomas Sewell and Assad supporter Maram Susli that the Australian mall killer was Jewish. These sources named a specific innocent man and led to targeted harassment of him. [14]

The Skwawkbox's article gloats about the alleged ethnicity of the killer, saying that pro-Israelis "look to have been humiliated" by it. This is no different to far-right websites that gloat over Muslim criminals and "owning the libs" when people get killed. More concerning than this viewpoint is the unethical editorial practices. The Skwawkbox has not deleted this article or even changed the title. It has merely written a short update saying that the killer was Joel Cauchi. Ironically, they are saying that Julia Hartley-Brewer and Rachel Riley have not deleted their tweets or apologised for blaming Muslims, while The Skwawkbox has not deleted their article or apologised to the man they libelled or to the Jewish community writ large. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Was it added to the article in question? The website itself is used in only 15 articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22skwawkbox.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 with one of those instances being a simple webhost for a PDF from the Labour party.

I don't see a blacklist achieving much given how little usage this source has. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The skwawkbox article is completely wrong and other reliable sources that made the same mistake have already corrected themselves.[15][16] It's a very poor look for a very poor source, but probably doesn't warrant blacklisting. Just another reason it should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that 7 News took reports from twitter accounts and treated it as fact without any due diligence brings a real question about the reliability of 7 News itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

niche.com with regards to Rockingham, North Carolina

Just checking on this website, it gives grade ratings to US neighbourhoods.

Specifically I wanted to know if we consider it a reliable source, and how our answer would affect its dueness for inclusion in US settlement pages. The source for the specific claim is this page. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

They're reliable that they gave that rating, I doubt very much that it's due. The statistics they use could be due, but in that case use the source of the statistics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, that was what I suspected but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this comment in the independent considered reliable for the biography of a non-living person?

I came across this article when searching for sourcing about Olivia Frank, or is excluded from being used? I'm unfamiliar with the degree of editorial control when it comes to those. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The Independent is considered to be generally reliable. The article is an opinion piece, but the claim that Frank was an Israeli spy doesn't seem to be controversial e.g. the JC wrote about it as well. I'd say the source is fine. Cortador (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m specifically wondering about the degree of reliability for the claims about their work for British intelligence, which I left vague for now? FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons I would frame that as "Frank claimed to have been recruited by the MI5" etc. since both The Independent and the JC cite her as having stated that, but don't state that she was an MI5 operative on their own. Cortador (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In The Hammer/The Hammer

What is the reliability of this source? According to their editorial policy, they would reach out to the appropriate parties and individuals to confirm any tips or other information we might receive from various sources, so it seems to be a bit of a primary source (but still mostly secondary source). Quoting its editorial policy, If we receive information about an individual or organization that is accusatory or unflattering in nature, we give the other party ample time (typically no less than 24 hours) to respond, which might be a concern when it comes to reliability (for me, that is). Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

PureWow review on animated episode

At this writing, I am on my second edit of Draft:The Sign (Bluey), commemorating the just-premiered third-series finale of the Australian animated hit. GNews' latest brings up this review from PureWow, a women's lifestyle outlet which hasn't been discussed much on this site outside a late July 2015 AFD on its owner. Should we let it in after I receive the A-OK, or should we leave it out in light of better options?

Given we mentioned a Bluey topic here at RSN, it's up to fellow watchers to give yours truly a hand. (Not to mention this is my first RSN stint if I'm not mistaken.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

GNews brings up this next review (from Romper.com). If both that and PureWow are acceptable, it might be enough for the draft to pass AFC in the next matter of days; more to come as I find them. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, this Comicbook.com article on the episode's Easter eggs may need some scrutiny. (Comicbook.com is owned by Paramount.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Going in reverse order. Comicbook is considered a marginal source. I can't find much on Romper, but it's owned by the same company as Bustle another marginal source. PureWow seems about the same, but they are much more SEO focused. It's seems the least reputable of the three.
Given what you want to reference from these sources they look OK, I would have bigger doubts if you wanted to use them in a WP:BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Another review, this time from Australia--and this time from an outlet called MamaMia. Not too sure on this one, since it's a reprint from original author Rebecca Sharley's Substack. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Cyrtians and Balāśagān

Hello, I want to know if the author’s opinion is authoritative regarding the habitat of Cyrtians in Balāśagān. Is the source reliable?

Author: Naseer Dashti

First book History of the Ancient Baloch

Secod book: The Baloch and Balochistan. A Historical Account from the Beginning to the Fall of the Baloch State With respect, Aharon Erman (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this but if the opinion was authoritative it would be quoted/mentioned in other reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published book. I would not want it anywhere near an article. Ostalgia (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is MW better or worse than aboutself for a claim about Mohamed Hadid

The question regarding the reliability of Mondoweiss, particularly per BLP, was discussed here, where the outcome included: […] that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. The use case, which is contentious, would also be covered by an ABOUTSELF and is disputed when it comes to its accuracy, with the potential error being plausibly caused by the subject (and not the source).

If the content is to be included (which is a secondary dispute not related to this board), should MW be used, or is an exclusive ABOUTSELF citation better? FortunateSons (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Article: Mohamed Hadid

Discussion: Talk:Mohamed Hadid# Footnote 13 for BLP

Cited text: In 2015, Hadid stated: "We became refugees to Syria and we lost our home in Safad to a Jewish family that we sheltered… they made us refugees and they kicked us out of our own home."

MW: https://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/palestinian-details-refugee/

Aboutself: See discussion FortunateSons (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If the content is to be included the content is already included and has been for a while.

As for the source: since every bit of what it states is factual, there is no reason to question it (unless the idea is to remove it so that the content is easily challenged). M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not seeing the quote in any high quality RS, so there is a secondary question of DUE unrelated to this discussion, which stands regardless of whether or not it’s aboutself or a disputed source. The question regarding sourcing is just that, and the purpose of this noticeboard, otherwise I would have used another FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

1) The content is well sourced (we can add another source to it if needs be). 2) It's not disputed. 3) It's very important to the primary subject. 4) it's been stable for a while. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

1) the content can be sourced well by ABOUTSELF, but not MW (as cited above)

2) It’s disputed (and therefore unstable) now, and it had been before, as cited in my original comment

3) The importance can be disputed somewhere else, this is exclusively about the source and the decision here has no direct impact there FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The undisputed content is and has been stable for a while. That's a fact!

The reliability of the sources (in context) has been addressed and I see no reason to repeat it. M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It may have been stable, it’s clearly not fully undisputed, but that also really isn’t the point.

The reliability of this source in the context of the ‘new and improved’ RfC closure has not been discussed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The well sourced traumatic experience of the subject belongs in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not in favour of removing his parents flight, so yes. However, his statement that is either of limited plausibility, an unclear metaphor or counterfactual might not. And for a third (and hopefully last) time, this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to open another discussion on content in the appropriate places, please tag me. FortunateSons (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

i know exactly which board this is, that's why I stated that since the source in question is reliable in context, then there is nothing else to talk about. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, particularly considering you yourself used about self to verify it, which indicates that you consider ABOUTSELF at least comparable if not superior. FortunateSons (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that is turning into yet another time sink. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the daily mail and there is no evidence of fabricating quotes, so I see no reason why it isn't a reliable source for Hadid's statement. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, as the MW article basically puts together all the social media posts and transcribes them into text (so it's a bit more user friendly than the social media posts), and the narrative is clearly attributed to him. This seems a low risk use of a bad source, with the flagging on the talk page being the "extreme caution" the close recommends. This does not mean MW is a usable source for making potentially defamatory claims about BLPs, and we should remain vigilant about that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. In my mind, exercising caution with a source in a BLP would mean not citing it (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (i.e. John Smith has the world record for hot dog eating); (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. But to proscribe use of MondoWeiss for basic facts (i.e. DOB) and uncontested quotes would be to render it completely unusable for BLPs, since there's essentially nothing left at that point. Which does not seem consistent with the close. (Disclosure: I closed the RfC in question.) Chetsford (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The primary question here was if it was better or worse than an available aboutself citation. Bob made a convincing argument regarding readability (and implied accessibility), which I agree with. FortunateSons (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is the use case contentious? It looks like a primary/secondary republication of a primary source. This usage is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The content of the quote is disputed and in a contentious topic area, I thought a direct link would be better in such a case compared to a highly biased and ~~fringe~~ relatively contentious source, but I would consider it resolved based on readability arguments made above. Therefore, I agree that this is a case where use with great caution is met. FortunateSons (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

fringe source Feel free to substantiate this claim. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, I will strike and replace it. Would you consider this to be accurate: „considered fringe or worthy of depreciation by a significant number of editors in the last RfC.“ FortunateSons (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There was an RFC, the close has been accepted for the most part except for the part about BLPs and there is a close review dealing with that. The fact is that most editors did not agree with considered fringe or worthy of depreciation and that's that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you be willing to suggest an alternative phrasing that captures the content? FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Found a mild meta-phrasing, do you approve? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Presenting information as indisputable fact when the first reference is the Bible

In the Second Temple article it is written "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood". No evidence has been found for Solomon's Temple much less that it existed at the Temple Mount. Minimalist Bible scholars generally believe that the first Temple's existence is likely or plausible but that we can't know for sure because there's no evidence; But this article is presenting uncertain information as if it's certain. I added a dispute tag and opened a talk topic but I was immediately reverted and accused of vandalism. I suggested switching the statement to "The Temple Mount, where it's believed that Solomon's Temple existed" but that suggestion was also rejected. Omar Jabarin (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the article is relying on the Bible, and editors in the talk page discussion have cited non-biblical sources. There's (at a glance) a reasonable debate to be had about how to present this info, so I think you're being a bit misleading by saying "the first reference is the Bible".

FWIW, it's clear that your edits were not vandalism, and I'm sorry that other editors treated them that way. If it happens again, please ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources that they provided in the talk page are an article to an Israeli website of someone saying "it definitely existed" and the other source is literally a page out of a book quoting "Ezekiel". There's debate among scholars and there is no evidence of Solomon's Temple. This is also mentioned in Solomon's Temple article. "No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found". Omar Jabarin (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For further clarification on the bigger picture, this editor did not wait for consensus on the talk page, and removed bits from the article that does not suit his POV. I originally asked him to take it to the talk page, yet he continues to try and push his POV in edits to the article, adding banners and being the only one to use a non-neutral tone, specifically in edit summaries. Equine-man (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you recall, I explicitly directed you to the parts of the Solomon's Temple page which discuss the historicity of the structure (with associated sources), twice. While the first editor who responded to you did link you to Haaretz, their comment also included 3 completely separate academic works which supported their view. I agree Haaretz should not have been linked as a proof, but you seem to willingly ignore both the portents of the discussion and the pages in question that actually addressed your concerns. Sinclairian (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not denying the existence of a First Temple. I'm not qualified enough to determine that. What we do know is that there's no direct evidence of it. Therefore, any scholarship regarding the First Temple would have to be relying on speculation to some extent and the article should reflect that. Instead the article presents it as a certain fact without any wiggle room which is simply not up to the editor to decide. Omar Jabarin (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't require that reliable sources have 'direct evidence' to our personal standards - we just follow along with whatever standard the sources think is appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no reliable source that says Solomon's Temple certainly existed which is what that article is presenting. Other articles about Solomon's Temple, including the main article and even the article about Temple denial don't say that. I don't see why an article which isn't even about Solomon's Temple to begin with is redundantly stating that; and I don't understand what's the harm in adding clarification/elaboration in terms of maintaining neutrality and objectivity. Omar Jabarin (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, according to wikipedia's own disputed definition disputed statements are defined as the following:

"Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned"

According to Solomon's Temple article "as of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts" which means the building is only mentioned in extra-biblical account which means the source are by definition outdated and questioned.

And also:

"Information that is particularly difficult to verify"

Fits to a T. I suggest if a clarification is not added then at the very least keep the disputed tag. Omar Jabarin (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained to you several times, there are multiple reliable sources which say Solomon’s Temple certainly existed. The entire debate surrounding it that we have extensively detailed is when the structure was built. Wikipedia is built off sources, and the sources say the Temple existed. Sinclairian (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In the Solomon's Temple article

"as of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts"

How can a Temple from 3000 years ago with no surviving extra-biblical account or archaeological evidence have reliable sources that claim it certainly existed? The first reference is by definition the Bible. Many people are rightfully skeptical of anything that relies on the Bible as a first reference. "X scholars strongly believe this Temple existed despite no actual material evidence" is not sufficient evidence even for mild skeptics. Omar Jabarin (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop cherry-picking the article to support your POV. The full sentence you seem to love quoting in this thread is, "Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. As of today, there is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts, save for perhaps a single fragmented ostracon that mentions a "house of Yahweh" without any further specification." In other words, there's no evidence because there has never been an excavation, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts except for a single ostracon.

Once again, as I will know make as clear as humanly possible, the article states: "Although no remains of the temple have ever been found, most modern scholars agree that the First Temple existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by the time of the Babylonian siege, though there is significant debate over the date of its construction and the identity of its builder." and "Most scholars today agree that a temple had existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (587 BCE), but the identity of its builder and its construction date are strongly debated." Consensus says there was a Temple, and that is all Wikipedia cares about. Please stop throwing out the same arguments over and over again, you have been thoroughly debriefed. Sinclairian (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If most modern scholars agreed, there would be ample sources quoting something other than biblical and extra-biblical accounts, verifying that. If you can't prove that with other reliable source complete separate from a religious text which has been translated and retranslated countless times over thousands of years, then it should be worded in the same way as the main Temple article - precisely as Omar Jabarin already suggested in compromise. If the qualification is that, the only reason we do not have archeological evidence is because they are not willing to risk excavating it, then that's what the article should say. It most definitely should not say "The temple stood here." Because that is not supported by reliable sources.

And I'm struggling to understand why anyone objects to using any of the text you just cherry-picked to qualify that sentence in the article. Because the wording now doesn't imply a consensus, it implies there is empirical evidence to confirm it's location - which you're bolded text says is not true. And after read the sources, the Talk page of the article and this conversation, I am still struggling to understand any objection to his disputed tag or to his suggestions to modify the text to be more accurate.

Because, the fact that "Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned" IS in the disputed guideline proves that your claims of a consensus are not all Wikipedia cares about. It cares about accuracy of relevant details and reliability of sources. The source needs to say that such a consensus exists without empirical evidence, why they've come to that conclusion without testing their hypothesis, and then the article needs to reflect that this is what the source said. CleverTitania (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, you can add disputed tag even if many scholars think that a temple stood there. Because like the CleverTitania said the information is:

1.Information that is particularly difficult to verify

2.Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned

Due to no surviving extra-Biblical verifying the Temple and no archaeological evidence. The reasons why there is no evidence is not so relevant to the certainty of the information.

I don't understand why you object so much to rewording it in a way that fits the main article or simply adding a dispute tag. It can literally be clarified by adding 2 words to the article. It shows that you're currently not being neutral about this. Omar Jabarin (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually there is no debate even among Minimalist Bible scholars that the first Temple existed. The only debate is about when exactly it was built, i.e. by Solomon (if he existed at all) or by some later Judean king. Vegan416 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very much my takeaway; I think the consensus is that a structure predated the Second Temple, but perhaps we could lessen the tension if we simply called it "First Temple?" When speaking of it archaeologically, this strikes me as appropriate, while reserving "Solomon's Temple" for the religious and explicitly biblical context. Just a thought, feel free to disregard! Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to using "First Temple". But this discussion belongs in the article talk page and not here. So I'm leaving this discussion now. Vegan416 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There is debate. This is also discussed in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_remnants_of_the_Jerusalem_Temple

"Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. As such, archaeologists continue to remain divided over the existence of the Temple. Kathleen Kenyon claimed that there was no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, but this view is disputed by Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that the first Jewish temple in Jerusalem was not built until the end of the 7th century BCE, around three hundred years after Solomon. They believe the temple should not really be assigned to Solomon, who they see as little more than a small-time hill country chieftain, and argue that it was most likely built by Josiah, who governed Judah from 639 to 609 BCE. However, Alan R. Millard argues that this minimalist view is essentially a subjective judgement. Philip Alexander argues against the minimalist view based on the detail presented in the written record." Omar Jabarin (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What's policy ..

Above discussion reminded me of a doubt in my mind since long (unrelated to above discussion).

What's policy when supposedly WP:RS credible published Secondary source makes a claim of fact, which has no support in any primary sources what so ever. Whether in such cases too a reliable source can be considered reliable in spite of such flaw? Wish to know, what are the present policies in such respect? Just a curiosity no specific case on my hand at this moment.

Bookku (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

By definition, nothing prehistoric is going to be in any contemporaneous written source. Policy is to follow the conventions of the scholarly discipline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Alanscottwalker in regard to conventions of the scholarly discipline; for instance WP:MEDCITE speaks to the sourcing for medical-related articles, WP:SOCIOLOGY appears to abide by the standard WP:RS criteria, though there is a general "science" sources recommendation at WP:SCIRS.

My point is that any organized subject area, typically meaning something covered by a Wikiproject, could have a topic-oriented reliable sources guideline that is more specific than WP:RS.

On the general matter of Secondary Sources without (apparent) Primary Sources support -- if one were to exclude these, then pretty much EVERY newspaper and magazine (non-Scientific journal) article would be out of bounds for use. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, but that doesn't mean there is a blind faith that those sources contain 'truth'. It's a matter or 'support' and 'verifiability' not 'truth', and the validity of the 'verifiable support' pillar is upheld by WP:RSP and discussions (archived and current) on this page and its archives.

If a source has not been discussed or assessed - you use your best judgement as an editor and experience as a reader of material in the topic area.

That's my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Country Living Magazine (UK)

I saw this article added as a source to Cockapoo (https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wildlife/dog-breeds/a43173308/cockapoo-dog/). The first thing that stood out to me was that it spelt Shauna Walsh's name wrong twice which indicates a lack of overview/editing, the second was that Shauna Walsh is not a vet, as claimed in the article - instead she is a vet nurse: https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/blog/who-keeps-the-dog-after-a-breakup https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/7-of-the-weirdest-christmas-themed-objects-animals-have-eate-336993/ https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/vet-explains-what-happens-end-28787012 https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23493408.dogs-loved-royals-everything-know/

I don't believe this article qualifies as a reliable source given the apparent lack of an editor and incorrect labeling of credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The UK edition of Country Living does have an editorial team, credited here. I don't think two typos and a minor conflation of veterinary nurses and veterinarians as "vets" is enough to warrant some sort of formal decision about or against this magazine. It's normal for us as Wikipedia editors to capture the balance of reliable sources, rather than rely on only one. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm mainly interested in the reliability of this specific article.

>and a minor conflation of veterinary nurses and veterinarians as "vets"

That's like conflating a nurse with a doctor, the level of credentials are very different. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and if you're ever admitted to the hospital, you're there because you need nursing care, not because you need a physician's care. Most small-animal vet care is routine and preventive, and a nurse is overqualified for most of it. It takes five minutes to teach someone how to weigh a dog, or to give it a vaccine. (Also, some nurses have doctorate degrees, so those nurses are "doctors", too.)

The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom. The contents are unlikely to be different in any magazine. If you want to improve the article, I suggest searching the vetmed literature directly. Sometimes we can even find sources that say things like "While the breed has a reputation for being very _____, in reality, it's about average." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe a nurse in a hospital treating patients would hold a doctorate, that's a research level degree and such option isn't available to veterinary nurses.

>The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom.

Correct, unfortunately if they're a reliable source it's pretty hard to challenge their inclusion regardless of how generic the claims are.

>I suggest searching the vetmed literature directly

I've only found one epidemiological study that included a designer dog/crossbreed. There is very little literature on specific designer breeds. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you could "contextualize" it with a source that says individual characteristics vary. It's not inherently bad to tell the fairy tale, but all this stuff about breed temperament needs to be presented as a fairy tale, or at least as having more to do with marketing claims than reality. SMcCandlish could probably recommend sources on that subject.

For health effects, the progressive rod cone degeneration form of progressive retinal atrophy has been reported in cockapoos,[17] and cataplexy in another.[18] They have a lot of hair inside their ears, which can have health effects,[19] especially if they get otitis externa, which they might (or might not) be prone to.[20] Speaking of hair, they require more grooming effort than their buyers expect.[21] They might have double the risk for periodontal disease.[22] There are primary sources on individual conditions, if any individual condition should be checked.

IMO it's pointless to declare this particular source to be unreliable, because there are so many others that say the same things. If you reject this source, someone will be back with another source, and another, and another. Like many of the List of common misconceptions, the information can be found in books from reputable publishers. This is one of those situations in which you have to fight low-quality evidence by finding and providing better information, rather than trying to knock out the citation on a technicality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The first source just states the condition exists, not how frequent it is. I can't read the second source but I will presume it's just a report of one. The epidemiological study on periodontal disease found an odds ratio of 0.96 for the cockapoo, so I'm not sure where you got double the risk, even the highest 95% CI is just 1.27, which isn't significant. The otitis externa claim is just a hypothesis without any data behind it.

As I said there is little epidemiological evidence for these breeds, mostly just single case reports which shouldn't be on breed articles unless it's very notable to the breed - such as conditions named after the breed.

The problem is contradictory evidence doesn't exist for rare breeds, and certain claims like 'they are healthy' or 'they are unhealthy' typically don't exist in the literature as such claims are avoided in academia/research. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle, look at Table 3, "Final breed-focused random effects multivariable logistic regression model for risk factors associated with periodontal disease in dogs", where cockapoos are given an odds ratio of 2.11 with a p-value of <0.001.

I would not even claim that the otitis externa claim even rises so high as high as a hypothesis. I'd classify that as an off-the-cuff claim from one provider based on personal anecdotal experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotal experience from an expert isn't much better than anecdotal experience from a non-expert. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Fairy tale" is right. The problem with articles about dog breeds' temperaments and medical issues is that they're usually based on the lowest levels of medical/veterinary evidence, and often simply repeat stereotypes or conventional wisdom. It's actually worse, especially when you branch out a little further to other pet species like cats. The vast majority of the temperament/behaviorial claims are based on biased, non-scientific nonsense, most often breeders' promotional claims (repeated in pet magazines and websites, in breed profiles which are written by breeders of that breed, and the entire publications are editorially overseen by, you guessed it, breeders); or they're attempts to castigate various breeds as "inherently" dangerous by activists. Basically, we need to go through all these articles and just remove every behaviorial claim that does not have citations to multiple, reliable ethology (animal behavioral) sources, including ones written primarily by geneticists since that's where the research is going, but which are secondary (literature/systematic reviews), since even a lot of the primary research turns out faulty.

With regard to dogs, there is actually a significant body of behavioral research to draw on (e.g. pointer and setter behavior of indicating where prey is without going after it is well understood now as something of a "micro-seizure" that has been selectively bred as a behavior pattern). But there is little support for notions that particular breeds are "naturally" violent or tranquil. For cats, the bullshitty claims are usually that particular breeds are more intelligent, are better with children, more adventurous vs. more skittish, more one-person oriented vs. more sociable, or better/worse with other pets, and there is virtually zero scientific evidence to back up any of this, ever. In some cases, it's based on outright lies. E.g., there are frequent claims that the Turkish Van cat breed (developed in Britain mostly from cats imported from Ankara and a few other places in Turkey) likes water more than other cats, based on a folk belief that the Van cat landrace likes to swim (itself an unproven claim), when there is not only no evidence of Van cat → Turkish Van ancestry, there's a large amount of evidence against that supposition, starting from the well-documented beginnings of the breed (they get confused due to name similarity, as well as intentional confusion introduced by breeders who want to associate various history and legends about Van cats with their unrelated bloodlines).

When it comes to medical problems associated with particular breeds, this is generally better documented in veterinary and genetics journals, and in veterinary manuals, such as Breed Predispositions to Disease in Dogs and Cats, 3rd ed. (a high-quality secondary source). But there are even snake-oil books in this sector (no-name publishers, or self-publishing outfits). PS: Someone claiming "DVM" or other initials after their name doesn't automatically make them a reliable source, though the lack of them is a strong indicator of folklore-mongering and pushing of a anecdotal opinion.

it's pointless to declare this particular source to be unreliable, because there are so many others that say the same things. If you reject this source, someone will be back with another source, and another, and another. The solution to this problem is a firm conclusion (here and reinforced at WT:MEDRS if necessary) that because magazines are low quality sources, and WP:MEDRS requires high-quality medical sources for medical claims, that all sources like Country Life (and pet fancier magazines, and breeder websites, and clickbait publishers who often do pieces on dog "designer crossbreeds", these days just based on "AI" scraping of other Internet junk material) are categorically unreliable for veterinary medical and ethological claims. Because they are. The problem that bad encyclopedists will keep injecting crap content with improper sourcing is an issue that affects thousands of subjects, and we handle it the same way every time: remove the improperly sourced material no matter how badly various editors (and maybe readers) want to see it, remind people what our sourcing standards are, and topic-ban them or indef them if they insistently return to abusing this site to promote activism or evidence-unsupported legends. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, but with one caveat: whilst MEDRS would be good to apply I think any application of it to veterinary medicine/science should be modified to remove the exclusion of primary studies. Veterinary literature is less common than human medical literature and systemic reviews/meta-analyses are much rarer. The issues with primary studies being used for veterinary or dog breed related articles are not as severe as the issue when it's used for human related articles.

For example life expectancy, there is nothing other than primary studies for this for veterinary sources. Maybe in 20 years there could be enough to apply the same standards but currently applying the same standards would result in well collected statistics being thrown out in favour of WebMD. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The book SMcCandlish suggests is published by Wiley. I find reviews of the book but not the book itself in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (Samwalton9 (WMF), you could put this on my wishlist).

In the Oxford Reference books group (which is not part of TWL's main search system), cockapoo only appears in three dictionaries and as an example in the "Portmanteau Words" entry in Garner's Modern English Usage (the 2022 edition). There are short articles about some other dog breeds, e.g., ISBN 9780195093544 with an entry on the Doberman pinscher.

Under the Cambridge group, I find ISBN 9781139161800, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People from 2016. All the chapters are readable via TWL, and chapter 7, "Breed and gender differences in dog behavior", looks relevant for other articles, though neither cockapoos nor designer crossbreeds in general appear to be mentioned anywhere in the book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

genealogytrails.com

I'm finding pages in this site with capsule local histories which may be useful in elucidating discussions of and filling out articles on "unincorporated communities" (meaning small towns without their own government). For example, I am pondering the use of this history of Marion Township in Boone County, Indiana to add material on Waugh, Indiana. My concerns are these: while the material does seem to be researched from places besides us, and likely primary sources, there are no citations. It's not impossible that some of this is based on personal recollection. Also, these are written by volunteers; it's not immediately apparent what degree of editorial review they exercise on each other. If I were in Indiana, I could check some of this out at the library, but I am unfortunately several hundred miles away.

Anyway, has anyone any experience with the site or other observations? Info on these places is typically had to come by, and it would be nice to say more than where it is. At present I have no better evidence that it was a real town than the cited page and my interpretation of old topo maps, which does not cut the mustard. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Genealogytrails.com appears to largely fall under user-generated sources, and should generally not be used. In some cases it might host public domain text from historic published works (e.g. these biographies are from this 1887 book) - in such cases the original source should be cited directly, and reliability assessed on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale

Is it reliable to cite from the source of Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale's "Shivaji His Life and Times that Shivaji was not the vassal of the Mughal empire, based on the quote He (Shivaji) had never been, and was never likely to be, anybody's vassal. Concern is raised as according to the The Mughal Empire by John F. Richards, Shivaji was a vassal of the Mughals after the Treaty of Purandar. I think the quote from Mehendale got misrepresented that it says "He had never been, and was never likely", is in past tense, so it perhaps not contradicting the vassalization, but representing the current (time of getting vassalized) condition. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Lineups

For additionial verification.

Is https://www.lineups.com/ considered an unreliable source or a reliable source? More specific if its about information about a twitch streamer concerning how their channel places rank wise compared to others?

In my opinion it does not seem like one, but searching for additional opinions Infrabel1 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally in the case of how sites rank something they are reliable that they ranked something in a certain way, but not necessary reliable for saying the ranking in wikivoice ("Lineups.com rank them 4th", but not "they are ranked 4th"). Whether how they rank something is relevant to the article isn't a reliability issue, see WP:BALASP (is Lineups ranking something worth including). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Grantome.com in biographies

Grantome.com is a database of grants issued from various grant-giving institutions. Right now it's mostly entries from the National Institutes of Health. I see this come up sometimes in the cleanup or revision of articles on scientist BLPs showing that they did some work on a specific project, but there's no resultant scientific paper to cite about it, so the grant issued for the work is cited instead. I find this to be a very poor source as it doesn't really indicate anything about the information given in the article - only that at once point there was some work that was funded, not the results of it. Currently grantome is cited in 346 articles and I feel like it should not be considered reliable as a source for anything - ideally, it would be removed in every instance along with the information it "supports" unless subsequent published research that resulted from it can be identified and used to replace the grant. Recon rabbit 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This might be less about reliability and more about whether such details should be included (WP:BALASP). It likely reliable in an almost primary way that these grants were made, but if nothing came of them do details of those grants need to be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't answer your question about Grantome.com but someone who is looking for information about NIH grants should probably be citing NIH's own database of awarded grants. ElKevbo (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Times

Publication Hindustan Times
To use in the draft My Choice (2015 film)
Looking for RS confirmation to following two articles

1) Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi

2) Shah, Jigar (14 December 2014). "After hits like Cocktail and Finding Fanny, Deepika-Homi join hands for a cause". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2 December 2023.

My perception is publication Hindustan Times seem to engage in proper and paid news both in relation to Indian cinema.

Concerns under discussion at WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times seem to be legitimate enough no doubt but seem different in this case, hence discussing at this discussion board and hope this discussion shall help discussion at WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times too.

1) Hindustan Times article Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi is very very highly critical of the short film. I doubt any one will pay for criticism having such level of ideological opposition. As such this article does not have any disclaimer and has an author as @DreamRimmer said. But a general advert iphone 15 is appearing before me - but I do not see any prima facie relation of I phone brand with the short film. So I just wish to confirm this won't be considered publishing paid brand post.

2) Short film production related couple of detail seem clearer in the second news piece like Deepika Padukone's role in short film is limited to "She bookends the film and is also giving the voice over". Which can be confirmed directly with Short film You tube link. Other couple of news articles in other sources are as if she is doing a lead role in short film but that is not so. Hence I would prefer to use above mentioned second news piece if I get community concurrence.

Ping @DreamRimmer, @Grabup, @CNMall41 since involved in discussion @ WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like these articles are not paid. Grabup (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have checked out both articles, and honestly, I don't see any issues with them. Feel free to use them without any worries. Also, if you are connected to this film in any way, please check out the conflict of interest guidelines and make sure to follow the process accordingly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I used Hindustan Times for an article I created and I didn't pick up any issues with the articles I used but then I'm not super familiar with the source. TarnishedPath^talk 06:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any COI in this or any other topic I write for sure. Basically women's rights areas have interested me and I have covered articles like My body, my choice otherwise I do not touch film topics much. Any ways in RS reception of this short film criticism is more so proportionately that is likely to come more on board. Last but not least I am deeply collaborative Wikipedian who invites as many contributors as possible, that may Wikipedians would have experienced, I would expect and look forward contribution to the draft article as much as possible. Bookku (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a question, there are many articles that are published by these reliable sources which are from synchronized feeds and these sources always add a disclaimer to these synchronized feed articles “This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.” Can we consider these articles as reliable? And can we consider these articles to meet GNG? Grabup (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup

1) Is your question more general in nature (regarding reliability of syndicate feeds and news agencies) since following explanation would be very clear enough that it can not be applied in the above said specific two articles. If it's general then I suggest/request to open a separate section to avoid confusion on part of other users.

2) Above both the articles do not have any such disclaimer, also these two articles are not credited to any syndicate feed nor any news agency but only credited to specific author or journalist.

3) Probably for same reason @DreamRimmer @ WT:ICTF#Hindustan Times said ".. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. .." but @DreamRimmer would be in better place to speak for themselves.

Bookku (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a general question. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion you cite is a discussion, not policy. What would currently govern the user of HT is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Upon looking at the sources you provided, they would not fall under that criteria so can be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences

Paper: Female Sexual Politics in Tattooed with Taboos
- Page nos: interested in content from page 94, 95 (Paper page numbers: 93-106)
- Author: Dr. Ph. Jayalaxmi is Assistant Professor, Department of English, Manipur University
- Volume URL PDF on https://mzu.edu.in
Publication Mizoram University Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences Vol III Issue 1 June 2017 ISSN 2395-7352
- Chief Editor: Prof. Margaret Ch. Zama, Dept. of English,
Citation status: At google scholar I did not find any citations for above specific paper but some papers in the journal seem to have 1 to 12 citations.

To use in the draft My Choice (2015 film)
One of the above discussed following article has been cited in the above paper

1) Sorry Deepika Padukone, these are not the choices women need by ByJyoti Sharma Bawa, New Delhi

Up till now I have not used Indian university journal papers. So requesting inputs whether it's ok to use the paper for given purpose.

Bookku (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences is from OPAST Publishers, a well-known predatory publisher. Avoid this like the plague. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian Research Journal of History and Humanities and Social Sciences

The article Rajput clans cites an article from the Indian Research Journal of History and Humanities and Social Sciences (IRJHHSS). Is anyone here aware of such a publication? utcursch | talk 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the contributions of the user who added this - I'm now certain that the user is a sock, and no such journal exists. utcursch | talk 00:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be sure about the journal not existing – these generic names are typical of predatory journals, which do exist but are worthless. I have lost count of how many emails from journals with very similar names I have received over the years. It would actually be better for academia if you were correct and it did not exist at all. Ostalgia (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the slew of 'publisherless' predatory journals out there. It 'publishes' directly via Zenodo with a name similar to a dozen other such journals. Avoid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

is this source Reliable?

is this source Reliable

Vidaković, Nenad (30 April 2012).

Migracijske i etničke teme (in Croatian) https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/121385 7712Touch74396 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends… What do you want to verify with it? Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Gamemeca, a Korean gaming source. Reliable?

https://www.gamemeca.com/

I've been having a debate on the Ragnarok Online page. And without spewing too much, as I'm exhausted; I'd like if enough people (credible, mods & admins preferred ofc) can verify the validity of this source as it doesn't appear in the source list whatsoever, reliable nor unreliable. However, based off what this site has to offer, they have information on things dating back as far as the early 2000's. 90's even it seems. Articles written in 2002 and stuff. To me, clearly this has been an organization operating for a long time and has plentiful of credible news and sources-to that has been under our radar. Especially under the "Net Power" game magazine section. It's so much history & coverage on gaming and old school MMOs on that site.

Perhaps others feel differently though? 4ReeZy (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You may also want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources where participants are more specialized about the topic. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, will do.

Also, could you or someone edit the typo in my subject 'Gamemeca' to -> 'Game Mecca' for me please? Unless ya'll don't mind the typo. I'm not confident in editing pages like this yet. 4ReeZy (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually disregard that. My apologies. 4ReeZy (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The dispute you’re having is not deeply related to the reliability of this source. You should spend more energy there understanding what MrOllie is telling you, instead of reflexively disputing everything he says. (FYI: he has been a Wikipedia editor for 16 years and made more than 200,000 contributions; and Wikipedia does not have “mods”.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? Will it need attribution, that is, should any sentence I add using that as a source begin with, "According to...... "-Haani40 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. It seems to be entitled "Ahkam Ad-Diyār: Verification of the cause for the ruling upon the Dār" and written by Shaykh Abdul-Qādir Bin Abdil-Azīz and seems to be rulings on Islamic law. However it also seems to have no publisher (unless At-Tibyan Publications is it though it doesn't look like a book) or other provenance so we have no apparent way of knowing whether this is actually by the person (or the publisher) listed. Even if by this person we have insufficient info to know if the person is a reliable source. A lot depends on what you want the source to support (for instance a journal on Kansas agriculture is likely a reliable source for corn production in Kansas but not on high energy physics); this info you can presumably provide. Erp (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Joining of new clubs in 2024–25 I-League

Some edits in I-League related to the the joining of Vels FC in 2024–25 I-League have been done by @RIP B1058 . He has mentioned this source in the talk page of I-League which claim that Vels FC will be competing in 2024–25 I-League but there is no notification from AIFF related to this. So is this source reliable? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 13:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea whatever source i had i gave ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] Morris, Benny (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge University Press. pp. 43–44, 331. ISBN 0-521-33028-9.

[2] Finkelstein, Norman G. (2001). Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. pp. 54–55, 188. ISBN 978-1-859-84339-0.

[1]

[2]