Talk:Six Days of War

Criticism

Someone called Finkelstein's criticism a "fringe view"; this is only true if criticism of Israel is a "fringe view" altogether. Academic, published criticism should always be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoplifter (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finkelstien

Its a fringe view in terms of literary criticism. I know of no noted academic who has spoken negatively of it. Finkelstein is something equivalent to an Ann Coulter or Michael Moore, simply not as successful. Its fringe for that reason, not because he has an anti-israeli ideology. If you read the book, which I suggest, you will realize why his comments are in fact 'fringe', they wouldnt be out of place relating to any book on the arab israeli conflict. -Seth

it certainly is not a fringe view, and no Finlestein is not at all comparable to either Moore, or Coulter. Not even close Apart from Finklestein pretty much the entire arab scholarship disputes the conclusions of the book. I'm not even sure that there view is the statistical minority. There are millions and millions who disagree with this author's analysis and opinions of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.20 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein's review

Editor PlotSpoiler claims Finkelstein's review is in violation of WP:Fringe, WP:POV and WP:BLP. Since Finkelstein's review is the only one contradicting the unison praise among US papers (and conservative historian Morris), it is of particular importance that it is noted.

First of all, the review in its entirety can be found here: http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

The review as published can be found in Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict, from Verso Books.

WP:Fringe states that "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." PlotSpoiler claims Finkelstein's language is fringe. This is not a valid application of the policy.

WP:POV states that "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

   * Who advocates the point of view
   * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

In the article, it's clearly noted that the critique has originated with Finkelstein, and examples of his reasoning. Consequently, no violation of POV.

WP:BLP states that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

Finkelstein makes three value judgements about the book's contents, namely that Oren has written an "apologetic narrative" which "reiterates the official Israeli version of the June war" (both not applicable to Oren, the person) and that he "frequently descends to vulgar propaganda". The third claim would, by a fair-handed reader, reasonably be interpreted to mean that Finkelstein's criticism is directed at Oren's text, not Oren personally as being a "vulgar propagandist". For the sake of mediation, I am willing to rescind this quote, although I personally have no objection to it per given reasons. Apart from this, there are obviously no violations of BLP in terms of using "titillating claims about people's lives" or otherwise. Shoplifter (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For BLP, the greatest point of concern was the line labeling Oren as a "vulgar propagandist." With that line rescinded, I would argue it is now in line with Wikipedia policy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]