Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The page has been temporarily protected so the text below which 195.92.168.175 is removing can be discussed rather than reverted. Please see also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Angela 03:19, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea, however I don't think it should be called The Case for Israel as the book is worth much more than the accusations against it. We should take the current info in the Dershowitz article on the matter, move it to a new article entitled Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair and make a link to it from the Dershowitz page, so we can focus on other aspects of Dershowitz. What do you think?

-Leumi

I agree. Write up the argument between Dershowitz and Finkelstein/Cockburn in a separate page and link to it both from Alan M. Dershowitz and The Case for Israel (when the latter is written). --Mirv 21:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Er, but title it something like Allegations of plagiarism against Alan M. Dershowitz -- Finkelstein started the accusations, but others have since picked them up. --Mirv 21:07, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's necessary. After all, the accusations all basically use the same "evidence" provided by Finkelstein, don't they? One could say it is mainly an argument between Dershowitz and his supporters and Finkelstein and those that support him. How about...Plagiarism accusations by Norman Finkelstein? I don't believe Mr. Finkelstein has made any other allegations of that sort, so it still works. Before I write it up, what do you think?

Maybe Dershowitz-Finkelstein plagiarism affair? Or Plagiarism accusations against Alan Dershowitz by Norman Finkelstein, or Plagiarism accusations by Norman Finkelstein against Alan Dershowitz (though the latter two are unwieldy and ugly). Perhaps Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair is best after all. --Mirv 22:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. Dershowitz-Finkelstein plagiarism affair would be good, but like the other two it's a bit too wordy. If you agree, I'm going to go with Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair

---

Okay, I've created the article, and I'll work some more on it later. I think that we can open the page from protection now, as we've reached a compromise we can all hopefully accept. I want to remove the details of the Plagiarism matter and replace it with a shorter sentence linking to the new article, to avoid redundancy, as the new article is largely based on what was in here about it. All in favor of re-opening article for edit and ending reverting wars?

-Leumi

---

'Language neutral' advocate Leumi has named themselves after Irgun, the Israeli 'freedom fighters'.

Actually, if you took the time to research you would know that Leumi is the Hebrew word for National (i.e: First National Bank, National Sovereignty etc.) While the Irgun Z'vai Leumi has this word in their name, it is only because their name translates into National Military Organization. Take some time to verify your claims and stop resorting to name calling when you cannot prove your points in legitimate debate.

-Leumi

---

Last edit on Irgun was by Leumi, despite claiming he was actually named after National Bank. rather than Irgun Tsvai-Leumi

---

I did not say I was named after the national bank, I said I was named after the word National! I used the national bank, and national sovereignty as an example. I am no more named after the Irgun than a person whose name is "Republican is named after the IRA! Furthermore, why is it your tactic to resort to personal attacks rather than substantive debate?

-Leumi

---

The page is unprotected now. Angela 00:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• removed personal attack*

May I suggest the compromise I just added. It's often only necessary to report all the facts to get NPOV. i.e. we record that fact of Dershowitz commendation for human rights, and his (much disputed) statements on torture. DJ Clayworth 20:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your compromise works very well, I think.--MIRV 20:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Leumi 22:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello again to our anonymous friend! Please don't revert a compromise edit that everyone else has already agreed to be reasonable without discussing it beforehand. What DJ Clayworth wrote was not weaselry; it was an accurate and neutral description of fact. --MIRV 00:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I changed the article, expanding the section about Dershowitz's controversial views about torture. I felt that: 1. The original text did not explain what Dershowitz's actual view was (he is not advocating torture per se, but saying that it will happen and that it is better that it happens under judicial review than "under the radar", and hence open to abuse); and 2. the text basically says "Dershowitz has been criticised for advocating torture. He says 'what about the ticking timebomb terrorist'. We say that is immoral". I think this is POV against Dershowitz. Hence in teh spirit (I thought) of NPOV I changed it (you can read my amendment in history). It has since been changed back, with a commenbt such as "this is not a forum, it is an encyclopaedia". I disagree that my edit was invalid. Am i alone?

-Batmanand

Left-wing?

Is this guy left-wing? Sure doesn't sound left-wing. Chamaeleon 04:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be something to support the "left-wing" claim, otherwise it is POV/original research. This guy is a rightist who smears people on the left as racists, and is in favour of torture. I think we need to hear examples of quite a few progressive opinions coming out of his mouth before we can call him left-wing, or even a moderate centrist. Let's hear them. The article should say neither left not right until this is clarified. If the matter is still not clear, then we should resort to attribution (i.e. published source X says Dershowitz is left-wing, publish source Y says he is right-wing). Chamaeleon 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Supreme Injustice, Sexual McCarthyism, etc. Neutrality^talk 04:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've read reviews of those, and they seem to be simply partisan pro-Democrat, anti-Republican attacks. That doesn't quite put him on the Left.

In contrast, his views on torture and Israel are far right. Chamaeleon 05:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

His views on torture aren't "far right." His position has been misrepresented. Neutrality^talk 02:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Having read what he said, I'd say that he is in favour of states being able to use torture, which is something condemned by civilised people. Talk of ticking timebombs does not excuse this, as states will always say there are such threats. A part of his argument is that torture will occur anyway, but we do not apply such a reasoning to murder, electoral fraud, etc. You are either for torture or against it. He is for it, and this position has been condemned not only by the far left but also by mainstream groups such as Amnesty International.[1] Dershowitz's view is right-wing.

Dershowitz supports Zionism. This is approximately like supporting the British empire at the height of the Raj, or China during its occupation of Tibet. Hardly a progressive opinion.

We would be perfectly justified in stating that he is right-wing. However, since there is for some bizarre reason disagreement on this issue, we cannot state anything categorically either way. NPOV policy requires us therefore to attribute views instead of stating our own. If you want the left-right-ness of his politics mentioned in the article, then quote someone lower down in the article, and be sure to give both opinions. The introduction must remain neutral. Chamaeleon 11:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JillandJack's changes should be reverted

I regard JillandJack's category change to be inappropriate. As I stated on the talk page for the Lynne Stewart article, JillandJack is apparently a user whose previous account was banned. This user is apparently moving to have the "Radical lawyers" category removed. Rather than letting the category status depend on that outcome, the user has chosen to empty out several articles in violation of the request on the deletion proposal flag.

I disagree. Whether or not Jillandjack is a good or a bad wikipedian, Dershowitz is not a "radical" lawyer. He holds one of the, if not THE, top law chair in the world. He is not radical in his views of law; that is the mark of a radical lawyer. Argue as much as you like about whether or not his views on Israel are "radical", but he is NOT a radical lawyer.

- batmanand

He is not a radical lawyer. Chamaeleon 09:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Other controversial positions include Dershowitz's comments expressing his disregard for the human rights claims of Palestinian refugees, and Dershowitz's accusations that faculty members at Columbia University encourage terrorism." Who wants to rewrite this?

I restored the quote

His 2nd amendment quote can often be found on the Internet but without even a source attribution. I tracked down and verified the quote. The section was more than just a quote; it provided info the Internet needs. Lotsofissues 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OJ Simpson

"despite evidence pointing overwhelmingly towards guilt" - this is conjecture, and hardly NPOV. I myself watched much of the trial and don't feel that way. And an article on Dershowitz isn't the place for such a statement. DaveWF 07:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. If it were in the OJ entry, it would stand up to the scrutiny. Removed. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Table AI.1 of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah (pp. 232-242) documents 20 unattributed citations. Please stop altering this number. Sir Paul 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone with bare credibility that challenges Finkelstein's numbers? Lotsofissues 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)