Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 3

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

New Dershowitz-Finkelstein article in the NYT

This appears serious, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/arts/12tenu.html Involves Middle East Studies Association of North America and others now. --64.230.127.125 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152838045&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull --70.48.68.77 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

UJA Federation = United Jewish Appeal Federation

UJA Federation = United Jewish Appeal Federation, not United Jewish Agency Federation

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Jewish_Communities

EDinNY 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2002 Harvard-MIT Divestment petition

In a letter to the editor, Dershowitz claims that the Crimson article partially reproduced here is misleading with regards to what Dershowitz said during the "debate". If we are going to reproduce the disputed section of that article here, then we should also mention Dershowitz's disagreement with it. Bayle Shanks 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, not as important, but I think the sentences describing the audience's reactions to Dershowitz's presentation are not important enough to be in this encyclopaedia article, so I suggest that the following be deleted: "According to Adams, "Many members of the audience, which generally supported Dershowitz and applauded for him several times, said they appreciated the presentation.... 'I thought it was great,' said Rachel S. Weinerman ’03, a student in Dunster House. 'This type of honest sentiment about the divestment petition has long been warranted.'"[28] However, many other students thought the attacks were simply offensive and without academic merit, 'It's an offensive thing for a professor to say...' ... adding Dershowitz's agenda 'clearly overstepped his bounds as a professor".[28]". Bayle Shanks 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Amendment

The quote given seems to support the Seccond Ammendment but the article says Mr. Darshowitz opposes it - why is this? Unless someone can show me that he opposes it I plan on changing the article to say that he supports it. - Schrandit 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The quote does not support what appears before the colon. We need a new quote substantiating the idea that he's opposed to gun ownership (which is a much stronger statement than just saying that he's opposed to gun "control"), or we're forced to change this position altogether. I'm curious why his position on gun ownership is included here in the first place (and I'm more or less an inclusionist). Has this been a big issue? If so, could we get a quote that matches our story? Maxisdetermined (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw the same contradiction and did a search. A Cato Institute article has this to say, which includes the text quoted in the wiki article put in context:
"Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, a former ACLU board member, says he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. But he condemns "foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right …. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Source: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rl062805.html#9
Another source, even further demonstrating Dershowitz's stance that he dislikes firearms, but supports the Second Amendment on the grounds that repealing it would weaken the Bill of Rights: http://jdjungle.com/main.cfm?inc=inc_article.cfm&chid=2&schid=0&WT=20&artid=51113&template=0
214.13.209.200 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome case

Alan will you and your students take a case which would really be interesting. My beautiful daughter was in a terrible motorcycle accident. She remains really beautiful, but, she has serious health issues, has been of and on life support. This case involves a very rural area in Georgia. The legal system screwed her over so badly only a pro could possibly handle something this complicated. I think it would be very good experience for your students, and extremely interesting, I promise you...will you write to me at the Orlando Sentinel where I work ...thanks, betty...www.bmcmillan@orlandosentinel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.44 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Finkelstein section

I think the Finkelstein section is poorly written, contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors and displays a point of view that is tilted towards Finkelstein. Since there is a main article on the differences between the two of them, I'm for reducing this section to a brief summary of the fact that they are at odds. Please respond with you thoughts on this on the talk page. I don't know if the folks editing this article read or are aware of the talk page, so if there is no response I will make the changes. Reverting them without discussion could ultimately lead to semi-protection of this page (again) which will bar IP edits. Avruchtalk 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just made reasonably substantial additions to the Finkelstein section; two and a half years have passed since the post above, so I hope these seem warranted. I note that in the interim the section has been expanded beyond the brief discussion that they are at odds which Avruch advocated. It seems to me that a mere statement of their disagreement which does not adduce absolutely uncontroversial facts which allow the reader to adjudicate (I don't use such slanted language on the actual page, btw) is ipso facto a misleading page. If there was room for debate on the issue I would be all for representing the debatable areas; but in this case there just is not. I also defend the decision to place the material here rather than on the Finkelstein-Dershowtiz affair page. First, there should be no bar to repeated material across different pages if such is needed for coherence and continuity. Second, no one (I assert...) can plausibly claim to understand this who has not compared the three passages from Tawin, so actual exhibition of the content of the quotes is relevant to understanding this section. It make make the section a little long relative to other sections, though not unduly so; still, I'd be happy for some editing of less essential material. Also, the footnotes cited are in two instances overly lengthy and unfocused. Let them be first for the chop! Perspective Vortex (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Perspective Vortex

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The bold statements under “Defending Israel” should be properly wikified. Some material in the controversies section should be rearranged to provide a more chronological presentation.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are several direct quotations which are unsourced. Additionally, the article mixes in-line citations with parenthetical notes. While in line citations are not required at GA stage, they are recommended, and in any case, one option or the other should be used, but styles should not be mixed. Additionally, there are a number of other statements within this article that should be sourced, particularly in the sections on career and recognition.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    There seems to have been some conflict over the Norman Finkelstein section. I’m not sure if this was ever resolved because there were a number of edits back and forth (after the article was nominated) without much discussion on the talk page.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    An article as long as this one (83K) should have more than a single image at the top of the page in an infobox.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article is of good quality, but I don’t think it’s ready for promotion just yet.

Torture warrants

With this subsection there seems to be some slight misstatements regarding Dershowitz's views on the subject. Since I rarely touch bios and recognize the subject as potentially sensitive I was hoping to hear from any other editors about potential changes. To quote him in a speech at Stanford, when asked about the subject he said "Don't confuse my descriptive statement that torture is occurring with a normative statement that torture should occur. It should not occur, it is occurring, and now my conditional normative statement is - if it is occurring it should be subject to legal regulation" So when we say "in which he advocates the issuance of warrants permitting the torture of terrorism suspects" or "yet he argues that authorities should be permitted to use non-lethal torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario, regardless of international legal prohibitions" or “by Dershowitz's rationalization for the sanctioning of torture to extract information” we haven't made clear his caveat that this position only apply when torture is already being used below the radar. A fix is probably as easy as saying "in cases where torture already exists." Also since Dershowitz has been such an outspoken critic of Amnesty International I would have imagined we could find someone other than one of their directors to criticize him. Not to say that having been criticized, the director isn't, himself, notable or scholarly enough to be quoted but even apart from that his quote only seeks to deny the plausibility of a narrowly construed actual ticking time bomb scenario while the original article by Dershowitz refers to the broader notion "of the captured terrorist who knew about an imminent attack" rather than the instance he cites by the Israeli Supreme Court considering "an actual 'ticking bomb' case". The "main article" on ticking time bomb cases at the top of this subsection also conflates these concepts in its content and may have some pov issues as well. His positions are otherwise clearly outlined and the remainder of the criticisms seem concise and relevant. Mmcknight4 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Relationship with Spitzer

Dershowitz instructed Spitzer in law. This needs to be addressed. Article is missing important information, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its irrelevant to an article about Dershowitz. Avruch T 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. In a documentary, Dershowitz praised Spitzer as his best student at Harvard and endorsed him. It is hardly irrelevant. I promise I will post the material once I find the proper references. Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well - how is Dershowitz' view of one student relevant to an article about Dershowitz, not the student? Besides - I think the implication is that Dershowitz made a mistake, or didn't perceive something? I don't see that, its entirely possible and not even unlikely that Spitzer was indeed Dershowitz' best student. Avruch T 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people should know who trained Spitzer -- going by your logic we should remove the whole of his teaching and academic career. Dershowitz is on-record as identifying Spitzer as his best student ever -- and I think that this is very important for a law professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/dershowitz-comes-to-spitz_n_90783.html and more importantly http://www.moralhealth.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/12/3574456.html

The piece on Dershowitz is very well written and I want to take my time integrating his evaluation of his students and his approach to their post-graduation careers into the text. I suggest that this is actually done Avruch or other Dershowitz admirers, in the interest of fairness. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can work up a complete section of former students, I think it could be considered - but in an article that aims to present Dershowitz, not his students, and in a format that isn't too long, I don't believe such an effort will be very successful. If you want people to know who trained Spitzer, that is a detail of Spitzers life - not Dershowitz, who has trained many - and you could consider adding it to the article Eliot Spitzer. Avruch T 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I would really prefer if this was written by people who are positive towards Dershowitz. The fact is that Spitzer is the ONLY student that Dershowitz praised in public, endorsed for office, and defended in scandal. Note I have not suggested this far whether this is good or bad or even as you suggested earlier the implication that Dershowitz has made a mistake. This is up for the reader to decide. As a university instructor, I personally do not view this sort of attachment to one's students as healthy -- others disagree. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On putting the piece in Spitzer's entry, I will be subjected to the argument that this is about Dershowitz. I am sorry, this is about Dershowitz making some very public statements about one of his former students who is also not a private citizen. This is not only fair game, excluding it would be dishonest and would fail the mission of providing balanced views on the person to the public.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to comments like this one:


Reminded that Spitzer himself had railed against prostitution rings in 2004, Dershowitz admitted that there was "cycle of hypocrisy" that the New York Governor had become a part of.

The speech was interrupted by Spitzer's address, to which Dershowitz also responded. Asked, eventually, how someone he described as "brilliant" could be involved in something so boneheaded, Dershowitz didn't mince words.

"Men don't use their brains when it comes to something like this," he said. "They think with a different part of their body and that part of the body, the level of brains, there are no relationship to the level of brains in the skull, unfortunately. And when people think with that organ of the body, they make these kind of really, really terrible mistakes."

...where he criticizes Eliot for making a terrible mistake and being involved in a cycle of hypocrisy? He didn't defend his involvement in prostitution. Even if he had, I still simply do not see how this belongs in an article about Dershowitz. Do we include every public statement he has ever made? This statement relates to an ongoing major public event, but that isn't an argument to include it right now - 5 years from now, will this matter at all? If the answer is no, then why should we include it? As an aside - if you were able to get a consensus to include this in the article, I imagine you'd want to find better sources than two blogs - even when one is as prominent in the blogosphere as Ariana Huffington's.Avruch T 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It does matter for a very simple reason: Dershowitz has identified Spitzer as the best of his "products." This is something everyone interested in him must know and realize. Also as far as references go, there is better material carrying the same message. Why are you afraid of putting this here? It is Deshowitz making these statements, and that is why this material belongs here. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, I am not afraid of including it - nor am I dishonest because I don't want it included. Second of all, your claim that he says Spitzer is his "best work" or "best student" is not supported by either of your references, in the least. Third, not all statements by Dershowitz belong in his article. He's written a number of books - should we include the full text of each? So far you've identified me as pro-Dershowitz, afraid of including something critical of him, and dishonest for not wanting to include this particular tidbit. The simple fact is I don't believe it belongs in this article, and it probably is not truly relevant in any article. That you want to include it is an example of your bias. Please refer to the policies about recentism and undue weight. Avruch T 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, you should note that the issue has since transformed by Dershowitz into an attack on the Mann act. Actually, people have all kind of views, often due to facts that are deeply uncomfortable for their opponents. You should note that I asked Dershowitwz supporters to write about the Spitzer matter due to the fact that they alone can be fair Dershowitz about this. But, I have to say that on this matter to Dershowitz has proven himself to be the gift that keeps on giving -- enjoy --Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536943121332151.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

In the interests of editing by consensus and not starting an editing conflict, can you perhaps address my points above? Avruch T 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, I did not put in the material on Spitzer, that was someone else. Dershowitz praised Spitzer in a documentary/news show in the 90s. I will have to dig up the reference if you want. At any rate, the Wall Street Journal article by Dershowitz makes this point moot. Perhaps you should address the person who added the material. Also, I do think that references to the Spitzer matter are very relevant because of the extent of the Mann act and Dershowitz' profession as a Law Professor. I hope this addresses your points, if it does not, then we should agree to disagree, and perhaps ask the person or persons who wrote in the Spitzer piece about their views. As far as my bias, I can safely tell you that it differs from yours :)--Jackkalpakian (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am amazed that the Journal printed something in Spitzer's defence. That being said, I still haven't seen an argument that Dershowitz' opinion on the Mann Act is notable for Dershowitz. Relata refero (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mann Act is one of the cornerstones of the unofficial constitution along with the Posse Comitatus Act and the Klan Act of 1873. That Dershowtiz feels that his best student's career is more important than the Mann Act in the age of trafficking in human flesh is not only important, it is critical for an honest assessment of a leading legal authority.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV editing

Alan Dershowitz is renowned as a civil libertarian, yet this fact is being removed by IP anonymous editor(s). I am reinstating it but am not footnoting it, any more than I would footnote that he is an attorney. Here are a handful of references to him as such, in case anyone is unaware of this: Self-description, New York Times, 10/13/01 Washington Post 6/11/07, CBS News 60 Minutes, 10/20/02, CAMERA, 3/31/05... I could go on. You may or may not like his politics, but that is supposed to be irrelevant to editing his biography. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from baseless accusations of POV editing. I should remind you of WP:AGF. First, the statement was not sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability is clearly being violated by stating he is a civil libertarian as an objective fact. The wording is inappropriate and violates Wikipedia:NPOV You found some sites where he calls himself that, and questionable journalists in shoddy sources repeating his own self-given description. The article doesn't say he calls himself that, or some call him that.... it clearly states in an objective sense he is a renowned civil libertarian.

Here's one: "But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint." [[1]] -- Real libertarian. Maybe you should go parrot Ahmadenijad's self-descriptions as objective fact too. If you continue down this road you need to conform with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliability.

98.176.33.102 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Baseless accusations"? Please read your own last point here and explain how your edits are not POV. I was merely reinstating text that has been in this article for over a year - he is described as a civil libertarian, whether or not you agree with it. And rather than coming here to discuss it, you reverted this established text three times, which is against policy. I'd like some other opinions on this. Tvoz/talk 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL -- Please stop attacking me. I am not on trial. The uncited text said "is a renowned civil libertarian" this is completely different than what you are now saying. Please be clear on what your point is.... does he or some people describe him as a civil libertarian or is it accurate to say "is a renowned civil libertarian"? I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 98.176.33.102 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to cite basic policies to me - I am an experienced editor here and I am well aware of them, nor have I been uncivil. As for assuming good faith, one is not required to do so when bad faith is demonstrated. Your last paragraph regarding Ahmedinijad and your opinion about whether or not Dershowitz is a civil libertarian is evidence that you have a point of view about this and are expressing it in your edits. The wording about his being a renowned civil libertarian has been in this article for a long time, because he is widely described as such. One example would be the Washington Post article that I cited above - or do you think that's one of the "questionable journalists in shoddy sources" you inexplicably dismiss above? And you also have added text that is not reliably sourced, and states that a comment is "often attributed" to him. I do not know if he made that comment or not, but without a direct, reliable source quoting him we should not be including it. So please stop adding it back with that non-reliable source. Tvoz/talk 06:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whomever made the last change obviously has a similar standpoint to my own seeing that they have also accused you of restoring the edit which is guilty of pushing a pov. I think rewording the line to "Dershowitz refers to himself as a civil libertarian" is not subjective and POV like "Dershowitz is a renowned civil libertarian." 98.176.33.102 (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again - this text is not reliably sourced:

The following quote is often attributed to Alan Dershowitz[56]:"The People have no unalienable Rights, the Constitution is merely a piece of paper and the Government should not be held accountable to the Constitution by the People."

The source given is here: [2] which gives no reliable attribution of this quote, no direct sourcing to Dershowitz. We do not include words like "often attributed to" - we give actual attributions if they exist. Please stop re-adding it unless you find a real source that directly quotes Dershowitz. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, you could characterize him as "a renowned civil libertarian who supports the torture of prisoners."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

That might be more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Categories" question

At the bottom of the article, in the "Categories" section, one of the categories lists Dershowitz as an agnostic.

Is there any evidence for this? Has Dershowitz corroborated his stance as an agnostic in any interviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.228.66 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comic is non-POV and therefore does not belong

The comic of Dershowitz masturbating to scenes of war waged by Israel has no place in an encyclopedia article on Dershowitz. It's blatantly POV and should be scrubbed for that reason alone. Anyone care to defend its continued inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It semed to be vandalism by an anonymous user, so I deleted it. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a coordinated attack by an internet troll (94.112.192.99), he vandalized also HebWiki and FrWiki. The page of Dershowitz should be protected for a while and the inflammatory cartoon should be deleted from WikiCommons. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The illustration is precise. 2. It is notable and was itself part of Dershowitz-Finkelstein controversy [3] 3. It is under free licence. --147.251.162.209 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Per the above: 1) means nothing. 2) just might be a reason to include, but we have to be extremely careful on a BLP and consensus is needed. 3) means that it does not break our copyright rules.
As far as its notability, was it featured in any publication or magazine, or did it just appear on a webstie? The comic is very POV, and therefore has no place on a wiki-bio page. This fact alone should settle the issue once and for all. I'm stunned that this is even getting a serious discussion at this point. It's a fringe opinion, as far as I'm concerned...as evidenced by the fact only anonymous, drive-by editor(s) are insisting on its inclusion. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
IP appears to be editing from a British National Party POV. NB that there is no vandalism warning and no block in place at the moment. I removed the picture. Obviously, it leave out until you are convinced that there is a very good argument to include. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Far-right???

Defending Israel is NOT a "far-right" position. If anything, the "far-right" (which is largely "Christian") tends to be skeptical of the defense of Israel, especially when there's taxpayer money involved. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Daring to call A Harvard House master a "bigot" because he was part of a group calling for divestment until certain conditions were met by Israel, calling all sorts of names the UN Human Rights Commissioners who dared to talk about Israel's war crimes, referring to former President Jimmy Carter in condescending terms because he also criticized Israel's policies is far-right. And fascist apologism, I dare say - but that's a different story. (May I remind you that in the book Israel Lobby, Mr. Dershowitz is specifically referred to as an apologist for Israel's policies?). Mr. Dershowitz has a clear reputation for being a(n) (far-right) apologist among an overwhelming majority of those impartial observers who have known/seen him. I know what I am talking about :) Nevertheless, do keep in mind that "far-right" is not a term confined to "Christian" thought systems. So what are you saying, Osama Bin Laden cannot be considered far-right? Or the KKK? Or the ultra-Orthodox Jewish person who assassinated Mr. Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate? It is used for people who marginalize and dehumanize those they consider as "others", and try to justify their violations of human rights. Just like Mr. Dershowitz who just a week ago wrote an article published in many newsparpers trying to justify Israel's war in Gaza and its ruthless methods. Try telling that he is not "far-right" to the Palestinian 8-year old I saw last night on TV who was blinded and burnt to the bone by the white posphorous of the Israeli Armed Forces. Therefore, it is not an "opinion". And it is as sourced as the rest of the intro itself - if anything the rest of the elements in the article support it. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
We can't include epithets like "far right" without a source using those exact words. And if we had a source we would say "X described him as 'far right'". Please see WP:V and WP:BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes yes. I know the rules. I used to have a very active account with Wikipedia, but I ceased to edit 1.5 years ago and since then I have been editing occasionally without a login. Well, it is all subjective really - what makes it an "epithet"? Just because we might think it is? "...is known for his extensive published works..."? Is this sourced? I will put a fact tag on the article tomorrow or something.
From the body of the article: "...he says, Israel "could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village..." Finkelstein: "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it." - that is more than far-right, that is downright fascist.. How much do you really know about this guy?? You might not think that "far-right" belongs in the lead, maybe (I wouldn't agree), but at least let's clear the air and set it for the record that he is far-right.. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
He was on O.J. Simpson's defense team. How "far-right" were O.J.'s defenders? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I say again, support of Israel does not equate to "far-right". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Being on "OJ's defense team" is nothing to be proud of :) OJ case was not a civil rights case, it was a case of the rich guy getting away with murder. I really don't think you read my posts above - "far-right" doesn't mean the KKK. I explained what far-right is above. In any case, how you support Israel is what is important. I am reposting a part of my previous comment:
From the body of the article: "...[Dershowitz] says, Israel "could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village..." ... Finkelstein: "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it." - Dershowitz's statements are more than far-right, they are downright fascist. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you know the rules, then why don't you edit within them? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that what I did was "editing outside the rules" - think about it: There is not even one source for the whole intro spanning three paragraphs. So if editing without bringing a source is breaking the rules, heck, 95 percent of edits on wikipedia must be immediately reverted. I sincerely believe that elements already present in the article justify that edit - in the same way it justifies "...[Dershowitz] is known for his extensive published works...", also present in the intro. You might not agree with my assessment and that's fair. It is normal that there are disagreements on editorial policy. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that that particular edit is justified, that's all...
I mean the intro is like a hagiography: Most readers would think that he is just a random teacher, and not be aware of the fact that this guy has been severely criticized for blatantly far-right positions (see above example) that he has adopted over the years. He has been specifically called an apologist many times by people of stature, both in public and in private. Anyways, if I have the time I might work further on the intro, but I might later re-do my original edit because I truly consider, from an editorial perpective, that the elements already in the article justify it. Cheers.. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Family section

This is information about his parents but nothing about the subject himself. Is he married, does he have children and so forth. Would it be useful to expand this section?
Dean Armond (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I found a link here that says he was married to his first wife, Sue, and they divorced in 1975. He got custody of their children, two boys called Elon and Jamin. He later remarried to Carolyn Cohen, and has a daughter, Ella with her. [4]l
Dean Armond (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agnostic v. Alternative Judaism in infobox

Some horribly suspicious red-linked IP switched the infobox from the first wikilink to the second wikilink and has sent everyone with an automated script into a tizzy. It's really much ado about nothing. According the provided source, he's clearly agnostic and clearly Jewish. The first wikilink is about general agnosticism and the second wikilink is less about agnosticism but more specific about Jewish agnosticism. The second link kinda feels more appropriate, but I don't care that much to stick up for Mr. red-linked IP who has long forgotten about his harmless edit.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much either but Agnostic is a broad category and supported by a citation (that I added) whereas Alternative Judaism refers to 'a variety of groups whose members' etc according to the article which makes me distinctly uncomfortable about us shoehorning him into a group without an RS given that this is a WP:BLP. Maybe the problem is actually the Alternative Judaism article itself. I don't know about these matters. Nevertheless, I think if someone wants to say that he is a member of Alternative Judaism in some sense then they should at least make the effort to try to get Dershowitz's opinion on the matter via a source or another RS. After all, we don't want him leaving 'you sir are a bigot' messages addressed to us here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to go ahead and stick up for red IP user. I think that the link should be to the alternative Judaism article and that maybe the focus should be on fixing that article, and not on this one. As the reference says, he does not deny his Judaism or his Jewish roots, he simply does not believe in god. For now I will not change it back, but perhaps something like "Agnostic (link to agnostic article)/Jewish (link to Jewish article)" would be better? Nekng (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to me that the Judaism article does not really say that one must believe in god to be a Jew, so I think I will change it to say "Judaism (agnostic)". Also, just to point out again, in the reference he does not deny his Judaism, so adding it to the article is only proper.Nekng (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"he does not deny his Judaism" is a phrase that I don't understand. He's Jewish, he is comfortable with the traditions of Judaism but he is agnostic when it comes to the theist aspects of Judaism. These things are clear. This article is covered by WP:BLP so if you do something you need to be 100% confident that it is correct and that you are complying with WP:V. We know that Agnostic is correct. I'm okay with something like Agnostic / Judaism i.e. as separate links. I think the source fully supports that. Have you considered removing the information altogether ? Is his religious stance important for this article ? I doubt it. It seems to me that it's his Jewish heritage that is pertinent rather than his opinions about religious matters. I would have thought that this is one of the rare occasions in Wikipedia where someone's ethnicity is both pertinent to his biography and could be put in an infobox without endless lame edit wars (see the Albert Einstein article for an amusing example of these kind of things). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear there, I basically meant what you said. So how about changing the infobox to be like the Albert Einstein article and have it say something like "Religious Background: Jewish" and "Stance on God: Agnostic" or something like that.Nekng (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz is ethnically Jewish. He is definitely proud of his ethnicity and cultural background. But in terms of his religious stance, I am unsure if it is accurate to describe his religious stance as "Judaism (Agnostic)" rather than simply "Agnostic". I, myself, am an agnostic Jew who is proud of his heritage (i.e. I enjoy participating in the traditions such as Passover Seders), but I wouldn't use the term "Judaism" when describing my religious stance. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.178.196 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Penthouse

Saw the edit+revert regarding Dershowitz contributing to Penthouse. You can use Dershowitz's site as a source for his Justice series. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

{{rfctag|bio|pol}}

A number of sections of this article have been deleted without much in the way of commentary, e.g. [5] Is this action an improvement? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support (as the person making the changes) and more change is needed. This article has been very problematic for years, despite being a BLP—because Dershowitz supports Israel, he has been the target of political editing. Now that some of the Israel-Palestine articles are settling down, I think it's time to get this in shape. I propose we do it as if we intend to submit it as an FAC, and include only high-quality material that would pass muster there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The article has been problematic for years, it has been the target of political editing and it needs attention e.g. the entire Jimmy Carter section could be cut down to one or two sentences or removed altogether. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a poorly worded RfC. Editors should not be expected to look through the edit history and comment on all the changes. However I have read the Polish cardinal and Iran sections and will comment on them. They seem to have far too much trivial detail and direct quotes. Do we need to know the name of the meeting, synagogue and city where Deshowitz condemned the holocaust conference, who sponsored it, and what reporter wrote about it in what newspaper, and then have a four line quote? Was there anything notable about his opposition to the conference, did it attract any attention? Does it require its own section or should it even be mentioned? TFD (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, it's not a very specific RFC but I'm liking the newer, leaner shape it's taking so far. Sol (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the RfC was premature, and is now moot given the additional changes made to the article after the RfC was started, and also in light of the detailed explanation now provided in the sections above. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tightening

Toolbox

Chomsky

I'm trying to tighten the article as it seems to want to mention everything he has ever said, or had said about him. In particular I can't see the significance of the Chomsky section, so I'm moving it here.

In 1972, Dershowitz commented on a civil case involving Israel Shahak (1933–2001), then president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, who was critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Shahak was in the process of challenging election results for the chairmanship of the Israeli League in a civil action. Dershowitz said that Judge Lovenburg, the judge presiding in Shahak's civil suit, had ruled that Shahak was properly unseated. In response, Noam Chomsky argued that the court had ruled that the elections had not been held properly, that no conclusions or actions were to be drawn from it, and that Shahak and his colleagues were to continue to function as "those who now direct" the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights.[1] The dispute fueled personal animosity between Dershowitz and Chomsky for over 35 years, both of them outspoken academics holding opposite positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[2]

  1. ^ Dershowitz, Alan M. "Guest Column: Chomsky's Immoral Divestiture Petition", The Tech May 10, 2002, accessed October 28, 2006.
  2. ^ Barsky, Robert F. "Provoking Ire," in Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. MIT Press, 1997.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is another matter the Wikipedia editing process cannot handle well. The significance has to do with, to oversimplify greatly to fit this into one sentence, both men being very prominent intellectuals who comment on Israeli/Palestinian issues, but typically from an opposing perspective. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Glemp / Chutzpah

SlimVirgin, you have removed much more than that from the article, including topics that have been the subject of Dershowitz' best selling books. You have also left no edit summaries for many of your blankings. I have reverted to the long-standing consensus version. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to restore my changes, Tijo. The article is a mess. It's poorly written, poorly sourced, laboured, and there are lots of dead links and inconsistent formatting. Please bear in mind that it's a BLP. If you want to discuss restoring something, by all means post the details here, but please allow me to continue the process of fixing it up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with your copyediting, but more undiscussed blankings of large swaths of sourced material will be reverted. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't copy-edit such poorly written material, Tijfo. I'll restore anything that can be well-sourced and well-written, and that makes sense in a bio, but a very large amount of this article shouldn't be here. What is the Noam Chomsky section about, for example? And look at the Iran section:

In his appearance at the Truth, Light and Freedom Rally at Beth Tzedec Synagogue in Toronto, Canada, "a rally...organized by the UJA [United Jewish Agency] Federation of Greater Toronto, Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region and the Holocaust Centre of Toronto," on December 21, 2006, Dershowitz spoke "about the danger Iran poses to Israel and the rest of the world" at this "held at the Beth Tzedec Synogogue in Toronto, Canada, Alan Dershowitz accused "Iran...of incitement to genocide," according to Sheri Shefa, a staff reporter for The Canadian Jewish News ...

It looks as though it was written by people who strongly dislike him for political reasons. If he has ever sneezed in the wrong way, it's in the article, and at great length.

I think we should write a BLP that meets the featured article candidate requirements. That's often a good way of focusing on retaining only the best quality material. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo, if there's anything you feel needs to be restored, by all means give details here. I'm not sure which Glemp material you mean. This is the old Glemp section. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I see there's an abbreviated section on that now. Honestly, I did not realize that you intended to condense it like that; I had the impression you intended to remove the material altogether, which seemed to me beyond any reasonable interpretation of WP:UNDUE. I'll let others decide whether this version is better or worse than before. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Old New
In the late 1980s, Dershowitz filed a slander suit against Józef Glemp, then the Archbishop of Warsaw, on behalf of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Glemp had accused Weiss and six other New York Jews of attacking nuns at a much-disputed convent on the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Two Polish courts rejected Rabbi Weiss’ claim that the speech at issue “caused serious harm” to his reputation.[1] Cardinal Glemp's statement about Rabbi Weiss, made in July 1989, was coupled with suggestions that Jews control the world's news media--a common antisemitic canard--and, according to Roger Cohen of the New York Times, "was widely viewed as anti-Semitic in tone".[2] Dershowitz's account of the lawsuit appears in his 1991 bestseller, Chutzpah, in which Dershowitz also accused Robert K. Lifton and Henry Siegman, leaders of the American Jewish Congress, of "sycophantic behavior" for meeting with Glemp. The two contested Dershowitz's account.[2]

In a 2007 blog post on the website of the Jerusalem Post newspaper, Dershowitz has accused Polish cardinal Józef Glemp of antisemitism: "Cardinal Glemp has made a career out of blaming the Jews for all of Poland's ills, including 'spreading communism,' 'plying [Polish] peasants with alcohol' and even anti-Semitism."[3]

  1. ^ Rabbi loses round in campaign against cardinal
  2. ^ a b Cohen, Roger (July 17, 1991). "Jewish Group Attacks Author of 'Chutzpah'". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
  3. ^ Double Standard Watch: The new blood libel | Blogs & Columns | Jerusalem Post
In 1989, Dershowitz filed a defamation suit against Cardinal Józef Glemp, then the Archbishop of Warsaw, on behalf of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Glemp had accused Weiss and six other New York Jews of attacking nuns at a much-disputed convent on the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Glemp's statement about Weiss, made in July 1989, was coupled with suggestions that Jews control the world's news media. Dershowitz's account of the lawsuit appears in his book Chutzpah (1991).[1]


  1. ^ Dershowitz, Alan. Chutzpah. Simon & Schuster, 1992, p. 152ff.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulger

I also can't see the significance of this as a stand-alone section (or even included in another section), so I'm moving it here for now.

While William ("Bill") M. Bulger served as Massachusetts Senate President (and afterwards), Dershowitz was a prominent critic.[1] Dershowitz and fellow attorney Harvey Silverglate attended a Governor’s Council hearing on a Bulger associate, Paul Mahoney, who was nominated for a District Court judicial appointment. Bulger appeared at the meeting and questioned the integrity and motives of Dershowitz and Silverglate."[2][3]

  1. ^ "Editorial: Speak Up: Memo to John Kerry: Be Bold. Plus, What Goes Around Comes Around. Just Ask Billy Bulger," Boston Phoenix December 5–12, 2002; cf. "Billy Bulger's Obstruction of Justice," Boston Phoenix December 10, 2002, as posted online at the Harvard Law School.
  2. ^ Seth Gitell, "Bulger's Denouement (Continued)," Boston Phoenix December 12–19, 2002, News & Features, accessed September 6, 2006. (3 pages)
  3. ^ Howie Carr, "The Brothers Bulger" The Brothers Bulger (New York: Warner Books, 2006) 323.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It was rather ... intense ... Boston politics. It probably does deserve a mention somewhere, though I suspect the Wikipedia editing process will not be able to do it justice (pun unintended). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

I'm in the process of fixing or removing dead links. If I remove any it means I can't find them in the Internet Archive. Making a note here so I don't have to keep repeating it in edit summaries. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that I've removed the Further reading section for now, as it was long and difficult to check. Posting it here so that we can slowly check through it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
Articles about Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky
Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein
Main article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair
Alan Dershowitz and Jimmy Carter
Miscellaneous

Edits so far

I've removed the Chomsky, Iran, Bulger, Testilying and Eliot Spitzer sections, merged a few others, fixed or removed all the dead links, and tightened the writing. Before (4,922 words and 82 footnotes), and after (2,733 words and 40 footnotes). If I've removed anything that others feel is important, I'm quite happy to discuss it.

The article is heavily slanted to his political views, so I'd like to build up the legal side more, with information about his cases and work in jurisprudence, but that will take a bit of research. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest also removing the Norman Finkelstein (no relation to me) plagiarism accusation, as, informally, false, and formally WP:UNDUE. It's an instance of a Wikipedia process which deeply bothers me. All an attacker has to do is trump-up an accusation, and regardless of truth, it can stain the person's biography page forever. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk)
Unlike most of the material SV has removed, this is a very well-known and relevant issue; it even has its own article. The book itself is one of the things for which Dershowitz is bestknown, and is mentioned in the lead. The plagiarism accusation does not receive lengthy treatment in this article; the suggestion of undue coverage is misplaced. I think that this should remain. RolandR (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

political affiliations and donations

Does he give donations to the Democrats or the Republicans ? These must be on record. Has he ever indicated how he votes?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Borough Park

The article says he was raised in Borough Park. Incidentally, his main opponent Norman Finkelstein was "raised in post-war Borough Park, Brooklyn, a community settled by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe"[6]. I assume it's the same place. Giflion (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran

Dershowtiz's strong anti-iranian views should be noted here. He is a proponant of a country that has not signed the NPT (Israel)attacking the nuclear facilities of a countrythat has signed the agreement like Iran, and makes an argument for how such an attack on their nuclear energy facilities would be legal in his view of international law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israel-has-the-right-to-a_b_836764.html 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation relating to Paul D. Hanson

The section, Alan_Dershowitz#Harvard-MIT_divestment_petition seems like one giant BLP violation against Paul D. Hanson to me. The section only presents Dershowitz' accusations then summarizes his justifications. I have inquired about it at the BLP/N. See here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_D._Hanson_-_in_Alan_Dershowitz_article.Griswaldo (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Norway section addition

Friends - i do know it is not french (should've used a :-), oh well). anyway, i do not see in the reference, the name of "Morten Levin", nor his description "a Jewish Professor at NTNU and one of the initiators of the petition to boycott Israel", nor Morten's action of "strongly defended the decision not to invite Dershowitz" nor his words describing it as a "wise decision". again, can you please show me where in the reference it says any of these things? thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As it says at the top, the article is by Morten Levin. The article is a strong defence of the decision, which Levin describes as "kloke beslutninger", which Google indeed translates as a "wise decision". It's true that the source does not describe Levin as Jewish, and I can find no confirmation of this elsewhere, so I will delete that word; but the rest is well-established. RolandR (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You will hardly find anyone in Norway with a name like Levin who isn't Jewish. Morten Levin is described as (or actually describes himself as) Jewish in this article in Høgskoleavisa, which is published by Sør-Trøndelag University College[7]. Morten Levin is an internationally known sociologist, and has been one of the leaders of the Israel boycott efforts at NTNU. Dvarske (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

dvarske - we will ignore your comment about last names. i am sure you know that wikipedia is about verifiable facts and not 'common knowledge', etc. what i suggest is that you rewrite the sentence, using the word jewish, then use the appropriate citation for it and then write he is a noted critic of israel and use the citation for that. (see his page on wikipedia - that is a decent example of what to do). also, use a citation for the fact that he is one of the organizers of such a conference as well. that will certainly make it more clear to all. thanks. Soosim (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what's wrong with pointing out that Levin is a Jewish name - see the above comment for a source that additionally clearly states that he is Jewish. I don't need to "see his page on wikipedia" because I've written it. Now that he has his own biography, I don't feel details such as the information about him being Jewish belong in Alan Dershowitz' biography. A citation for him being the co-organizer of the conference with Pappe and Walt is also found in his own biography. Dvarske (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The case against Alan Dershowitz by Frank Menetrez

I may not have written the section perfectly but the article "The Case Against Alan Dershowitz" by Frank Menetrez is necessary to complete the discussion on the plagiarism issue. Frank is a PhD and JD and the article is certainly not "an opinion of a yahoo" as user Brewcrewer put it. It is actual research and journalism which is at the heart of the plagarism issue. He has documented his correspondence with both Harvard and Dershowitz in that article. Additionally, he goes into each and every of the 20 instances there are exact errors (known as the identical errors argument) between Peterson's Mark Twain quote in "From time immemorial" and Dershowitz "A Case for Israel." After engaging in this correspondence and checking the original resources Menetrez has come to the conclusion that "The failure of both Harvard and Dershowitz to provide a straight answer to my question about whether Harvard investigated Finkelstein’s identical errors argument, despite my persistent inquiries spanning nearly one month, strongly suggests that Harvard did not investigate the argument and that Dershowitz has known it all along. There is no other plausible interpretation of their refusal to answer my question, or of Dershowitz’s continuing refusal to acknowledge that the argument has been central to Finkelstein’s charge of plagiarism ever since October 2003." If any of you actually read the article you would see that it's a well put together piece and is incredibly important. It is extremely narrow to say that "Harvard investigated the issue and all was well" when based on Menetrez's research the extent of Harvard's investigation was flawed. The Menetrez article is so important that the paper "The Case Against Alan Dershowitz" is contained in the epilogue of the new version of Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah." See here http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-case-against-alan-dershowitz-by-frank-j-menetrez/ Maybe next time before deleting an edit you should actually read the reference you're deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.43.3 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the most glaring example of plagarism that Finkelstein found was the "identical errors" argument. In this example Finkelstein showed that there were 20 Mark Twain quotation errors that Peterson made which Dershowitz replicated exactly as Peters had. If Dershowitz replicated these errors exactly that means he did not read the original source, instead he pulled it from Peters. It is against the Harvard code of ethics to site an original source and have just pulled that source from another book. It seems very unlikely that Harvard would hold a professor at a lower tier of conduct than it does its freshmen. When Menetrez investigated this issue he corresponded with both Dershowitz and Harvard. Neither Dershowitz nor Harvard would say that they specifically looked into the "identical errors argument." Menetrez has come to the conclusion that Harvard can be one of three things; corrupt, incompetent, or they didn't know to investigate the identical errors argument. Since he contends that Harvard is neither corrupt or incompetent, there is no way that they knew about the identical errors argument when they investigated as the evidence for plagarism in regards to the identical errors is incontrovertible. His correspondence with both Dershowitz and Harvard indicates that he is likely right on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.43.3 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

[remove uncivil accusation directed at other editors] My argument for a separate section is that the affair is indeed separate from Views. It was initiated by the academic Finkelstein, and was an historical event, not a personal view of Prof. Dershowitz. 92.233.116.20 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have submitted this for editor assistance. 92.233.116.20 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Dershowitz/Archive_3&oldid=1146560086"