Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 4

Agnostic

I see there have been some back and forth edits to the infobox religion attribute. This has come up before. I added a source with a quote last time which you can see here. There was a discussion that none of us really cared very much about Talk:Alan_Dershowitz/Archive_3#Agnostic_v._Alternative_Judaism_in_infobox. It may or may not help. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the quote and I would like to comment that religion is not merely a belief in God but also a cultural tradition with customs and ceremonies. You can not believe in God but still adhere to some religious traditions (such as holidays or wedding procedures) which make you a part of that religion even if you are not a total religious person. MathKnight 18:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with you what we probably need is either a source where Dershowitz says something like "my religion is X" or we say nothing at all since it's a BLP. I'm okay with religion=agnostic if people insist on saying something but it's not a religion. Can't we just use the attribute ethnicity=Jewish instead ? As I said before, I think this is one of the rare occasions where ethnicity is relevant to the subject's public life and notability and it's uncontroversial. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

some info from googleland: a) ynet: "Prominent Jewish American lawyer Alan Dershowitz" and b) wsj, in an article he wrote, he places himself within the group 'jewish pro-israel speakers': "The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott." and " At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics." and c) from his book, "the vanishing american jew (searchable on amazon, to some extent): "My religious mentors tell me that my borderline agnosticism does not disqualify me from being a theologically acceptable - even Orthodox Jew." (p. 179) and "I have been able to define for myself a positive Jewish identity and to live a meaningful Jewish life -- I think Jewishly -- teach Jewishly -- practice law Jewishly -- I surround myself with Jewish music and Jewish art -- even my agnosticism is Jewish, since the God whose existence I wonder about is the Jewish God." (p. 304). so, it is very clear that he is a jew, with borderline tendencies towards agnosticism. how about that? Soosim (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Soosim, I can't quite tell whether we are agreeing or not or what you are proposing exactly. No one is disputing that he is a proud Jew who loves Jewish tradition and culture including the religious traditions. This is about the infobox so whatever we do has to be simple, straightforward and unambiguously verifiable either as religion=<something> or ethnicity=Jewish or we do nothing. Also, is there such a word as "Jewishly" nowadays ? I'm pretty sure someone just made that up. Are you saying that we should put religion=Judaism ? Is that overstating it ? I don't know. Would he mind ? Probably not I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He is a Jew by accident of birth. Judaism is the religion of the Jews. He has chosen not to follow Judaism. He is in fact a self hating Jew who hates Israel. Those two always seem to go together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.16.233 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To describe Dershowitz as a self-hating Israel hater is the most ridiculous claim I have heard in a long time. He surely has an inflated sense of his own importance, and is one of the most outspokenly vocal supporters of Israel currently active. I would have thought that this is an assessment with which both his admirers and his detractors could agree. RolandR (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

i really wasn't proposing anything, just showing what is out there. i definitely think he is jewish. i think that "jewish" or "judaism" relates to so many things and all are acceptable (as long as they are acceptable to the big tent of 'who is a jew'.) so, yes, i would put 'judaism' or 'jewish' in the infobox. we can add some info from the quotes above to the section misnamed 'early life'. ok? Soosim (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you and others to agree on what to do with the infobox because still having difficulty caring but the detailed things you've found on his views definitely look useful for the body of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz clearly identifies himself as Jewish, even if he is skeptical about the existance of God. As I said before: religion is a creed and not merely a belief in God. As such I propose to change from "Agnostic" to "Jewish" or "Jewish (secular)". Secular Jews are still considered as part of the Jewish religion. MathKnight 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Only "agnostic" is acceptable at this time. The infobox is for "religion", not "ethnicity."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It says "religion", not "his position about the existance of God" and as I say before: religion is not merely a belief in God but also a creed and tradition. E.g. Christians don't believe in God but still celebrating Christmess and Easter are still counted in the statistics as Christians and not as "agnostics". MathKnight 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with Brewcrewer. Which means that we are either both right, or both wrong. Dershowitz may be a Jew by ethnicity, but certainly not bt religion. He has described himself as an agnostic, and to put anything else in the infobox would be tendentious OR at best. RolandR (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Brewcrewer, Template:Infobox person has an ethnicity attribute. The attribute is currently null in this article although the attribute itself is present, so it is a legitimate option that can be considered if it helps i.e. there are 2 separate attributes, religion and ethnicity. Both, either or neither could be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

how about "agnostic jew" (like reform jew, conservative jew, orthodox jew, secular jew, good jew, bad jew, funny jew, etc.)? i definitely think his religion is jewish. he says so. he does not say he is agnostic like that. Soosim (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, it has to unambiguously comply with WP:BLPCAT which also covers infobox attributes. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz is Jewish. We even have "self-identification" for that. The Infobox should simply read Religion: Jewish. No other terminology belongs in the Infobox in the field for religion. This is an WP:OR problem. Judaism does not correspond completely on all points to Christianity as I think some are assuming. There are differences between the two religions vis-a-vis membership. While membership in the religion of Christianity is largely predicated on the belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, Judaism has no corresponding required belief. In fact "belief" is not a prerequisite to being a Jew at all. The definition of a Jew is that a Jew is a person who was either born Jewish or who converted to Judaism. There are no required beliefs in Judaism. We should not be adding irrelevant elements to the Infobox. In the context of Christianity, agnosticism may be relevant. But in the context of Judaism, agnosticism is irrelevant. If the Infobox is going to have a field asking what Dershowitz's religion is that field should simply be noting that he is Jewish as we find in this example. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

bus stop - you make a very good point. i agree. Soosim (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a great example because NNDB isn't an RS for BLPs in Wikipedia. I think you have failed to appreciate the absolute simplicity of the problem. It has nothing to do with the actual nature or variety of opinions about the thing represented by the attribute. There's an attribute called religion. The only person who should get to say his religion=X is the subject of the article, no one else. It should be a direct statement requiring no interpretation on our part. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—you say, "The only person who should get to say his religion=X is the subject of the article, no one else. It should be a direct statement requiring no interpretation on our part."

And earlier in this thread you say, "While I tend to agree with you what we probably need is either a source where Dershowitz says something like "my religion is X" or we say nothing at all since it's a BLP."

People do not necessarily state their religion as you are requiring that they do. In fact, I think people rarely ever state their religion as you are requiring they do. Dershowitz refers to himself as a Jew:

"I have been able to define for myself a positive Jewish identity and to live a meaningful Jewish life -- I think Jewishly -- teach Jewishly -- practice law Jewishly -- I surround myself with Jewish music and Jewish art -- even my agnosticism is Jewish, since the God whose existence I wonder about is the Jewish God."

When he says that he lives a "meaningful Jewish life" he is saying that he is Jewish. One would have to come up with a farfetched "interpretation" of the above to fail to read that Dershowitz is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's Jewish. So is Larry David. So what ? No one is disputing that. That's why I said "No one is disputing that he is a proud Jew who loves Jewish tradition and culture including the religious traditions" and mentioned an alternative of using ethnicity=Jewish. So, your argument is largely addressing points that no one has made. Being Jewish and someone describing themselves that way doesn't help determine what to put in a religion= attribute according to WP:BLP. If someone doesn't talk about their beliefs using the word used by the attribute, religion, it's fine, we don't have to put anything. I understand that when you see a statement like "I am Jewish" you transform it into a statement that says "My religion=Jewish" possibly with or without a 'non-observant' suffix, but that is your personal transformation algorithm and it's fine. It's just not relevant to this infobox decision because it's your transform not Dershowitz's. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he takes the same view as you and would be fine with us saying religion=Jewish or even religion=Judaism but there is no avoiding the fact that going from "I am Jewish" to "My religion=Jewish" is a transformation of information that in my view is not permitted by policy. The fact that people are discussing this at length here should be a clue that this is something that probably doesn't belong in the infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

sean - what is the difference between 'i am jewish' and 'my religion is jewish'? to a jew, they are the same thing. it is not like some other religions (mentioned above), but might be like others. if someone were to say 'i am hindu' does that not mean religion = hindu? i am christian equals religion is christian, on? Soosim (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference ? It's whatever the subject of a BLP says it is. If a Jewish atheist says "I am Jewish" they aren't saying "my religion is Jewish" so the transformation from one to the other is clearly not bijective. It's the same here in Thailand. Someone saying "I am a Thai Buddhist" can't be transformed into 'My religion is Thai Buddhism' without further information from the person that isn't contained in the statement "I am a Thai Buddhist". Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a Jew and an atheist. When I say "I am a Jew", I do not mean "my religion is Jewish", as I have no religion. It is of no interest to me that Jewish religious authorities consider me Jewish by religion. This may be analogous to the posthumous conversion by the Mormons of ancestors of converts to their church. No matter what the church says, this does not make these people Mormons. Our criteria on Wikipedia are clear; it is the self-definition of a subject which determines whether we ascribe a religion to them, not the claims of any religious authority. And if Wikipedia tried to insist that I be listed or regarded as Jewish by religion, I would be outraged. RolandR (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about Christianity. The arguments above are assuming Judaism corresponds to Christianity in all respects, when in fact it does not. Furthermore we have a BLP policy at WP:BLPCAT that does not say how a person must "self-identify". I do not think a person is required to use the exact language "My religion is Jewish" to qualify for either placement in Categories for Jews or for the "Religion" field in the Infobox reading "Jewish". This is an unattainable requirement. No biography would contain in its Infobox "Religion: Jewish" if we required a statement of "My religion is Jewish." When normal people speak they are generally conveying several ideas at once and with at least some degree of nuance. They do not normally speak in simple declarative sentences. Judaism, unlike Christianity, is not predicated on what one believes. A person may very well not believe in God and yet their religion might be Jewish. There are no required beliefs in Judaism. We must not try to shoehorn Judaism into the form of Christianity. In some ways Judaism and Christianity are alike, but importantly for the purposes of this discussion, there are significant differences between the two religions. NNDB is simply completing the Infobox using the standard procedure that many other sources use. NNDB most certainly is a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion. Also take note that NNDB not only has a field for religion but a separate field for ethnicity. These fields are obviously distinct. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, editors understand these issues perfectly well. You need to stop assuming they don't. They have been discussed repeatedly. It's clear what we are and are not allowed to do in BLP articles. It's not okay to transform "I am Jewish" to "Religion=Jewish" or "I am a Thai Buddhist" to "Religion=Thai Buddhism" and all of the similar cases in Wikipedia for living people. You aren't allowed to assign a religion to a living person just because you believe it to be so. Also, again, NNDB is not an RS for BLPs in Wikipedia. See the WP:RSN archives. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—for the limited purposes of this discussion NNDB is a reliable source because you are already conceding that Dershowitz is Jewish. In looking over the archives at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, there seems to be some disagreement concerning NNDB. But this is a discussion of the use of Infobox fields. Other sources use Infobox fields too. And they use them to designate religion in the same way that NNDB does.

Do you consider The Washington Post a reliable source? The Washington Post does not happen to have an Infobox for Dershowitz. But consider the following:

Washington Post Infobox example A

Washington Post Infobox example B

Washington Post Infobox example C

The above are for Jan Schakowsky. She is Jewish. Can you please show me where Jan Schakowsky says "My religion is Jewish"? Reliable sources do not consider such a statement to be necessary. (It is also highly unlikely that anyone would make such an unusual statement.) When it has been established that someone is Jewish the standard use of fields in Infoboxes is: "Religion: Jewish". We should be following the precedent of reliable sources in this regard. Furthermore WP:BLPCAT does not in any way suggest that "self-identification" requires exact language such as "My religion is X". It is actually besides the point to argue that we must have a statement from a person such as "My religion is X" because people almost never speak that way, yet you are arguing for such a requirement in such posts as this and this. You write:

"The only person who should get to say his religion=X is the subject of the article, no one else. It should be a direct statement requiring no interpretation on our part."

and:

"While I tend to agree with you what we probably need is either a source where Dershowitz says something like "my religion is X" or we say nothing at all since it's a BLP."

We do not need statements that "My religion is X." WP:BLPCAT never formulates policy reflecting that whatsoever. "Self-identification" is amply satisfied in copious statements made by Dershowitz. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here I have initiated a discussion on the BLP Noticeboard on this subject as I think wider input could be helpful. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your circular arguments because I see no point but I shall say this, your argument is based on the notion that there is a direct mapping between "I am Jewish" to "my religion=Jewish" (and therefore similarly "I am a Thai Buddhist" to "Religion=Thai Buddhism"). You use the assumption of bijection as an axiom when it is no such thing and despite what WP:BLPCAT says. Furthermore, you use the example of one person to justify deciding the religion of another. I am more than happy to let it play out at BLPN. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't understand something about Judaism, it is not just an ethnicity or religion, but both. A Japanese who will convert to Judaism (Giyour) will be considered as part of the Jewish community (nation and religion alike), while a son of a Jewish family (say the Levi family) who will convert to Christianity will not be considered a Jew anymore, eventhough its ethnicity has not changed. Therefor, when someone says he is Jewish, he is Jewish, even if he doesn't adhere to all of the Mitzvah's, custums and believes of Judaism. In Israel, secular Jews are still considered as Jews (in the religious sense and not just the national sense). MathKnight 21:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Yes, of course I'm aware of that. I would imagine a very large number of Wikipedia editors are aware of it because of the many discussions about these issues and BLP compliance. It's another reason why "I am Jewish" can't simply be transformed to a statement in an infobox about someone's religion via "religion=Jewish". My only concern is unsourced transformations of information in BLPs. Having said that, I agree with you below, agnosticism is not a religion as I said above..somewhere. I'm not a fan of using the religion attribute for agnosticism or atheism (a popular sport with drive by editors over at Hu Jintao) as it doesn't really make sense. Exceptions make sense sometimes, such as Bhagat Singh, who was always Sikh, another ethnoreligious group, despite becoming an atheist. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a religion

I checked the Wikipedia entry about Agnosticism and found out it is not defined as a religion but as a theological view. I quote:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1]

You can be agnostic Jew, agnostic Christian etc but not Jewish Christian or Christian Muslim. This can illustrate further that agnosticism is not a religion. Agnosticism doesn't have rituals, code of law, mitzvah's, holy books etc that characterize religion. Therefor, writing "Religion=Agnosticism" is wrong and should be removed. MathKnight 08:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Any comment? MathKnight 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. There wasn't even a reference for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a reference for it at some point, the best kind too, self-identification, but nevermind. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's a reference with self-identification, then fine. If Dershowitz thinks his religion is agnosticism, then who are we to disagree? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I oversold the reference. He used many words. They could arguably be interpreted as him being agnostic about many things, including certain attributes that are often referred to as being components of "religion"... See [2]... I think just deleting the attribute is better. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever someone's viewpoint on religion might be, that "religion" slot would be the appropriate place to put it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's covered by WP:BLPCAT. It's a bit of a stretch to treat these things as "religious beliefs" in a Religion= soundbite. Maybe the guidelines need to be clearer. I've lost count of how many times I've deleted religion=Atheism from various Chinese politicians/CCP members articles. I wouldn't want people to start adding someone's viewpoint on religion e.g. Religion=Generally quite hostile... Sean.hoyland - talk 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe the solution is to say "Religion = None". I tend to think of atheism as its own quasi-religion, but that's not necessarily a mainstream view. But presumably the purpose of that parameter is to allow the reader to know what camp the subject falls into. Whether it says Catholic or Jewish or Hindu or "None", it's informative. Leaving it out is not informative. Whether that info is relevant is another ongoing debate. Does Dershowitz publicly discuss his religious views? What is its hierarchy of importance where he's concerned, as compared with constitutional law, for example? Dershowitz sounds almost exactly like Woody Allen. Allen has certainly put a great deal of emphasis on his own Jewishness. But has Dershowitz? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

quoted from above: a) ynet: "Prominent Jewish American lawyer Alan Dershowitz" and b) wsj, in an article he wrote, he places himself within the group 'jewish pro-israel speakers' discussing his being boycotted: "The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott." and "At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics." and c) from his book, "the vanishing american jew (searchable on amazon, to some extent): "My religious mentors tell me that my borderline agnosticism does not disqualify me from being a theologically acceptable - even Orthodox Jew." (p. 179) and "I have been able to define for myself a positive Jewish identity and to live a meaningful Jewish life -- I think Jewishly -- teach Jewishly -- practice law Jewishly -- I surround myself with Jewish music and Jewish art -- even my agnosticism is Jewish, since the God whose existence I wonder about is the Jewish God." (p. 304).

This is all reliable evidence that Dershowitz considers himself Jewish. But it is not evidence that he considers himself to be Jewish by religion. That is the distinction we are discussing here. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement that his Jewishness is an important, possibly defining, element of his social and political activity. This should of course be noted in the article, possibly using the paragraph you cite above. But that is not the same as defining his religion as Jewish. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—what is "Jewish 'by religion'"? You can't coin terminology. It is misleading and incorrect. Knowledgeable and reliable sources would never use terminology like "Jewish by religion" or they wouldn't be considered reliable publications for long. Can you show me usage of that terminology or what you would consider similar terminology in reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a commonly used and widely understood term. It is used in dozens of Wikipedia articles, where nobody has suggested that it is a misleading or incorrect neologism. Please don't raise false issues and red herrings. RolandR (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—you are misusing the phrase "Jewish by religion" in the usage in which you are using it. Once you know someone is Jewish, as in the case of Dershowitz, you no longer ask the question as to whether they are "Jewish by religion". Instead you may make further inquiry into whether they are "religious" or "not religious". This is standard English usage. It reflects the way all high profile and reliable sources use the language, and the way people actually speak. The question you are trying to ask, properly formulated in the standard English that reliable sources use, is: "Is Dershowitz religious?"—or some question closely related to that. Any terminology can have some usage. "Jewish by religion" can for instance properly differentiate from "Christian by religion" or "Muslim by religion". In such usage the phrase "Jewish by religion" would be quite apt. But we are not querying whether Dershowitz is Christian or Muslim or Jewish. That is not our question. People can also describe themselves as "not Jewish". But we are not asking a question as to whether Dershowitz is Jewish, because we know he amply describes himself as Jewish. The phrase that you are employing is incorrect. Not because I say so, but because reliable sources do not employ that usage. Can you find the BBC, the Washington Post, or some similar sources, inquiring as to whether a known individual is "Jewish by religion"? The fact that they are "known" probably implies that the source already knows whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. It probably also implies that they would be aware if this individual denied that they were Jewish. In such a case they are not going to ask whether he is "Jewish by religion". They might wonder aloud whether he is secular or observant. In my opinion we should be hewing to the language usages employed by reliable sources.

Generally, less frequent usages involve specialized meaning. The same is true with the term "ethnically Jewish". It has a specialized use and high profile reliable sources will occasionally use it. But they will not for instance use the term ethnically Jewish as a substitute for "nonobservant". Can you find a high profile reliable source referring to an individual as being "Jewish by religion"? Do you find the New York Times or a source of similar stature referring to an individual as being "Jewish by religion"? Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. See, for instance, my fifth link above.[3] This is from the Jewish Virtual Library, and gives the results of a 2001 survey on Jewish identity, in whic respondents chose from among several categories: Jew by Choice, Jewish by Religion, Of Jewish Parents & No Religion, Of Jewish Parents & Now of Other Religion, No Jewish Adult in Head of Household & Only a Child of Jewish Parentage. 30% stated they were "Jewish by religion"; in 1990, the proportion had been 43%. RolandR (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The source you refer to says, "Jewish by Religion (Regardless of Parentage)"

You are providing a chart. We are speaking in full sentences here on this Talk page, much like reliable sources do in their publications. We know Dershowitz's "parentage". The chart is disregarding "parentage". Why do you suppose no high profile publications, speaking in fully expansive English about known individuals, do not refer to them as "Jewish by religion"? The answer is because such reliable sources are fully cognizant that even a nonreligious Jew would be "Jewish by religion" except if some extenuating factor applied—such as conversion to another religion (formal or informal), or denial of being Jewish ([[Bobby Fischer]). If you misuse terminology by asking if Dershowitz is "Jewish by religion" you concomitantly misconstrue Jewish identity. I am arguing that we should not be misconstruing Jewish identity here on this Talk page. We can ask whether Dershowitz is an observant Jew. But reliable sources do not ask if Dershowitz or someone similar to him is "Jewish by religion" because they know fully well that unless there exists reason to believe that the individual is not Jewish, that such a question would display an incorrect understanding of Jewish identity. I have found usages in the Jewish Daily Forward for the phrase "Jewish by religion" but they are specialized usages. You are speaking about an individual known to be Jewish. Beyond that fact, the questions remaining may involve his degree of observance, for instance, but like most Jews, he is semi-observant. The question in play would not be whether he is "Jewish by religion" because that question, given our knowledge of Dershowitz, would be inapplicable. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The page I link to lists at the top of the page the options given in the survey, one of which is "Jewish by religion", without any further qualification. Further, I am a "nonreligious Jew" -- an atheist. I am not "Jewish by religion", and neither you nor anyone else has the right to insist that I am. The issue here is simple: do we include in the infobox a statement that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish? As far as I can see, you are the only editor here arguing that we should. Nor, in my opinion should we list "Agnostic" as his religion (it is not even a religion). I think that we should not include this item in the infobox at all, unless we can get a reliable statement (not your own synthesis) that he does subscribe to a religious belief. RolandR (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The answer is because such reliable sources are fully cognizant that even a nonreligious Jew would be "Jewish by religion" except if some extenuating factor applied—such as conversion to another religion or denial of being Jewish ([[Bobby Fischer]). That is simply wrong. Given the sources Roland provided and the fact that he is an intelligent non-religious adult who self-identifies as Jewish whose native language is English, your response is quite puzzling. Distinguishing between Jewish and Jewish by religion (or something very similar) in demographic surveys of Jewish people is the norm. Perhaps you might be interested in Who’s a Jew in an Era of High Intermarriage? from The Levy Economics Institute which looks at some of the identity vs survey design issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—you ask, "The issue here is simple: do we include in the infobox a statement that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish?"

Obviously the Dershowitz Infobox should read "Religion: Jewish". Here is an example of an Infobox for Dershowitz reading "Religion: Jewish". Is there a reason that our Dershowitz Infobox should be constructed differently? We can find numerous examples of similar Infoboxes on high profile people in good quality reliable sources:

"The Jewish Daily Forward"; Barbara Boxer; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"The Jewish Daily Forward"; Ron Klein; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"The Jewish Daily Forward"; Lee Fisher; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"The Jewish Daily Forward"; Russ Feingold; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"The Jewish Federations of North America"; Jared Polis; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"JAC"; Steve Rothman; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"Film Reference"; Harvey Bernhard; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

"Film Reference"; Dawn Steel ; Infobox—"Religion: Jewish"

Note that all of the above contain Infoboxes reading "Religion: Jewish". Why would we not follow the precedent of reliable sources concerning Infoboxes for Jewish people? Nor are these particularly religious Jews. Their level of observance would be approximately that of Dershowitz, I would think. I can probably find more examples but it is tedious and time consuming. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All of that is irrelevant synthesis. How other publications describe other people has no bearing on how Wikipedia describes Dershowitz. We need a reliable source that his religion is Jewish in order to include this in an infobox, not your own speculation and interpretation. RolandR (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—there is no shortage of confirmation that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish:

"Second, Dershowitz's religious heritage has infused his perspective and commentary on a variety of legal topics from criminal justice to professional responsibility, to constitutional law. Because of his Jewish, and particularly religious Jewish upbringing, he uses Biblical and Jewish commentary as sources of analogy and reference."

"And finally, Dershowitz has assumed the role of popular translator. He wants to explain his Jewishness, his religion and other religions in a manner that, though scholarly, can be understood by a broad audience. He can use his visibility and access to convey his perspectives and concerns. He believes, from his meetings, from his research, from the letters he receives - from Jews, non-Jews and even anti-Semites - that he knows what is on the mind and souls of many Jews of all ages and that he has a unique window into the mind of the anti-Semite."

Those are just a couple of examples. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

again, dershowitz says he is jewish. period. that is his religion. period. why play around with it as if it isn't there???? Soosim (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment is textbook synthesis. Bring a reliable source that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish. RolandR (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—it is not just Alan Dershowitz that says that Alan Dershowitz is Jewish. Every source that I have seen that says anything about this confirms that Alan Dershowitz is Jewish. Have you seen any source suggesting that Alan Dershowitz might not be Jewish? Please present it here. Please tell me any reason why I or any other reader/editor should not consider Alan Dershowitz Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, please bring a reliable source that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish. RolandR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—I brought two sources above. Do you find them unsatisfactory in some way? I brought an actual Infobox constructed using the exact words "Religion: Jewish". Please explain some reason why I or any other reader/editor should not consider Dershowitz Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth stating that since this is a BLP, there can't be any conjectural interpretation per WP:BLPREMOVE. There must also be consensus for inclusion and we can forget about that happening without impeccable sourcing. Also, Bus stop, you really should stop the "why I or any other reader/editor should not consider Alan Dershowitz Jewish". It's unhelpful and off topic given that no one, not a single person, has said that Dershowitz is not Jewish. No one is stopping you adding ethnicity = Jewish but we aren't discussing that. You are welcome to hold any model of identity you like (although I find it difficult to understand how you can given that it is invalidated by the empirical evidence right here in the form of Roland and multiple RS of which NNDB is not one) but you can't try to impose your model on this page or in the article. We just need to stick to sources without using conjectural interpretation. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)At the risk of boring myself and most other editors, I repeat: please bring a reliable source that states that Dershowitz's religion is Jewish. Neither of the sources you bring claims this, so I do not find them satisfactory for the edit you wish to make. And once more, we are not bound by how NNDB or any other site tackles these issues; we have our own rules. RolandR (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Notable Names Database is a more than adequate source for this discussion. All of the editors involved in this discussion are in agreement that Alan Dershowitz Jewish. Notable Names Database is more than up to the task of creating an Infobox with that information. And many other sources as I have listed above use the same locution, in Infoboxes, for Jews who are not necessarily noted for being exceedingly pious. You are not presenting any reasons why we should not use the Infobox construction found at NNDB and related sources—why wouldn't we be saying in our Infobox "Religion: Jewish" for Dershowitz? Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't and we are not talking about who is Jewish. We are talking about sourcing the religion= attribute and when sources are supplied that answer that question without any conjectural interpretation we can move on. In the meantime, perhaps someone should consider making an infobox for Yoram Kaniuk who both self-identifies as being Jewish with no religion and is officially registered in Israel as being Jewish with no religion [4]. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

NNDB is not acceptable as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#NNDB: "NNDB is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination"; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB "NNDB isn't remotely 'reliable'"; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#National_Names_Database "Bottom line: not a reliable source, most especially for any kind of controversial information."; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#NNDB "This site is in no way reliable". RolandR (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC) And additionally, there are suggestions at Talk:NNDB that the site takes much of its information from Wikipedia, and that it is particularly unreliable on race and ethnicity classifications. RolandR (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—you refer here and here to "conjectural interpretation". Can you please point me to some articles with "Religion: Jewish" in the Infobox about which you have no objections? Please point me to some articles with "Religion: Jewish" in the Infobox that you find acceptable. I would like to compare the support in sources found at those articles with the support in sources found at this article for "Religion: Jewish" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RolandR—you say "And once more, we are not bound by how NNDB or any other site tackles these issues; we have our own rules."

I find at WP:BLPCAT that:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

and:

"These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements…"

We have full support in sources that Dershowitz is Jewish, including the self-identification and relevancy to public life that WP:BLPCAT requires, yet you are still expressing that there are "rules" left unsatisfied. What rules are you being mindful of that I am failing to consider? What rule am I overlooking? Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHUN?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I do not dispute that Dershowitz is Jewish. I oppose entering Judaism as his religion in the infobox. RolandR (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity—I am not arguing for "Religion: Agnosticism". That is not a recognized religion. I think that some of you are making more of this than is justified. The "religion" field in an Infobox should be thought of in a "multiple choice" sort of way. There are a few generally recognized "religions". No reader of the encyclopedia is expecting a one-word response in an Infobox to be the final word on what all understand to be an endlessly nuanced area of a person's life. Dershowitz's religion is Jewish. That is because the particulars of his life fall into an acceptable range on that topic. Nothing that he has says suggests that he has renounced his religion. It is beyond the scope of the Infobox field to concern ourselves with whether he is an observant or a nonobservant Jew. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I support "agnostic" as his religion in the infobox, whether or not it technically may not be considered a religion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

An Infobox is inescapably a "dumbing down" tool. Therefore the first consideration is whether to have an Infobox or not. My inclination is to do away with the Infobox. I am cognizant that most editors will disagree with this sentiment, therefore I will move on to Plan B. As attributes of identity of a wide variety are of interest to readers as a consequence of significant historical factors, I favor the inclusion of indications of these factors. These too are "dumbing down" factors because no two Jews are alike, no two white people are alike, no two Hispanic people are alike, etc. But the question boils down to including indications readers are interested in or eliminating them. I favor including them if there is an Infobox.

By the way it has to be pointed out that skin color is usually noticeable from a photograph often included in an Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed external link

I would like to add this link because I interviewed Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz Is the Best Known Criminal Lawyer in the World Please let me know if I can add this.Ntwereet (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Puff-piece spam from www.lawcrossing.com spammer. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

Being long in the lime-light, AD has made many remarkable statements that, IMO would highlight his political point of view and his expertise of the law. Is it against Wikipedia policy to have a section just for quotes? Bcwilmot (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote is the place for that kind of information. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mid East Expert

We should add that to the lead Dershowitz has written several books and has debunked ennemies of Israel like Chomsky and Carter.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should we add that? What are your sources? RolandR (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is the evidence that he "debunked" anyone, rather than simply slandering them?

If you read the main page, description in exposing Carter and Chomsky plus the two books in the bibliography that should be sufficent.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"enemies of Israel"...please stop adding offensive nonsense about living people to talk pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you say he "exposed" Carter and Chomsky, but offer no evidence he did anything more than slander them.

separate from insulting Chomsky and Carter, should Mid East expert be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn76 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain that request? I don't understand what you are saying. RolandR (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason Sinebot removed my answer. Dershowitz has written books on the subject and is a frequent contribotor and speaker on the Mid East.Unicorn76 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sinebot has removed nothing. It only signs unsigned contributions. I too have written books on the subject, and am a frequent speaker and contributor on the Middle East. Does this make me a notable source? RolandR (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well as I have no idea who you are, I can't really say can I? But we are talking about Alan Dershowitz.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument here, then, is that Alan Dershowitz is a reputable source about the Middle East because he is Alan Dershowitz? Seems pretty circular to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.5.224 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Unicorn,Mid East expert should be in the heading.24.30.247.212 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why has Mid East expert not been put in opening? Only dispute is from people attacking Dershowitz198.179.88.83 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not normally declare anyone to be an "expert" on anything. We report their training, publications, awards, and so on, based on reliable sources and let readers make up their own mind. See WP:PEACOCK. I have edited the lede to make clear that Mr. Dershowitz continues to be a commentator on Arab–Israeli conflict, with a recent example.--agr (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

and not a word about supporting tortures?

With Charles Krauthammer he is one of the biggest supporters of tortures, support that was meaningful. That's should be a section not a comment. unfortunately my english is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.76.50.6 (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why on earth is there no mention of the latest accusation's against Dershowitz? In addition, the attorneys for the alleged victims have now brought suit against Dershowitz for defamation. Why is none of this being mentioned?

Alan Dershowitz was named in a Florida court filing as one of several prominent figures participating in sexual activities with a minor. The motion states that Dershowitz had sexual relations with underage girls procured by financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein purportedly arranged for at least one teenage victim to have sex with Dershowitz on several occasions. Dershowitz denies the allegations.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/us/prince-andrew-and-alan-dershowitz-are-named-in-suit-alleging-sex-with-minor.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/alan-dershowitz-sexual-assault_n_6410380.html

Dtoltod (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are we not including these allegations when they are included on Bill Cosby's page?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dershowitz-denies-sex-underage-girl-article-1.2066011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015: Statutory rape allegations

Personal Life

Alan Dershowitz was named in a Florida court filing as one of several prominent figures participating in sexual activities with a minor. The motion states that Dershowitz had sexual relations with underage girls procured by financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein purportedly arranged for at least one teenage victim to have sex with Dershowitz on several occasions. Dershowitz denies the allegations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/us/prince-andrew-and-alan-dershowitz-are-named-in-suit-alleging-sex-with-minor.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/alan-dershowitz-sexual-assault_n_6410380.html Dtoltod (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose A simple filing of lawsuit papers by an unknown person alleging sex crimes certainly does not belong under a section "Personal Life". These are allegations at this point made by an unknown person, not factual information about his "Personal Life". Papers have simply been filed with the court; no legal hurdles have been cleared, no judge has even seen it as far as we know. Anyone can file papers such as these, and to put such allegations under a "Personal Life" section when it is, so far, simply a court filing by an unknown person, is completely unwarranted. Should the filing move further down the legal pipeline than just a court filing by an anonymous person, well, we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it. Marteau (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you protecting him and not Bill Cosby? Allegations are news.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dershowitz-denies-sex-underage-girl-article-1.2066011

Speaking only for myself, I 'm not "protecting" anyone. I am upholding the standards of the encylopedia to the best of my ability and understanding. In the Cosby case, there were over a dozen people who publicly stood up and made allegations. In this case, we have one anonymous person simply filing papers. There is a vast difference in the two cases. As I said before, should this case move beyond just one anonymous person simply showing up at the courthouse with papers in hand and a filing fee, I'll be glad to revisit this issue. Marteau (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This, along with the accusations against the Prince Andrew, is headline news and certainly worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. There is no suggestion that that he should be proclaimed guilty - only that the allegations be highlighted as a significant and highly publicized event in this figure's life. Your attempt to ignore allegations of this magnitude leads me to question your impartiality. Dtoltod (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The heading need not be "Personal Life" It could read "Allegations of Misconduct" or something to that effect. Dtoltod (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There still appears to be no consensus here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

All right, everyone, let's keep cool and follow policy, which is clear and simple: document exactly what sterling sources say. At this point, there is no evidence whatsoever available for public review, and the article must reflect the provisionary nature of these allegations—WP:BLP demands caution, especially when the biographee is subject to politicized contention. FourViolas (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Support but not in a "Personal Life" section. The sheer weight of the issue as international news tends towards inclusion, and it would be in the best interests of the encylopedia for mention of it to be included... An allegations section would work as suggested. This issue has legs and shows no signs of slowing down. The encyclopedia suffers enough accusations of bias (some accusations have had merit, unfortunately) without adding fuel to the fire. I have no stomach for writing this, but I would recommend the editor that does treading exceptionally lightly as this is not a tabloid but a biography of a living person and it is at this point an allegation with very little supporting evidence. Marteau (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources in case consensus should form around including mention of the allegations: NYT, BBC, Boston Globe, WSJ, Reuters, and AP (published on AOL). FourViolas (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the only one who voiced an opinion againts inclusion, and I have changed my mind on the issue and now support inclusion, I think it's safe to say we have concensus for inclusion. How about we change the "Criticism" section to "Allegations" and put it under there... the one issue currently there really is more of an allegation anyway. For a subsection, I like the one on the Prince Andrew article: "Sexual assault allegations", @Dtoltod: your text is a good start but it needs a date, and I don't belive any of the sources claim Dershowitz had sex with more than one girl, just one. Marteau (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an unorthodox proposal: what if we put it under the subsection on Dershowitz's defense of Epstein? The filing is, after all, a direct continuation of those proceedings, and it feels somewhat unfair to frame these as accusations of Dershowitz himself. To do so would imply that he's been named as a legal defendant; as matters stand, he hasn't, and therefore hasn't had a chance to be presented with and refute the evidence against him.

I'm suggesting something like this: change "Jeffrey Epstein (2006)" to "Jeffrey Epstein (2006 and ongoing)" and add the following sentences: "In January 2015, Epstein's victims filed a civil case against the U.S. Government, alleging that their rights were insufficiently respected in Epstein's plea deal. The filings also alleged that Dershowitz, among other men, had sexual relations with a woman known in court proceedings as "Jane Doe No. 3" while she was a minor. Dershowitz categorically denied the allegations, and filed disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who entered the victims' pleading in a Florida court." FourViolas (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to list this as a separate section, as the allegations are, in a broader sense, newsworthy outside of the case. Given the attention this has garnered in the news, people are likely to visit wikipedia looking for information on the charges. A separate heading will help direct the attention of people who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Epstein case. My second vote would be to place them under an "Allegations" heading, as suggested by Marteau. Dtoltod (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've revised my original draft below:

On December 30, 2014, a Florida court filing named Alan Dershowitz as one of several prominent figures participating in sexual activities with a minor. The motion states that Dershowitz had sexual relations with an underage girl employed by financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. According to court documents, Epstein arranged for a teenage victim to have sex with Dershowitz on several occasions. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in his 2008 plea deal, denies the allegations.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/02/dershowitz-im-an-innocent-victim-of-an-extortion-conspiracy/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/us/prince-andrew-and-alan-dershowitz-are-named-in-suit-alleging-sex-with-minor.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/alan-dershowitz-sexual-assault_n_6410380.html

Dtoltod (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that. I still like having just one main section for all his bad stuff... that's typically the pattern for all but the Hitlers of the world and such... but I'll go with the concensus. I would make the final sentence read, "Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in his 2008 plea deal, denies the allegations and has vowed to seek the disbarment of the lawyers filing the lawsuit." because everyone who gets accused of a scandal "denies the allegations"... Dershowitz is doing a bit more than just denying... he's in pit-bull mode on this and his disbarment threat has made headlines. Hopefully we can get this into the article tomorrow and do it right. Marteau (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Now the attorneys for the alleged victims have brought a defamation suite against Dershowitz. The attorneys are not some "unknown person" as you so smugly referred to the alleged victims above. One is a former Supreme Court clerk and federal judge. This article needs to be fixed immediately to uphold the integrity of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.75.67.125 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Marteau (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged "sex slave" Virginia Roberts gives more details on her alleged sexual encounters with Alan Dershowitz, I am wondering whether they should be included in main article, she claims that she had sex with him at least six times and Dershowitz stood by while she had oral sex with Epstein:

"I didn't have sex with Bill Clinton" http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/alleged-sex-slave-didn-sex-bill-clinton-article-1.2087614 182.55.93.151 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

notable family member, alan dershowitz's daughter is named ella dershowitz

I am not sure how to edit this article since his personal life does not have a section, but Alan Dershowitz's daughter, Ella Dershowitz is a notable actress. Her existence should at least be noted:

http://www.broadway.com/videos/155303/intimacys-ella-dershowitz-on-porn-hypocrisy-breaking-boundaries/

http://nypost.com/2014/01/29/alan-dershowitzs-daughter-bound-to-get-intimate-on-stage/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/nyregion/a-review-of-4000-miles-at-pace-university.html

http://www.mvtimes.com/2013/04/09/ella-dershowitzs-acting-career-started-marthas-vineyard-14971/

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/17/alan-dershowitz-tries-to-get-noted-child-rapist-off-the-hook-in-us-courts/

http://elladershowitz.com/press/

I added her to the infobox. There is no "Personal Life" section or mention of his spouses so that may suffice. If you think she merits mention in the body of the article, feel free to propose some text. Marteau (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

This needs a dedicated talk page section, because it will be contentious and we'll need to hammer out details about WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. @Blanche Poubelle: I hope you don't take my or Marteau's reverts personally. Speaking for myself, I thought the allegation details were redundant—the article already says "[t]he motion states that Dershowitz had sexual relations on several occasions with an underage girl later identified as Virginia Roberts", and primary sources are not as good as the included secondary ones. Also, the paragraph from "local 10" quoted non-objective rhetoric in a manner directly discouraged by #General guidelines. If you feel that the perspectives of reliable sources (of the same caliber as those included) are not being recognized, please bring them up here. In addition, saying that his disbarment filing was "characteristic" felt subjective and unsourced to me.

Also, blanket exhortation to all (including me) to WP:AGF and WP:KEEPCOOL. The important thing is to represent the situation objectively in a manner fair to all involved, and there are reams of policies to help us do so. FourViolas (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Including Dershowitz' entire statement refuting the claims seems unnecessary and overly verbose. Especially when the statement requires its own paragraph and use of "(...)" and "[Dershowitz wants ...] edits". Shouldn't we just say he denied the allegations and challenged her to state the dates/times of the alleged rape? 2) I'm not sure that "sexual assault" accurately describes the allegations. If true, the allegations would constitute statutory rape and child prostitution. AFAIK Virginia Roberts has not claimed or implied that there was any physical violence or force used. 3) Ms. Roberts has now repeated her claims under oath as Dershowitz previously challenged her to do. Should that information not be included at the end of the section? I cannot edit the article myself but I'd be happy to discuss these points with someone who can. Fletom (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

re 1) I agree. There are plenty of statements his accuser could be directly quoted on, yet they are not included in the article. Rather than doing so to attain balance, I would agree that removing these quotes as redundant, clumsy (the ellipses and brackets) and unnecessary is appropriate and will do so in a day or so, barring any objections here. re 2) Sexual Assault is a concept which in my opinions serves well as an "umbrella" phrase, so to speak, and which succinctly categorizes the allegations against Dershowitz. Sexual Assalt, as the Wikipedia article says, covers rape and sexual child abuse. It is also a term commonly used by the non-tabloid press to refer to the allegations against Dershowitz, however, if others agree with you and concensus is there for a change I can go along with that. 3) Barring further comments or disagreement, I'll go ahead and add something along the lines of "Dershowitz challenged Roberts to make her claims under oath; on ((date)) she did so ((references))" at the same time as 1) above Marteau (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of new section regarding encounter between author Fouzi El-Asmar and Alan Dershowitz

I placed a new section in the article on Alan Dershowitz summarizing an encounter between Alan Dershowitz and Fouzi El-Asmar, a Christian Arab Israeli, as described in El-Asmar's published memoir entitled To Be An Arab In Palestine, published in 1975, second edition published 1978 (the version I relied upon).

This edit was removed in its entirely with no Edit Summary.

My entry has no characteristics inappropriate to or incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, contained no personal opinion of my own, was specifically cited, and was professional in tone. It was placed in the Controversies section of the wikipedia page, the most appropriate already-existing section on the page.

I would invite the editor who removed this to engage in a dialog about his or her reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improvethewiki (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

=== After undoing the edit removing my entry, which I did because the removal of it was not accompanied by a reason, my entry was again quickly removed completely, with the brief recommendation by a different editor to obtain consensus on the Talk page. I agree that here in the Talk Page is where consensus could be hammered out, but only if there are points being debated. I invited that. Twice my entry has removed entirely, with no comments, observations, or suggestions with regard to the entry itself. No debate has been initiated by the objecting editors. I invite both editors who removed this entry, or other interested editors, to engage this issue. In particular I invite explanation why this entry would be considered in any way inappropriate, inaccurate, or inconsistent with the Wikipedia mission. I have already provided a defense of this entry above, which has not yet been addressed or rebutted. Improvethewiki (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As written, it was tendentious pov-pushing. You'll no doubt disagree, so it will be a matter of whether you gain consensus from other editors to overcome my objection, or whether others agree with me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was sure that Wikipedia had an article about Fouzi el-Asmar, to which I added the same material (neutrally written, of course) several years ago. But I can no longer find the article, under any of the possible spellings of the name. Is my memory at fault, or has the article disappeared? In any case, there certainly should be an article on this important poet and activist, and I will see what I can do. RolandR (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously."

In this case, the description of El-Asmar's encounter with Dershowitz involves one incident only, was not expanded upon to exhibit some kind of broad brush smear, and was not explained using aggressive language, and the incident was not a fringe-type issue (such as all the hubbub about sexual misconduct, for example, which holds no interest for me). It goes to the question of intellectual honesty, and the point, in my view, is well made, based upon the very specific personal experience of El-Asmar, and it is not, technically speaking, opinion, except perhaps the last part of the edit, going to the question of the use of Deshowitz' article at the lecture tour. (If that aspect of the edit were reduced, would that satisfy concerns about NPOV?)

I would add that turning to the issue of how to address a NPOV issue, the Wikipedia instructions lead me to offer the following:

Identify how the edit is biased - were viewpoints expressed as facts? Here, they were not. With regard to the selection of information presented, was there reason to believe that there was some sort of selectivity that rendered the edit untrue to the original? I can assure you that this is not the case, with the exception that, if anything, I elected not to quote any remarks with somewhat stronger wording. Was there concern that this edit in some way gave undue attention and space? If so, then in my view the best way to address that would be to offer that critique, along with suggestions as to where paring down would be a consideration. If any of my wording seemed to imply something beyond what was stated, that also invites identification and suggestions for improvement. I cannot believe that the title of the section offers anything beyond what the content of the edit imparts. This was not an issue of biased interpretation by me of a set of facts as found in El-Asmar's memoir. This was a faithful summary of what he described. It did not constitute ad hominem, unjustified criticism. It is my view that this information is relevant to a thorough understanding of Alan Dershowitz, given his public position as an intellectual. It is not appropriate to preserve the Wikipedia page for a living person as 100% positive as a matter of policy. Wikipedia offers the following advice about "How to initiate an NPOV debate": Apply a tag, initiate a discussion in the Talk page, and "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." I have yet to see anyone comply with that approach. I have provided a defense of my edit, and no rebuttal has been submitted. Labeling it "tendentious POV-pushing" and leaving it at that does not constitute explanation of how the edit did not comply with NPOV. I invite further engagement, prior to undertaking to revisit this edit, scrutinizing it for anything that could be better said. P.S. I am not aware if Fouzi El-Asmar previously had a Wikipedia page. He is a well-known and respected Palestinian activist, journalist and poet, as his memoir clearly demonstrates to any reader, and a page of his own would be entirely appropriate, in my view. Such a page would no doubt include a great deal of additional information as taken from his memoir, of which this encounter with Alan Dershowitz, although striking, was but a very brief and non-essential section of 3-pages. Improvethewiki (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have re-worked the edit involving the issue of Dershowitz' Commentary magazine article of 12/1970 regarding administrative detention and the critique of the basis for that opinion as registered by the Palestinian journalist prominently mentioned in the article, Fouzi El-Asmar. I have shortened it, grounded it in the fact that this was a published view that Dershowitz undertook on his own, and also incorporated mention of the subsequent Commentary publication of critique in the Letters to the Editor section, and Dershowitz' response, which fleshes it out more fully. I would implore editors to please not remove this entire section without explanation - there has already been substantial treatment of this issue here in the Talk pages and I would strongly encourage reading this and then spot-editing this entry, if any changes are seen as worthwhile, based upon disagreement with some aspect of the defense and discussion above. I am making serious effort here to reach a consensus and invite commentary/discussion.Improvethewiki (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

New Section under Views - Dershowitz' opinion regarding administrative detention in Israel, and critique of basis for it

This new section is a re-working of an issue already the subject of a fair amount of discussion as formerly placed as a subsection under the section "Controversies", from which it was removed, generating the discussion. This altered version, and new placement, is an effort to address possible continued concerns. I invite any editors to please, prior to taking action, review the discussion on the Talk page about the prior removal of the edit about this encounter between Dershowitz and a Palestinian journalist, Fouzi El-Asmar. Please make any objections clear and explicit and recommend acceptable alternative language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improvethewiki (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I find as of my re-check 6/7/2015 that my recent re-working and re-edit of the information about Dershowitz' views on administrative detention and the critique of it by Fouzi El-Asmar was promptly completely removed again by the same editor (Nomoskedasticity), with no explanation, analysis, comment or justification, and no effort to offer improvements in these Talk pages. I also challenge that complete removal of a new section can possibly be categorized as a "minor" edit. I consider the complete removal of this new section inappropriate, given the amount of explanation I have provided (see above), including a defense of why this information is relevant to a full understanding of this public intellectual, as well as my invitation to discussion of possible changes. There is no valid reason I can see for wholesale removal of this edit, as it is based upon a published work, fully cited, that has direct relevance to the views and integrity of the subject of this Wikipedia article. I again invite explanation from Nomoskedasticity, and would love to see some additional comments from other editors who watch and/or have previously participated in the Composition of this article as it now stands. Absent that, I have yet to determine what the most appropriate step would be for me at this point. Improvethewiki (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would add as also relevant to this discussion the following statement as taken from the "Biographies of Living Persons" Wikipedia policy page: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative..." I consider Dershowitz' views on administrative detention and the critique of it "noteworthy." It is not sensationalist - this occurred over 30-years ago. Also, I have visited the user page for Nomoskedasticity and specifically invited further discussion. Improvethewiki (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Well documented" does not mean "covered in a single source". Given that all this comes from a single source, my view is that the detail offered in the edit is absurdly out of proportion to what would be desirable here. I'm not going to have much more to add; it would indeed be best if others offered their views as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, you have two objections. First, the edit "all comes from a single source." That is incorrect. There is the original article in Commentary magazine, then the Letters to the Editor in Commentary magazine, both cited by name and date, and then the memoir by El-Asmar. That is three sources, all published. In addition, the Letters to the Editor included two other letters about Dershowitz' article, not just the letter by El-Asmar, although I did not quote them; those additional remarks are available to anyone who decides to go to the original documents; there is also Dershowitz' response to the letters, to which I alluded. This is not an unsolicited, one-person opinion out of the blue. It began with Dershowitz' electing to travel to Israel and undertake to present his opinion in an open forum about the process of administrative detention and to defend it. Doing that in a public forum, in a magazine entitled "Commentary", is inviting response, which then was provided and printed. Second, you object is that the edit is too lengthy. The edit, within the body of the article, and not represented in the summary remarks that open the article, is only as long as necessary to explicate the incident as it unfolded in the three sources, with only fundamental background comment to set the stage. Therefore, to refer to it as "absurdly" out of proportion I consider exaggerated. Even as originally written, the edit still represented only a small portion of the entire article. However, as we are called upon here to reach a consensus, what part of the edit makes it too long? What part do you find superfluous? If I am reading you correctly, you are not asserting an absolute objection to this being mentioned at all. (I would hope that is the case - this edit relates specifically to opinion published by a public intellectual and its accuracy.) Perhaps something pared down you could live with. If you give me some idea about that, I could offer something here in the Talk page to discuss to a point of mutual agreement. Improvethewiki (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Perish Judea

In what way is Sells's views on the "perish Judea" narrative notable enough for a BLP of Dershowitz? This is WP:UNDUE by any measure . Bad Dryer (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

First things first. If you actually examined the content you expunged, you will realize, rather too late, that you removed a direct quotation from Dershowitz's book on Palestinians from a section dealing with his views (on Palestinians), cited from Dershowitz, not Sells. So, effectively , your revert was expunging Dershowitz's stated views. Can you explain why you removed this? is Dershowitz not a reliable source for his own views? Nishidani (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am ok with quoting Dershowitz's view , sourced to his book. Feel free to restore this. There's nothing "too late" here - WP:THEREISNODEADLINE Bad Dryer (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're okay with it, why did you remove it? That is at least the second case when, on a revert spree, you elided content also that had nothing to do with Sells. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a mistake, and I restored it. If you were ok with it and I told you I'm ok with it, why didn't you put it back? are you interested in building an encyclopedia or in scoring points? Bad Dryer (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability is about the existence of articles, not their content. nableezy - 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of notability, but of due weight. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic of discussion before butting in with irrelevancies. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You were the one to use "notable", in your first post in this section. Do you need a nap? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you just need to read my full argument. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you began by complaining that this was not "notable enough". That followed your failed attempt to claim that the source was not reliable. You then linked to a completely unrelated policy. I understand that you dislike the content, unfortunately for you however your dislike, masqueraded as policy objections that have no basis, is not a reason to remove reliably sourced relevant material. nableezy - 18:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My very first post here stated very clearly "This is WP:UNDUE by any measure . ". Read the linked policy if you don't understand the argument. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after you said some nonsense about notability. But fine, undue weight. What that actually says is: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Are there other reliable sources that dispute what this reliable source says? Because if not, there isnt a weight issue. If there is then include what those sources say. But this game of claiming WP:RANDOMACRONYM supports you without actually knowing what WP:RANDOMACRONYM says aint gonna work when your interlocutor actually has read those policies. nableezy - 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally read the relevant policy, but it looks like you did not read the whole thing. The relevant line is this "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." As far as I can tell, this criticism of Dershowitz is held by exactly one person, Sells. As such, per the policy it does not belong on Wikipedia, certainly not on a BLP. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Except there hasnt been any evidence that this is a "viewpoint" held by "an extremely small" minority. And what it shows as an example is the Flat Earth idea. You could demonstrate that this is held by an extreme minority by showing other sources that dispute the material. As it stands however there is a reliable source that explicitly backs the statement and none that dispute it. Sorry, but your policy reading, while par for the course with you, is not correct. As far as finally read, cmon NoCal, you know Ive read that policy well before now. One of your past socks must have told me to read it before. nableezy - 19:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

it is quite obviously a viewpoint. Perhaps you can show who else supports it? That's a requirement of the policy, which you claim you have read - "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" . Bad Dryer (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The example it cites is the flat earth theory, which has reliable sources that overwhelmingly dispute it. That doesnt apply here. Sorry. nableezy - 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy applies everywhere, not just to a specific example used to illustrate it. It is a requirement of WP:UNDUE that 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Who are the prominent adherent's of the viewpoint held by Sells? Bad Dryer (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, policy does apply everywhere. However, you preferred reading of said policy does not apply anywhere on your say-so alone. nableezy - 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is getting kind of boring, so instead of continuing this here Ive asked for outside views at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Alan_Dershowitz nableezy - 19:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

American Zionists category

Despite having this category, the article never mentions the word "zionism" or "zionist." I can't find any evidence that he identifies as such either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, he is one -- in the sense that he is a supporter of Israel, as per any reasonable interpretation of that idea. When you say you can't find any evidence, what sort of search does that imply? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm not well-versed in this area of politics, which is why I left the category as is. You're saying that it is accurate to label anyone who broadly supports Israel as a Zionist? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mainly I'm saying that it shouldn't be that hard to find a source that says he's a Zionist -- because it's pretty obvious that he is one. I really don't think we're doing him an injustice by having him in this category. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

He self-identifies thus in the following remarks.

'The real reason Amnesty International tried to censor my speech to its members is that I am a Zionist who supports Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. As such, I have been somewhat critical of Amnesty International’s one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ Alan Derschowitz, Amnesty’s cynical anti-Israel games New York Daily 8 November 2014.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd done a cursory search, but the first few pages of results were of opponents using the term in a more pejorative manner, just as "socialist" is often used pejoratively in some political circles. I just wanted to make sure since it wasn't mentioned outright in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The working rule is for these things (I dislike categories) that one must have a self-identifying passage for religion, ethnicity, or political positions.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alan Dershowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121130544/http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-31/us/rec.national.id.cards_1_id-cards-oracle-terrorist-attacks?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-31/us/rec.national.id.cards_1_id-cards-oracle-terrorist-attacks?_s=PM:US
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/alan-dershowitz-jobs_cx_tr_06work_0523dershowitz.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/10.04/13-hls.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aldf.org/advocate/AnimalsAdvocatewinter02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Have replaced the long-standing black and white photo [5] with a newer, color photo of Dershowitz. [6] The older photo depicts Dershowitz many years ago, is small, poor resolution, and not a good representation of who Dershowitz is today. The newer photo is a good find as there are no other infobox-suitable free photos of him available without copyright restrictions. Discussion by other editors here regarding the change is welcomed, of course. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)