Jump to content

Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Temporary protection

I have received a very strong complaint about this article, and so I have protected this very short version for tonight.

Unlike the normal case where protected articles should not be edited, I want to try an experiment -- admins can edit this article. We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article.--Jimbo Wales 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just about unprecedented. "A very strong complaint" - I think we can guess who that is. Jimmy Wales has now pared back the article to show almost nothing, just D's works. What I think has happened is that Dershowitz has taken note over the controversy over the John Seigenthaler Sr article, and Dershowitz has realised that this gives him an opportunity to pressure Wikipedia into removing critical and unflattering info on him on Wikipedia. Over the last few weeks several anonymous users have slowly been removing any info which is critical to Dershowitz. It would be interesting to know where those IPs are coming from. - Xed 00:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Checking some of the IPs reveals Harvard University. It's clear that someone at Harvard, probably Dershowitz, has been removing unflattering information about Dershowitz. A bit of an own goal. - Xed 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30257445&oldid=30048352 This edit is typical of the Harvard vandal. Everything unflattering removed. - Xed 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody should add back all the stuff that looks OK but keep that in HTML comments until it is sourced. --mav 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, everything that's currently there checks out. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It is disturbing that admins have now been granted the right to decide what truth is. The page should be immediately unprotected. Any anonymous vandals (including Dershowitz himself) should simply be banned.
I agree with Mark, though I suspect that A.D. has better things to do than "vandalize" his own wikipedia entry. Jonshea 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure he does. I wish he would. However, 4 of the contributors (3 with no usernames) who vandalised the article have been traced to Harvard. The only one with a username (User:FakeName) has been banned for vandalism, which no doubt made Dershowitz desperate, and he complained to Wales. - Xed 13:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Mr. Dershowitz might not have better things to do than keep track of the Wikipedia entry. After all, if you type the words Alan Dershowitz into Google, this entry is the third link, after his own staff page and a CNN article on his views of torture. If the third link of your name was a problematic entry that touts itself as being part of an encyclopedia, you'd probably set aside a couple minutes to muck around. -- Guy
We now have a lie inserted in the text. It says "He is noted for defending the right of free speech even where that speech is contrary to his personal beliefs, as in his 1977 case where he argued for the American Nazi Party's right to free expression in Illinois." He argues for free speech only when it suits him. He vilified Noam Chomsky for defending a Holocaust denier's rights. www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html — Chameleon 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
A belief in free speech doesn't rule out criticizing someone else's views. Firebug 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Was that disingenuous or do you actually have no idea? — Chameleon 09:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Chameleon, am I confused or are you vilifying Firebug for defending Alan Dershowitz's rights? Jonshea 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You are confused. — Chameleon 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The form of protection being used here is a very, very bad idea, and fundamentally un-wiki. If this is to be used in this article, what stops it from being used in any other controversial article? Soon we will have a wiki where only admins can edit any controversial article. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but this will make it the most important thing on Wikipedia. A big mistake. Firebug 05:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree. It may just be an experiment, but it's not a good experiment. Furthermore, I think there needs to be a standard procedure for dealing with such complaints in the community. An example procedure would be this:
1) Someone complains to the Board or to Jimbo that a Wikipedia article is libelous.
2) A standard letter will be sent back, noting that the complaint is being examined, and asking for permission to publish it.
3) The article is replaced with a template similar to Template:Copyvio, which states that a complaint has been expressed that it contains libelous information. It links to the most recent revision, and encourages Wikipedians to check the facts and rewrite the article at [[{{PAGENAME}}/Libel check}]]. The article page is protected.
4) A template is added to the top of [[{{PAGENAME}}/Libel check}}]]. It says something like: "The Wikimedia Foundation has been informed that revision A of the article B may be libelous. Please only restore information from that revision here after it has been discussed and verified on the discussion page. Once the check is completed, the main article can be replaced with the newly edited version."
The wiki process can then take its course. By letting the rewrite take place on a subpage of the main article, we make it clear to the complainant that we take their concerns seriously. Visitors from Google will no longer be directly presented with the offending revision. In fact, it will only be in the version history.
There may be cases where it is advisable to immediately delete an offending revision because it is obviously libelous. To be able to deal with such cases, it may be advisable to create a formal "libel team" that can perform steps 2-4, or take more drastic action if necessary. This could be done by means of a mailing list.
The approach of "Jimbo blanks article, and admins rewrite it" is simply not scalable and too prone to be abused by anyone who doesn't like their bio in Wikipedia. There needs to be a wiki process to deal with these complaints.--Eloquence* 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I see some merit, in this limited case, of only admins being able to add info, because admins are editors whom the community trusts, I don't think this should be a precedent for how we should act in the future. Although pages like the Main Page are editable only by administrators, the difference is that it is for adminitrative expediency, saving much wasted time reverting obvious vandalism. If Wikipedia pursues the same course of action for further complaints, it could render the encyclopedia toothless and tame; although there may be cause for concern about some of the "facts" presented in the article(s) complained about, it opens the door to unwelcome influences, I believe. Eloquence's suggestions appear quite reasonable and workable. Enochlau 11:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though I can't edit this aticle, I don't think the removal of "uncited criticism" is a bad thing. This kind of thing encourages the removal of original research and the addition of cited information. What I don't like is that this kind of "squeaky wheel gets the grease" encourages praise while discouraging criticism. I don't know if we should condone the actions of someone who just removes information about himself without discussing it on the talk page itself. I'd imagine a good dose of legal threats was a part of the conversation with Jimbo as well. I just hope this isn't the way we'll do things in the future: it seems very unwiki to only allow admins to edit an article just because the subject started to complain about it. Pretty soon, people will know that's the way to have an article about them appear in the best possible light: just complain to Jimbo, and bingo! Instant removal of criticism! --Deathphoenix 14:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC) I'd also like to say that I like Eloquence's suggestions. I was thinking of how we handle the copyvio process as well. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


  1. I like the idea. Admins are after all trusted members of wikipedia nd thats why they have admin level access. However I think what we really are doing is the semi-protect idea. Just semi-protect being restricted to admins. Known good users who are not admins (such as myself) should be allowed to edit articles of this nature. Although I have no interest on this article spesificaly, I do feal I have a point. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I also like it. I have long advocated the idea that when ordinary users are messing up an article, only Admins should be allowed to edit it. Even the "protecting admin" should be allowed to edit it! If we had followed this rule on global warming 2 or 3 years ago, many problems would have been avoided: it was a case of NPOV-enforcing admins vs. POV-pushing non-admins. Uncle Ed 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Then you might as well do away with Wikipedia completely. Firebug 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a message board. Stop babbling and start contributing to an article. Choose this article, or another. The point is, we are an encyclopedia first, a community second. Those who want to contribute here will, those who don't won't. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 16:20

Did you read any of this? We can't contribute to this article. Only admins can. - Xed 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure you can. Just post your suggestions here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not sufficient. Dershowitz has been banned as a vandal. Wikipedia should not be dictated to by vandals. - Xed 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
We have no evidence that Dershowitz has edited this article himself or instructed others to edit it on his behalf. For all I know, the anons from harvard.edu could have been one or more students, colleagues, etc., and the potential motives are even more diverse, ranging from an intention to portray Dershowitz in a good light to trying to discredit him and paint him as a hypocrite (as in, "first amendment lawyer tries to censor free speech"). It's this kind of unfounded allegations that's highly problematic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I find suspicoius the timing of FakeName's "notice" to Jtdirl and the "strong complaint" received by Jimbo. It is IMO reasonable to assume that FakeName and Jimbo's complainant are the same person, and since Jimbo obviously took the complaint seriously, it is reasonable to assume that the complainant is either Dershowitz or someone acting on his behalf. TacoDeposit 17:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, I don't know A.D. personally, but I'm rather skeptical that he's concerned with patrolling his wikipedia page. Second, FakeName is _not_ a vandal. The Wikipedia Vandalism policy explicitly exempts "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered" from being vandalism. FakeName, it seems, cut and paste Dersh's bio from his own home page. Clearly that wasn't the right thing to do, but it isn't a wholly unreasonable course of action. User:Jtdirl's accusation of vandalism and subsequent banning of FakeName strikes me as inappropriate, and I think he or she should be unblocked.
The bio that FakeName posted was no more biased than the horrendously anti-Dersh article it replaced. It's amazing how similar the situation on his page was to the Seigenthaler page. Seigenthaler's page said only that 'it was thought he was involved in the Kennedy assassinations'. AD's page devoted considerable space to baseless accusations of plagiarism (and seems to be headed in this direction again). And just like Seigenthaler's page, efforts to correct or remove the false accusation were met with slander and vandalism.
Finkelstein's accusations are _nothings_ on Dershowitz record, but they're a cornerstone of Finkelstein's career. That's where they belong. On his page. For those who don't know, Norman Finkelstein noted that Dershowitz cited a few excerpts to their primary source rather than a [www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Letters/accusationresponse.html|secondary source]. At most the Finkelstein accusation should have a link on the Dershowitz page.
It strikes me as unconscionable that this page could go for 3 days unnoticed while someone _constantly_ inserted fabricated allegations of rape, references to Nazis, etc (which I reported as severe vandalism twice). But someone posts a favorable (and accurate) bio a few times and is summarily banned.
The Chomsky debate, however, is a legitimate and worthwhile topic. In the interest of symmetry, I think it should go on it's own page.
Here's a quotation I submit for inclusion:
"I think you're referring to Reversal of Fortune, the movie about the Von Bulow case, which I think was a very accurate portrayal of the legal issues in that case, and its complexity. Of course, no one ever likes the way they are personally portrayed, though I can't complain because Ron Silver is a lot better looking than I am, though I am a better basketball player."

-AD [www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/1999/060999dershowitz.html|time.com] Jonshea 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The plagiarism accusations don't deserve the space they had in the old article, but are not in any way comparable to the Siegenthaler nonsense. Finkelstein did in fact make these accusations so they are not just unsourced POV, they were made by a prominent academic figure. Also, I think the criticism section absolutely must mention Dershowitz's recent (post-9/11) positions on torture. edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/ He has publically expressed and defended these opinions in numerous forums and they are among the most controversial views he has ever put forth. Firebug 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting experiment. Perhaps temporarily restricting the editing of articles involving RV and POV wars to admins is a way to deal with these issues. Of course, we'd need a way to nominate articles for this restriction--perhaps instead of simply protecting an article when a RV and POV war occurs the protection could mean admins could continue to edit the article. --Alabamaboy 19:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm you'd almost think admins didn't have enough to do.Geni 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I can't find a single good source on Dershowitz. Is there a category for topics that completely lack any mention in the Encyclopaedia Britannica? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • He's only in Encarta. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 07:28

The debate with Norman Finkelstein

It's silly that there's a section of external links under the heading "The debate with Norman Finkelstein", but there's nothing about said debate in the text of the article proper. TacoDeposit 05:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say {{sofixit}}. But since the page is currently protected, I have to say {{soproposeanadditiononthetalkpage}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Dershowitz himself (or some vandal from Harvard) removed the Finkelstein stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30257445&oldid=30048352. It can be put back as it was. - Xed 10:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this section is controversial, so I thought I'd put something up on the page before editing. The plagiarism charge is technically false according to the standard definitions of plagiarism. Check Wikipedia's entry on plagiarism. Finkelstein argues that Dersh should have cited to secondary sources instead of primary sources. Check out the Chicago Manual of Style's website online if you don't believe the wikipedia entry. Moreover, Dershowitz does cite to Peters, so it's not as though he's not acknowledging Peters. If this section is to be neutral, it must include the fact that according to the rules of citation, Finkelstein's charges are incorrect. According to Finkelstein's definition of plagiarism, dershowitz is guilty of plagiarism, but not according the academic community at-large. Cttck 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. Plagiarism occurs when the author's source is not cited. If Dershowtiz cited the primary sources when in fact he got his information from Peters then that is plagiarism. According to Avi Shlaim (the Oxford academic) in last week's Times Higher Education Supplement, the plagiarism charge is proven: 'Shlaim believes the plagiarism charge "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court." --Ian Pitchford 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
(1) “To cite a source from a secondary source (“quoted in . . .”) is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and the secondary source must be listed.” - from the chicago manual of style 17.274 - on the website after searching the Q&A for "original source" (2) "Plagiarism is a form of academic malpractice. It refers to the use of another's information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." - from the wikipedia entry, emphasis added Cttck 15:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this confuses things unnecessarily. The source one uses should be cited otherwise it's a kind of fraud. By coincidence I have just added a quotation from the Journal of Palestine Studies to the article on Fatah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah#History here. I cited the author, Baumgarten, because that's the source I used. If I had cited the primary source, the Fatah publication Filastinuna that would have implied not only that I speak Arabic (I don't), but that I have carried out archival research on documents in that language (I haven't), i.e., I would be implying that I have skills and experience that I don't have. Not surprsingly, students have their examination results overturned and occasionally get thrown out of university for plagiarism, that is, for passing off the work of others as their own. --Ian Pitchford 15:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
right, but what you think confuses things and may be a certain type of fraud is not necessarily "plagiarism." You've got a definition, and Dersh's practices violate that definition. But according to the definition of plagiarism of the mainstream academy, this practice is not plagiarism. See freedman's analysis in dersh's response. www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Letters/accusationresponse.html . My point in raising this is that this is a serious charge and repeating it, even as someone else's opinion is misleading unless the full context is shown. Cttck 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Dershowitz has claimed that he examined all the original sources, hence did not need to cite Peters as the source of the sources. While there may be a point that someone got sloppy along the way in the cite-checking, overall I'd say that seems to be pretty penny-ante stuff over which to be charging plagiarism. Seth Finkelstein 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I assume Finkelstein would say that it's not a case of poor cite checking, but of lifting false claims from a disreputable volume that was written, according to www.nybooks.com/articles/5249 Yehoshua Porath, "as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them". Finkelstein's point is that the claims detailed couldn't have come from the original sources as those sources don't contain them - they are from Peters. However, the plagiarism charge is a small part of Finkelstein's critique of Dershowitz's standards; hence it only appears in Appendix I of Beyond Chutzpah, pp. 229-254. The more general point Finkelstein's is making is that "his violations of elementary academic standards accordingly warrant exposure. In addition, they illustrate the complete lack of quality control when it comes to discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Dershowitz can appropriate from a hoax with impunity due to an environment that tolerates such derelictions so long as the conclusions are politically correct". --Ian Pitchford 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If Norman Finkelstein wants to say Alan Dershowitz relies on poor sources, welcome to another day in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the claim is plagiarism, I'd say that's a different kind of charge, and which there should be far more backing here before it is considered even arguable. Being on the same side, very broadly speaking, is hardly being a plagiarist (and necessarily would entail some common sources). Dershowitz clearly acknowledges Peters, but that shouldn't be an implied guilt by association in a hoax. Cribbing some common cites can be a bit embarrassing, certainly, but hardly an indictment in itself. Seth Finkelstein 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You are talking about a different claim, i.e., "If Norman Finkelstein wants to say Alan Dershowitz relies on poor sources". The point Finkelstein is making is that Dershowitz plagiarized a poor source (i.e., he didn't acknowledge Peters as in the rather easy to follow example of Peters' use of www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml turnspeak) and that the subsequent acclaim for the book is an indictment of standards on this issue. In any case we can certainly quote Avi Shlaim that the plaigiarism charge "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court." --Ian Pitchford 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to start quoting other people's opinion on this issue, the I submit James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences:
"I do not understand [Finkelstein’s] charge of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz. There is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources (Mark Twain, Palestine Royal Commission, etc.) [Finkelstein’s] complaint is that instead he should have cited them to the secondary source, in which Dershowitz may have come upon them. But as The Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes:
With all reuse of others’ materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This not only bolsters the claims of fair use, it also helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism.
This is precisely what Dershowitz did. Moreover, many of the sources quoted both by Dershowitz and Peters are commonly quoted in discussions of this period of Palestinian history. Nor can it be said that Dershowitz used Peters’ ideas without attribution. He cites Peters seven times in the early chapter of his book, while making clear that he does not necessarily accept her conclusions. This is simply not plagiarism, under any reasonable definition of that word."
Jonshea 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


"The plagiarism charge is technically false according to the standard definitions of plagiarism." -- You (and the others in the discussion above) are doing original research; it's inappropriate and irrelevant. What's relevant is what charges have been made and what rebuttals have been offered out in the real world, not what Wikipedians think of them. -- Jibal 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted most of this section because it struck me as a LOT of discussion about something that had been disproven. I almost deleted the whole thing, but since there is so much discussion about the meaning of plagiarism, I presume you need some reference to the controversy. Nevertheless, why would you include an accusation by Finkelstein that had been independently investigated by Harvard and proven wrong? To include it in a biography of Dershowitz seems fundamentally unfair. To wit: if I accused someone of being a child molester and their employer/the police/Wikipedia commissioned an investigation which resulted in their being completely exonerated of these charges, would it be fair to include the accusation in a biography of them (even with the reference to the exoneration)? Wouldn't the appropriate thing be to eliminate the accusation once it was established that it was false? It's kind of a soft McCarthyism: "You're a communist." "No, I'm not, and third parties have investigated and proven otherwise." "Well, we'll publicize the accusation and your defense and let the people decide."

There is a larger issue with this whole biography, in that it seems unbelievably long, and most of the discussion is devoted not to cases he worked on, or positions that he has taken, etc. (whatever their merits - and I concede he has made some pretty reckless accusations in his career), but to personal disputes between him and other people. Who cares? Why do these things belong in a biography? Should a biography of George Washington on Wikipedia include every accusation made by every contemporary of Washington against him (and every rebuttal by Washington and his defenders)? Is the reason that a Washington Bio excludes this info because it is hard to find given the historical timeframe, or because it is ultimately irrelevant to describing his importance as a public figure?

Torture

Dershowitz's controversial position on torture has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. It should at least be mentioned in the article. Here www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml is a mainstream reference for Dershowitz's expressed views on this matter. Firebug 06:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


This section still has some major npov problems. It's two paragraphs of reasonable synopsis of AD's position on torture, followed by three paragraphs of other people's opinion that torture is a bad idea.

A "point of view" doesn't become a "neutral point of view" just because someone else said it, and you "sourced" it.

This the 'Alan Dershowitz' page, and it should fairly depict his life and accomplishments. Being neutral means including the good with the bad, but it doesn't mean this page should be a showcase for his critics.

It's a fact that AD supports torture warrants. That should definitely be here.

"our legal system is perfectly capable of dealing with the exceptional hard case without enshrining the notion that it is okay to torture a fellow human being" is 100% point-of-view, opinion.

It isn't as if anyone is going to read this page and think "AD supports torture? Wow. I wonder whether anyone else thinks torture is a bad idea..."

If criticism of people who support torture is important enough to be in Wikipedia, then I propose that it go on its own page.

Jonshea 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Other sources

Other sources for information: www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?Spea_ID=90 and www.israelnewsagency.com/israeljewsracismdersh130112.html — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 07:18

Early life: www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/spotlite/news/092903.htm — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 17:19

Do we know who made this legally worded threat? If this is what prompted the article rewrite, it is somewhat frightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtdirl&diff=prev&oldid=30260859 Tfine80 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked FakeName (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely until he settles whatever dispute led to those legal threats. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Erik wrote:

The approach of "Jimbo blanks article, and admins rewrite it" is simply not scalable and too prone to be abused by anyone who doesn't like their bio in Wikipedia. There needs to be a wiki process to deal with these complaints.--Eloquence* 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course I agree with this. It's an experiment to see what will happen. We should be more experimental, I feel that we've become far too "rule bound" around here. One element of a wiki process can very much be a temporary timeout in which only trusted users are allowed to rebuild an article. There's nothing fundamentally unwiki about that, any more than temporary page protection, etc. Anyway, this is first and foremost an effort to write a high quality encyclopedia, not a wide open wiki.--Jimbo Wales 16:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz contacted Jimbo with a "strong complaint". Dershowitz, or his assistant, edited his own article, removing unflattering info and adding flattering info. Then he was banned. Presumably, he then complained to Jimbo, who deleted most of his article and allowed only admins to edit it.

Looking thru the history of Alan Dershowitz (note:older edits have been moved to Talk:Alan Dershowitz/old for unexplained reasons), you'll see on the 5th, 6th and 7th of December several edits by three users:

The IP numbers come from Harvard University - probably Dershowitz or his assistant Mitch Webber. A member of Wikipedia has identified "FakeName" as the same person as whoever the IPs are. FakeName has been banned, see his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FakeName

"FakeName" makes a legal threat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=30260859&oldid=30239640

These are a couple of edits that the Harvard vandal makes:

Other edits from the Harvard vandal include complete or partial blanking of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29842720&oldid=29838673 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29843782&oldid=29842802

-Xed 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The address 140.247.201.190 reverse-resolves to the hostname "roam201-190.student.harvard.edu". I believe the "student.harvard.edu" part of the hostname indicates that editor is unlikely to be Alan Dershowitz himself. Though by now it's likely someone has told him about the article. -Seth Finkelstein 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
That may be so, but 140.247.219.31 resolves directly to Dershowitz. Anyone who has received an email from Dershowitz in the past will be able to tell you that. 140.247.219.31 is responsible for the two blankings above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29842720&oldid=29838673 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29843782&oldid=29842802- Xed 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the page should be unprotected. I disagree that there's any evidence that this nonsense originated from Dershowitz himself. For one thing, I'm guessing that Dershowitz knows proper spelling and grammar, unlike the anon legal threatener mentioned above. More likely, it's a student or fan attempting to kiss up to him. Firebug 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that we should not let ourselves be bullied around. Part of that is not giving the bullies and vandals any leverage. You're currently not helping: you cannot presume that the Harvard anon was Dershowitz; it's conceivable, but not even all that likely IMHO. Speculation may be Ok (though not very helpful), but asserting that the anon was "most likely" Dershowitz himself is positively unhelpful. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It is equally probable that it was an eager research assistant of his or another Harvard fan of Dershowitz's. They might have then complained to Dershowitz, leading to him sending the letter. However, if Dershowitz himself made the legal threat posted on a user's talk page, I think this is very, very serious and a chilling sign for Wikipedia. Looking at the old version, it is not defamation that is the problem, but what Wikipedia users considered the most notable aspects of his biography. While Wikipedia is sometimes idiosyncratic, this has cultural origins and should not be a reason to exclude these elements. In fact, they are what make Wikipedia unique and valued. I hope they will be returned in a NPOV manner. Tfine80 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I concede that it might be Mitch Webber, his assistant. But the effect is the same. A legal threat in typical Dershowitz language posted on Wikipedia, followed by a real legal threat to Jimbo via email " this could not conceivably be coincidence. Jimbo should reveal the email which resulted in this strange state of affairs. And he should check if the IP in the email is the same as the anons. - Xed 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no reason to check ips, we are not talking about vandalism here but a complaint. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
We are talking about vandalism. FakeName has been banned as a vandal. - Xed 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There's probably no connection, but this faintly reminds me of RGluckman, see also Talk:Harvard University, who kept removing the Harvard Veritas shield from the Harvard article and kept implying without ever stating that was connected with Harvard, e.g "Please contact the Office of General Counsel, Harvard University, if you wish to apply for permission to use the Harvard logo. If you already have explicit consent from the Counsel, please state this in your article." BTW I find it believe Alan Dershowitz would be reluctant to use his own name. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz, or one of his assistants, is entitled to complain regarding inaccuracies in the article, or personal attacks either in the article or here on the talk page. Whether or not we have a legal duty to correct or remove them, simple courtesy mandates taking a good look at the article and making sure it reflects published information about Alan Dershowitz and properly ascribes the information included in the the article to its source. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a topic. That means both the point of views which praise him and those which criticize him. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He is entitled to complain, but not to vandalise the article and then make legal threats when he doesn't get his way. In case you missed the links I provided above, he removed everything critical of himself. - Xed 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
He is a new editor and not familiar with our rules. He put in information, most of it apparently well-founded, which sets forth a positive point of view. This can be worked out. Fred Bauder 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you all for finally making this talk page longer than the article itself. It is clear now that Wikipedia is a message board first, a community second, and an encyclopedia third. Now, if only this ordering could be brought back to what it once was, then maybe some work could get done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 19:43

The only reason this talk page is longer than the article is because of the misguided decision to blank, and then protect, the article. Mark Sweep says: "Just propose changes on the talk page." Well, I've asked twice that Dershowitz's advocacy of legalizing torture in certain specific situations, and the resulting controversy, be included (and I cited two mainstream media sources, one of which was an interview with Dershowitz) but that hasn't happened. Firebug 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Write up a proposed, neutral addition, thoroughly sourced, and I see no reason not to add it. The key part, though, is for it to be neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:50

The talk page of any truly high-quality article should be longer than the article itself, from the extensive discussion about what material to include, how to ensure that all important aspects are covered, verification of the contents, negotiation about how to appropriately represent different points of view, building of consensus over disputed points, etc. In all likelihood, there would be enough discussion that we'd already have archived it a time or two. Perhaps we should make this a requirement for featured article status. --Michael Snow 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea so much I'm going over to propose it right now. +sj + 18:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition

This would be included under the Controversy header. Firebug 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(Begin addition)

Dershowitz's views on torture

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz has advocated the issuance of warrants allowing terrorism suspects to be tortured if there is an "absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it". Under Dershowitz's proposal, the government would be forbidden to prosecute the torture subject based upon information revealed under this interrogation method www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/22/ED5329.DTL. Dershowitz has suggested that the torture might take the form of a "sterilized needle underneath the nail", and that the torture would have to be non-lethal. He contends that torture would be used in a "ticking bomb" case whether or not the law permitted it, and that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave it up to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. "If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice" edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/.

These views have been severely criticized by many other civil libertarians. Harvey Silverglate argues that the necessity defense would already protect police officers in the hypothetical ticking-bomb case, and that "our legal system is perfectly capable of dealing with the exceptional hard case without enshrining the notion that it is okay to torture a fellow human being" www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/02042267.htm. Amnesty International argues that Dershowitz's ticking-bomb hypothetical is unrealistic because "the authorities know that a bomb has been planted somewhere; know it is about to go off; know that the suspect in their custody has the information they need to stop it; know that the suspect will yield that information accurately in a matter of minutes if subjected to torture; and know that there is no other way to obtain it." It also argues that employing authorized torture would erode America's ability to stand up for human rights abroad www.amnestyusa.org/about/dershowitzreview.html. The Center for Constitutional Rights, debating Dershowitz on CNN, argued that Dershowitz's proposal would create a "very slippery slope" and that torture would "happen under more than those exceptional circumstances. It's going to start becoming the regular, rather than the unusual" transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/08/acd.02.html.

(End addition) Firebug 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing this addition. I've merged it into the article, with some minor changes, mostly related to merging the references with the existing notes section. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I hope this covers both sides adequately, with extensive use of primary sources. Firebug 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't very neutral. I've replaced some of the POV wording, but there still needs to be a few sentences summmarizing Dershowitz's reply to critics. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:26
What's unneutral about it? It gives a detailed explanation of Dershowitz's views and his justifications for them, and a detailed explanation of his critics' views. Firebug 23:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It's getting more neutral, but you shouldn't use words like "contends, argues, points out". Always use "states". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:48
The only reason I didn't use "states" in every single instance is that it makes for very dull prose. Isn't there a way to maintain neutrality without using the same word every time someone makes a claim? Firebug 23:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Some possibilities: state, say, declare, describe, enumerate, explain, express, speak, tell, voice. All more neutral than the words you were using. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 00:01
OK, fair enough. I just wanted to avoid the bad writing technique of repeating the same words and phrases over and over. Firebug 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Brian, what are you talking about? Argue is a perfectly neutral term, indeed the page you link to specifically suggests using it in exactly the context in which Firebug used it! I prefer the term argue to contend, but they both seem perfectly valid to me, and mean something rather different from any of the synonyms you suggest. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current language misrepresents Silvergate's point.

"Silverglate states that the necessity defense protects police officers in the hypothetical ticking-bomb case,"

Actually, Silvergate argues jury nullification and executive clemency would protect them. Dudley and Stephens stands for the proposition that the necessity defense doesn't protect things like murder. Silvergate points to the pardon of Dudley and Stephens or jury nullification as a way of protecting police officers whose actions community norms feel are justified.Cttck 22:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Dershowitz, Silverglate, Bush, "community norms" all seem to converge on okaying torture. So much for the law, the Constitution and the fact that only on TV does torture work. A couple of these guys are lawyers, Bush and "community norms" aren't - guess which ones have an excuse. Where is a section on the Chomsky debate - I happened to see it. I was embarrassed for Dershowitz. A Harvard professor should be able to do better than that, even when he has no argument. It was probably embarassing/difficult for Chomsky to have to listen to the ad hominem attacks without losing his composure.

A few thoughts

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. I admit I'm a little skeptical, but let's try this protection for a few days, or maybe a week or two, and see how it works out. An "under construction" version of the article could be created for non-admins, or they could simply post suggestions here.

Clearly you've got an exceptional circumstance, in that you've got someone, probably Dershowitz or some associate of his, complaining and making legal noises. That's not good in itself, but we can make it a good thing by using it as an opportunity to try something a little different, feel out new approaches. This should not be regular business by any means, but if this works, we shouldn't be afraid to employ it, at least temporarily, for really high-profile articles and articles which get some sort of special complaint associated with them. Of course, what we should really be looking at is having a dual encyclopedia, where we can have non-editable articles up front as the "main" encyclopedia, the more "public" encyclopedia, and then a secondary encyclopedia where we'll all be working on the articles to make them better, and get quality changes approved for addition into the "public" encyclopedia. I think we're a ways away from that still, but we should be looking in that direction. I don't believe in sacrificing openness, in making it anything less than free, but there are ways to refine that approach so we take the best from it and limit the negative effects.

As for the actual contents, we don't need Dershowitz dictating the content of his article. That will spell doom for much of Wikipedia, if people think they can pressure us into giving them positive bios. What we need, of course, is the same as all articles, which is verifiability and neutrality. In this case, let's just be more strict about those things than usual. If Dershowitz is going to complain about verifiable and neutral content, then we will have to just tell him that we've done the best we can do. But we can certainly hope he'd be satisfied by verifiability and neutrality. Either way, we can get a better article out of it all. Everyking 23:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course we shouldn't allow him to decide what we can and can't say, but the contents must be verifiable from reliable sources, with more sources necessary in more controversial sections, and be neutral in nature. The previous version of this article was not neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:50
I wholeheartedly agree with Everyking here. We need a stable version like what you are describing, though I'd say it should be editable to trusted editors. I think not having changes immediately hit the public view would offer less encouragement to vandals. Sorry for the meta conversation, but where would be the best place to discuss such a thing and to get it going? - Taxman Talk 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It's already something Tim Starling is working on implementing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:34
Excellent. Do you have a link to any ongoing discussion? - Taxman Talk 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted revisions

Someone one deleted the old revisions. That's pretty shoddy. - Xed 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • They were not deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:00
  • They were not deleted. Please remember to assume good faith. Jkelly 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I just checked the history, and there's nothing older than Jimbo's version. Can the people claiming "they were not deleted" please provide a link to the not-deleted versions? Mirror Vax 07:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • To clarify, all the old edits are in the history of Alan_Dershowitz/old. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • So they were, in fact, deleted from this article. Incidentally, the so-called "old" version, isn't - it's a version heavily edited by Brian0918, post-Jimbo. This is the actual pre-Jimbo version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz/old&oldid=30477817. Mirror Vax 08:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • They were moved to a separate article. They were not deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:36
            • There were deleted from this article. If you deny that, you're a liar. Mirror Vax 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • There is a big difference between deleting and moving, which you are misunderstanding. If you are misunderstanding deliberately, please stop it. The Land 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • If you can clear up my misunderstandings, I would be delighted. Why was the history deleted from this page? The only reason that comes to mind is to prevent people from seeing it. If you can prevent people from obtaining information by "moving" it where it's unlikely to be found, as well as "deleting" it, I don't see any big difference. Same objective, different tactic. Mirror Vax 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • If you know your way around Wikipedia, the edits are there. It is only a few clicks further away. If you're a casual user you are unlikely to find them. The Land 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I gotta agree with Mirror here -- arguing whether they were "deleted" is a semantic point, but there was a move carried out that seems to me to have no other point but to hide the previous revisions away from general inspection. Looking at the history, one has no indication of the hundreds of other edits that took place. But the main problem is that I don't see the point of this -- if these edits place us at legal risk, they should be really deleted. If they don't, they should be in the history of the article. What was the motivation for moving the history out? The Dragon 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • For larger articles, such as George W. Bush, which has 25,000 edits, it is inconceivable to delete/undelete (plus, according to brion, such a thing would kill the database). Plus, people would riot in the streets if their collective edit counts suddenly dropped by 25,000. So, I suggested to User:Danny to instead make it a habit, for now, to just move out older histories to a /old page. He agreed with this. It will probably happen with other articles. This is just the first time it has happened, to my knowledge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 20:33
                  • Without commenting on its appropriateness for this particular situation, fragmenting history in this manner is not something we should be making a "habit" of. --Michael Snow 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Thank you. Before, I was in some doubt. Now it is absolutely clear that you are a rogue admin with bad motives. Otherwise why make up such a crazy story? The truth must be horrible if you resort to such a transparent fiction. Mirror Vax 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • This is the most absurd explanation I've heard for a while. Many, many articles have a longer edit history. Something fishy here. - Xed 21:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • I don't like to question your good faith and I don't really want to associate myself with Mirror's comments above, but there does seem to be something weird about this -- again, either the edits put us at legal risk or they don't. If they do, Alan_Dershowitz/old should be deleted pronto, and I see absolutely no reason why deleting a single article will put enormous strain on the servers. The fact that it wouldn't work on the GWB page is irrelevant here. If the edits don't put us at legal risk, on the other hand, then there was simply no reason to remove them from the history. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Well, I'm pretty sure that they would be "deleted" (please note that deleted edits are not removed from the database—admins can still view them easily), and my main concern was with complaints about people's edit counts dropping, not necessarily just here, but when this practice of deletion becomes more frequent. I suggested this as a temporary alternative until the situation was sorted out, and Danny was fine with it. If he or Jimbo say otherwise, then of course the edits should be recombined into the history, but they (Jimbo and Danny) are in a much better position (information-wise) to make such a determination. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 21:44
                    • Could you (or anyone) explain who "Danny" is and where does he fit in the Wikipedia chain of command? Mirror Vax 10:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • Never mind, I found it. From User:Danny: "I now live in St. Petersburg, Florida, and work fulltime for the Wikimedia Foundation, helping Jimbo out where I can." I couldn't find any record of a conversation between Brian and Danny, however. Mirror Vax 10:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                        • Danny gave a bizarre answer to a question on my talk page, which contradicts BRIANs explanation. These kind of conversations are generally held in secret now. - Xed 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that the names of major contributors to a document appear with that document. The actions taken here are clearly meant to obscure the edit history and so might be construed as a violation of the GFDL. The actual risk of being sued over the GFDL in this case is probably exceedingly small, but I would suggest that this type of action should explicitly not be something we adopt as general practice. The Mediawiki software is designed to allow the authorship of deleted edits to be visible (though not their content), so as to satisfy the GFDL reporting requirements. I agree with above comments that it makes more sense to selectively delete libelous comments than to simply move them off to the side somewhere. Dragons flight 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I already asked Jimbo about that. What the GFDL calls "history" and what we call "history" are not the same thing, according to him. Other people were concerned that deleting edits from history is against GFDL, and he cleared that up. In any case, the deletion history lists where the old edits are at: on a subpage to this page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 02:18

The problem is spreading - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history. History issues aside, it looks like we are doing a good job improving this article - have we lost any important info since this incident started?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

One point about the article that I'd like to make is one I tend to make about biographical articles generally: it contains a section of selective quotes that are not tied together by any encyclopedic writing. Of its nature, any section of such quotes is difficult or impossible to check for neutrality. People come along and add a quote, but the selection of the quote and its placement say as much about the selector as about the subject. Think George W Bush: "Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"; Bill Clinton: "It depends what the meaning of "is" is." Both of those quotes could be used, appropriately, in an article about the two most recent Presidents. Neither would really be much use if just placed unadorned in the text.

As an encyclopedia we don't just pick and choose words from those that a person has said and plonk them down into an article, instead we write about those words that are considered significant--not by us but by named commentators, pundits, biographers, and whatnot, and cited in a particular context. And in doing so we should write why those particular words are considered important, and by whom. We should, in a sense, quote the quoters.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I just used the quotations listed in Encarta and Bartleby Quotations. I figured that the ones people didn't want could be removed, or moved to a separate page on Wikiquote. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 04:32
  • Ha, I moved most of the quotes to Wikiquote before I saw these comments here. It might be better to move all of them - these sections are rarely a good thing. Rd232 talk 09:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection?

The article has improved, but activity seems to be petering out given the limited pool of available editors. Perhaps it's time to reopen it to the wider community again? I trust quite a few people will continue to monitor it to prevent inappropriate changes. --Michael Snow 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's first message said "for tonight". Is it still tonight? This page makes me feel ill. -Splashtalk 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, and it being long after the page was protected, I've unprotected it. -Splashtalk 02:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, Can you confirm that the "very strong complaint" you received was from Alan Dershowitz or his staff? - Xed 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It may deserve it's own entry - just like John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

More suggestions

One more specific suggestion. The following sentence: "Adhering to the Orthodox Jewish faith, Dershowitz attended Yeshiva University High School" could stand re-phrasing. It reads as if attendence at that High School is required by his faith. A general suggestion is that the Career section should be expanded, so that the "views on torture" stuff isn't half of the article. Surely we can write one or two full sentences, properly referenced, about each one of the notable cases he was involved in. Jkelly 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "leading"

There used to be the word "leading" in the first sentence...see the edit I made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30780079&oldid=30760213. Is there a source for this? Once we get this, we can add it back I think. --HappyCamper 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

www.iop.harvard.edu/study_groups/05_frost.html, www1.law.columbia.edu/law_school/education_tech/streaming/FletcherDebates... www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-31,GGLG:en&q=%22Alan+Dershowitz%22+leading probably quite a few more. Jkelly 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Leading suggests leader which is way too POV for WP. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Pre-eminent? premier? principal? prominent? well-known? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 02:29
How about "veteran"? This word has the connotation of experience and wisdom, which might be what we are after here? --HappyCamper 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School is by definition a leading law scholar in America. It isn't POV; it's just a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I also think "leading" isn't POV. But, I am open to other suggestions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 13:10
I'm going to put it back in the meantime, because the first sentence as it stands is a little mealy-mouthed. Happy Camper asked for a source for the word "leading": the source is Harvard law school, which awarded him a chair. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
"Leading" is borderline puffery. I would suggest "prominent". Mirror Vax 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO 'prominent' does not do justice to his position; he basically holds the number one university law chair in the world. I think leading is fine. Batmanand 19:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If he hold the supposed number one university law chair in the world then state that in the article. Don't puff up the article with a POV. He could also be described as prominent, high profile or controversial. All have clear meanings. Leading could be interpreted as meaning 'exercising key influence' or 'highly important' and we couldn't use either of those, so why use a word that could be interpreted in such a POV way? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Find a source that says his position at harvard is one of the best, then just state that in the article. -- BRIAN0918  19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

The addition by Chameleon, while an attempt to make the article more balanced, was barely readable, and far from neutral. In the future, do not use words like "bitterly attacked". I would suggest that you propose additions on the talk page first, so that they can be neutralized before being added to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 12:28

No, that's not how it works. First I NPOV the article, then you can tweak it. Stop being presumptuous. I am the only editor to have neutralised the lie about Dershowitz being a consistent defender of freedom of speech. Nobody who was willing to leave the article as it was can even begin to lecture me about balance or neutrality. — Chameleon 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't care about Dershowitz or Chomsky. I just care about keeping the article neutral. If information is inadvertently left out, let us know. Instead, rather than neutralizing it, you skewed it over to the other side. Phrases like "bitterly attack" are never appropriate for Wikipedia (unless it's part of a quote). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 00:10
The expression is neither positive nor negative. Stop whining about it. If you think another phrase is better, you can put it in, but your "never appropriate" stuff, with over-use of bold and italics, is just a smokescreen to cover your support for the other version. What is truly never appropriate is untruthful material. If you would like to have a crusade against the expression "bitterly attack", then follow http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22Bitterly+attack%22&fulltext=Search this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=bitterly&go=Go and this one) to purge Wikipedia of it. It is not inappropriate to make an uncontroversial description of a text. If you read the www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html article in question, you'll see that it is a long and hysterical ad hominem attack on Chomsky. "Bitterly attacked" is a description that Dershowitz might well agree with, and I have not seen it described as inaccurate either in any published source or on this talk page. It is therefore fairly uncontroversial. You can edit it to something better (this is a wiki), but you can't whine on about it as you are. The project is not improved by sterilising our prose to "...stated... stated... stated...".
Read: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Or don't. Your choice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 03:22
Already read it. The string "bitter" does not occur in it. I see you have not changed any of the 800+ articles to which I referred you which freely speak of bitter attacks, debates and conflicts. Note also that I don't mind another word being used. — Chameleon 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Google, there are only 37 non-talk non-user hits for the phrase. I'll fix those. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 13:06
Interstingly, a large number of these occurrences came from the 1911 Britannica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 13:32
If we are to discuss bad edits, let's look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30817136&oldid=30812876 this. In my version, "suspending judgement on the politics" clearly referred to Chomsky not reaching a conclusion as to whether Faurisson was a "fanatic pro-Nazi" or not. By deleting some context, your version allowed the reader to guess that it might refer to Chomsky not reaching a conclusion as to whether Faurisson's alleged nazism and racism was good or bad. I appreciate that clipping things down to soundbites makes the text more "readable", but it can also make it less accurate. Inaccurate sentences are a far graver problem that ones that include phrasing that cabal members declare verboten. — Chameleon 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Clients

I've removed Patricia Hearst and Penthouse from the list of clients, as I'm unable to confirm these right now. If somebody can identify the case in which he represented these, they can be reinserted. He's published in Penthouse, certainly, but has he represented them? --Michael Snow 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't vouch for Penthouse, but...

" From The Best Defense, p. 392-93

Bailey retained me to help prepare the legal briefs in the Hearst case. As he told Shana Alexander, "In a heavy case, I'm apt to send it over to Alan." And this was certainly a heavy case -- both for Patricia Hearst and for F Lee Bailey. It was Bailey's opportunity to put the Turner debacle behind him and to reassert himself as America's top criminal trial lawyer. The trial was among the most widely covered legal events in history. As one journalist put it, the Hearst case promised to become "another Trial of the Century -- the fourth or fifth in [Bailey's] sixteen-year legal career."

The basic issue at the trial was whether Hearst had voluntarily participated in the Hibernia robbery, or whether she was still under the control and domination of her abductors at the time she entered the bank carrying a gun. The press referred to this as the "brainwashing" defense.

Bailery asked me to coordinate the legal research on that defense. I hired half a dozen law students to dig up every case in Anglo-American legal history in which a defendant had been abducted and had then joined the abductors in the commission of criminal acts. We drafted several detailed legal memoranda on various aspects of the psychological defenses, and sent them off to San Francisco, where Bailey and his staff were in the last stages of pretrial preparation.

I submitted another memoranda analyzing whether the government could cross-examine Patricia Hearst about what she had done during the year and a half between the bank robbery and her capture. The government would argue that if she had willingly participated in "revolutionary" acts during the months after the Hibernia robbery, then that willingness would constitute some proof that she also voluntarily participated in the previous Hibernia holdup. The defense would argue that subsequent events would not prove anything about her state of mind on the day of the robbery, since there had been an important intervening development between the Hibernia robbery and the others: the Attorney General of the United States, William Saxbe, had told the press that as a result of the bank robbery, Patricia Hearts was considered "nothing but a common criminal." Her SLA captors kept telling her, "You have been defined as a criminal by your country, and now you have no choice but to join us!"

" Jonshea 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The following site (from the external links section) contains a longish list of clients, including Penthouse: www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?spea_id=90. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that now, and I'm still dubious. The site is an agency that handles speaking appearances, and Penthouse might have been included based on their usual meaning of "clients", which could include his regular writing engagements rather than legal representation, which is the meaning we want here. Given that Dershowitz has written for Penthouse, under some circumstances it might even be a conflict of interest for him to represent the magazine as a lawyer. I'm not saying that it is, but I would want information about what case he represented Penthouse in before including it in a list of clients here. On Patricia Hearst, I'll take the evidence provided as good. --Michael Snow 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading description of Chomsky controversy?

I have no previous experience with the Dershowitz/Chomsky controversy, but I followed the linked essays from this page and they seem to be quite different from the Wikipedia description of the controversy. In particular, the Wikpedia page states that Dershowitz criticized Chomsky for the essay "Some elementary comments etc." In fact, if you read the Dershowitz article (which I just did, for the first time), it appears that (with regard to the Faurisson affair) he is mainly criticizing other statements by Chomsky:

My next encounter with Chomsky revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson who denied that the Holocaust took place, that Hitler’s gas chambers existed, that the diary of Anne Frank was authentic, and that there were death camps in Nazi occupied Europe. He claimed that the “massive lie” about genocide was a deliberate concoction initiated by “American Zionists” “and that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. Chomsky described these and other conclusions as “findings” and said that they were based on “extensive historical research.” He also wrote that “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” He said he saw “no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work,” including his claim that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. He wrote an introduction to one of Faurisson’s book which was used to market his anti-Semitic lies. www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html

Most of these quotations (that Chomsky said the findings were based on "extensive historical research", that there was "no anti-Semitic implication" and "no hint of anti-Semitic implications") do not seem to appear in the Chomsky essay which is linked. (In fact, as is plain from the title, Dershowitz' article is mainly about Chomsky's divestiture petition.)

Indeed, the Wikipedia article's statement that Dershowitz stated that such a defense was akin to "flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial" seems plainly false: that quotation in the Dershowitz article is clearly not in response to "such a defense" of free speech, but rather is in reference to numerous other alleged statements by Chomsky.

—Steven G. Johnson 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for clearing that up. I know nothing about Chomsky or Dershowitz, but that was my feeling when I read that statement as well. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-12 04:08
Note, however, that some mention of the apparent antagonism between Dershowitz and Chomsky may be warranted, provided that it is accurate. Also, Brian, please do not mark your edits as "minor" unless they are trivial fixes to grammar, spelling, links, etc. —Steven G. Johnson 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole issue is more complex that could easily be summed up in so few words. If you want to understand it, you have to go to Faurisson affair. It is inaccurate to say that defending freedom of speech for objectionable people is "flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial" in Dershowitz's opinion. Such a defence is fine by Dershowitz if done by himself or people he agrees with. But when done by his arch-enemy Chomsky, it is indeed an opportunity to make allegations of "flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial".
Note that only Brian0918's version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&oldid=30817136#Freedom_of_speech said "Dershowitz stated that such a defense was akin to [...]". My version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&oldid=30812876 simply gave the two things that Chomsky said (that even scumbags' rights ought to be protected, and that it wasn't fully clear that Faurisson was pro-Nazi), and then gave Dershowitz's reaction to them.
Since Dershowitz himself declared that his problem with the Faurisson affair "revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson", I took him at his word and linked to the text of that "introduction" (in reality, an article that Chomsky wrote which ended up being used as a preface).
It is true however, that the following quotations are not from that text: "extensive historical research", "no anti-Semitic implication" and "no hint of anti-Semitic implications". The first is misattributed to Chomsky; it is a neutral phrase that occurs in the text of a petition signed by Chomsky and 500 others. He agreed enough with the gist of the petition to sign it, but did not write a word of it. The other two quotations are by Chomsky, appearing in a private letter. In an open letter, he expanded on this, pointing out that "[d]enial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-à-vis the victims." He proved this with various examples, such as "if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite."
Neither Dershowitz nor anyone has ever even attempted to refute this cast-iron argument. Instead, this lawyer has used the tried and tested technique of equivocation. That is to say, he reduces Chomsky's crystal-clear argument down to a sound-bite containing the word "implication", which has various definitions:
  1. It can refer to the "action of implicating or the state of being implicated"www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/implication?view=uk; to implicate is to prove a connection to some wrongdoing. This is in line with Chomsky's talk of denial not sufficing to prove racism.
  2. It can refer to the "logical relation between propositions p and q of the form ‘if p then q’; if p is true then q cannot be false"dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implication. Again, this is in line with Chomsky's unrefuted argument that there is no such relation between p (Holocaust denial) and q (racism).
  3. It can refer to something that is implied, i.e. the "implicit conclusion that can be drawn from something"www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/implication?view=uk. We can divide this into two submeanings:
a) If we take "can be drawn" to mean "can and should be drawn", then this is in line with Chomsky's refusal to conclude that Faurisson's guilt was proven.
b) If we take "can be drawn" to mean "might conceivably be suggested", then this makes it look like Chomsky is denying that lots of Holocaust deniers are pro-Nazi. Since lots of Holocaust deniers are pro-Nazi, Chomsky must therefore be lying, or mistaken.
By asserting that Chomsky flirts with neo-Nazism, and juxtaposing this with the "no anti-Semitic implication" soundbite, Dershowitz leads the reader to skip the first three possible meanings of the phrase, and assume that the last one was intended. Since the last one leads to the conclusion that Chomsky is lying or mistaken, Dershowitz makes it look like he has scored some point. (Winning an argument by swapping the definitions on your opponent's words is a combination of the equivocation and straw man logical fallacies.)
If anyone has any difficulty following this, it suffices to apply the logic to another situation. Let's say that instead of being accused of being a Nazi for being a revisionist, someone was accused of being a Nazi for having a shaven head and wearing big boots. Would the person's appearence implicate them (prove a connection)? Of course not. Is there a ‘if p then q’ logical relation such that if the person has that appearence, they cannot be a non-Nazi? Of course not. Can we and should we draw the conclusion that the person is a Nazi? Of course not. Might the person's appearence conceivably suggest they are a Nazi? Yes, of course, the statistical correlation between skinheads and far-right politics might lead us to jump to that conclusion, but we could easily be mistaken. People are innocent until proven guilty.
Noam Chomsky argued (a) that Robert Faurisson was innocent until proven guilty, (b) if it transpired that Faurisson was a "fanatical pro-Nazi", it would be even more important to defend his right to express his crazy views. Alan Dershowitz leapt upon this two-pronged argument and did his best to try to make it sound as though Chomsky agreed with Faurisson. Dershowitz well knows that "Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views [Chomsky] hold[s] and ha[s] frequently expressed in print"www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html.
Dershowitz demonstrates that he has no problem allowing Nazis freedom of speech when it suits him. He not only argued that the Nazi Party should be able to march in Illinois, but went further and said that the Nazis had more right to march than Machteret in Israel because the Nazis went through the courts. He also demonstrates that when it suits him, he does not hesitate to vilify defenders of the same freedom. Over the Faurisson affair he attacked one person, Chomsky, for defending Faurisson. He did not say a word against Deborah Lipstadt when she argued that Faurisson and other Holocaust deniers should be denied freedom of speech www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_deniers.asp.
Want another example of Dershowitz's selective application of these high principles? On 11 July 2005, the L.A. Times published an article blasting Dershowitz for attempting to get his buddy, the Governor of California, to halt publication of Beyond Chutzpah, a book critical of Dershowitz www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=34.
Dershowitz therefore has a mixed record on defending freedom of speech. People who have a mixed record don't generally have this mentioned in their Wikipedia article, as it is only notable when they are consistent in some way. I therefore support the status quo: no "freedom of speech" section. Should, however, such a section be reinserted, I insist that there be mention not just of the Nazi Party affair, but also the Faurisson affair and the Beyond Chutzpah affair, so that the reader may see the full picture and come to their own conclusions. — Chameleon 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Your claims about Dershowitz being inconsistent with free speech rights are baseless, in this case. First of all, he made it clear that he disagreed with the suspension of Faurisson--and hence, he agreed with Chomsky as far as the free speech issue was concerned. His chief complaint against Chomsky was that Chomsky went much further than defending Faurisson's rights and defended the content of Faurrison's beliefs. Nothing inconsistent there. And your bringing up Deborah Lipstadt is irrelevant. I don't know whether or not Dershowitz has criticized Lipstadt (and I'm actually not familiar with what her views are on the subject), but he is under no obligation to single out every Jew who is less committed to free speech than he is. But that is not what was at stake in the Chomsky-Faurisson affair. What was at stake was a Jew defending a neo-Nazi on substance, and calling it a defense of free speech, which it clearly was not.
Trying to bring up hypothetical examples of how "Holocaust denial" in some abstract sense might not automatically imply "anti-Semitism" just goes to show how wrong you are in attempting to discredit Dershowitz by bringing up the "hair splitting attorney" stereotype. It is Chomsky who was splitting hairs, by bringing up meaningless conceptual scenarios when it should have been obvious that the person in front of him, a live human being, was a neo-Nazi. marbeh raglaim 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Oggi

I'm not sure this is accurate. The www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/biography.html linked site says "Italian newspaper", but Oggi is:

  • a mediocre Italian www.rcspubblicita.it/mezziit/index.jsp;jsessionid=fcpmsp1vo1?page=/mezziit/master/descrizione.jsp?id=88*doc=t magazine, not particularly respected
  • www.italiaoggi.it Italia Oggi, a not very famous Italian newspaper
  • www.americaoggi.info America Oggi, an Italian-American newspaper
  • www.oggi7.info Oggi7, an Italian-American magazine. Dershowitz was interviewed by Oggi7 on September 29, 2002 and on March 2, 2003, but only the www.oggi7.info/dettaglio.asp?Art_Id=929&Art_Tema=Inchieste second interview is available online.

I think we can't keep that quote in the article without knowing the source: it should be verified or changed with another quote. Mushroom 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've searched, and the only article I can find is in L'Unità: www.unita.it/index.asp?SEZIONE_COD=arcsegn&TOPIC_TIPO=&topic_id=23683 link. It says, "è forse il più famoso avvocato penalista americano" ("he is perhaps America's most famous criminal lawyer"). I can find other articles online, but not on the websites of reputable papers. I can find references to similar comments however. A human rights lobby www.osservatoriosullalegalita.org/04/approf/giu/03iraqitatortur.htm says, "l'avvocato progressista più famoso d'America [...] Corriere della Sera, 1 febbraio, 2002, «I terroristi? Torturiamoli» intervista di A. Farkas)" ("America's most famous progressive lawyer [...] Corriere della Sera, 1st Feb 2002, 'Terrorists? Torture them' interviewed by A. Farkas").
www.kelebekler.com/occ/tortura.htm This personal website quotes the same interview more exactly: "l'intervistatrice Alessandra Farkas definisce Alan Dershowitz, come 'l'avvocato progressista più famoso d'America, paladino dei diritti civili [...]' " ("the interviewer Alessandra Farkas defines Alan Dershowitz as 'America's most famous progressive lawyer, defender of civil rights [...]' "). I don't know if these indirect quotations are good enough for us. — Chameleon 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Corriere della Sera is the most read Italian newspaper, I think it would be far better than Oggi. L'Unità is a good newspaper too, but it's maybe too linked to the Left-Wing Democrats party. Mushroom 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beyond Chutzpah

Dershowitz, or one of his minions at Harvard, has started editing the article anonymously again. - Xed 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean those edits pertaining to torture? They don't seem very extensive or problematic to me, but I may not know enough to judge. Everyking 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Xed, why not email him, or assistant Mitch Webber? (I'd suggest trying Webber first, since the student part of the hostname makes it more likely that he's the editor). That might clear up some of the conflict. Just a suggestion. Seth Finkelstein 17:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Harvard vandal's latest edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=31828415&oldid=31824602. - Xed 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Harvard vandals

The last one is likely to be Dershowitz himself, as confirmed from the Originating-IP from the header of various emails from Dershowitz sent to several different people. 

(Received: from WAGNERHA518DELL.law.harvard.edu (roam219-31.law.harvard.edu 140.247.219.31)
-> Xed, regarding the IP's, my guess is that it's the same person, not Dershowitz, at different locations. Matching the IP's doesn't prove it's him because that assumes it's a machine he and only he ever uses (i.e., both he and various assistants may use the machine). Now, I wouldn't stake my life on it not not being him. But I think you'd need some strong evidence to rule out a much more likely candidate of a research assistant. By the way, I don't think the person is reading this page. Again, what's wrong with just emailing Mitch Webber and asking? (I don't want to do it myself, since I've been very critical of Dershowitz's torture-related arguments, so I'd rather not get involved in anything which even sounds accusatory, even if it's in fact the exact opposite - too much potential for misunderstanding). Seth Finkelstein 18:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
For similar reasons, I won't email Webber myself. There are several other people forensically investigating the issue who have greater technical knowledge than I. And I'm happy to leave them to it. Personally, I have enough definitive proof to know that several occasions of vandalism have come directly from the computer that Dershowitz uses to send his emails. To me, that suggests that it's Dershowitz. I think Harvard, or Dershowitz, can afford to give people their own computers. - Xed 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples of vandalism from Harvard vandals

-Xed 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Client list again

I just removed a number of names that had been added to the client list, including John Lennon, 2 Live Crew, Benjamin Spock, and William Shockley. I can't easily figure out in what way these have ever been Dershowitz's clients. They're not even on the fairly lengthy list from his lecture agency, the precision of which I've already cast doubt on above. Under these circumstances, I'm going to insist that people be able to provide information to support claims that X has been a client of Dershowitz, preferably by indicating the specific case involved.

Also, keep in mind that when speaking of an attorney, the word client refers to a relationship in which the attorney represents that party in some matter. Speaking and writing engagements from an organization do not make it a client in this sense. Nor does debating an issue publicly convert the side Dershowitz might take into his client. --Michael Snow 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2 Live Crew Case: www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/spotlite/news/090503.htm Benjamin Spock: www.stlouistimes.com/stlouistimespage/coverstorylinks/dershowitz.htm Lennon: www.aallnet.org/chapter/llne/LLNENews/v22n1/dershowitz.htm

We all hail to you, King Michael Snow, but your subjects beg forgiveness.

Chomsky

Can someone confirm whether I've gone crazy or the wiki has? I'm seeing references for the "debate" with Chomsky, but no debate with Chomsky.James James 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the most recent one I'm aware of: iopforum.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/fr112905israel.rm. Though I don't know if that's the debate you're looking for. They have debated numerous times. noosphere 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no section in the article other than in the references about Dershowitz's debates with Chomsky. Their debates are highly visible in the academic world, and a summary would definitely be relevant. --jacobolus (t) 11:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I had the same questions, but I did read the "Note" in the editing mode (between angle brackets). I've copy-edited and restored the section; a couple of statements still appear to me to need citations, but most of it is now (in my view) adequately and reliably documented (sourced). --NYScholar 05:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

The merge request with Alan Dershowitz/temp has been active since February 8. If someone who is active in editing this article, or the editors of this article could decide whether there is anything worth merging or discuss the merits of the temporary article and go with that. This merge requests should be dealt with promptly and the temp article should be deleted following a decision. Pepsidrinka 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There's scarcely any point editing this article. It's been Jimboed.Grace Note 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Nonetheless, should I just go ahead and have the article speedy deleted? Pepsidrinka 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

New section on "Israeli influence paper" - discussion needed

I just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=45300128&oldid=45297984 cut the following addition from 24.252.38.144 (talk · contribs):

In March 2006, Dershowitz appeared on the Joe Scarborough show, Scarborough Country to discuss the matter of the recent affair regarding a professor's research paper on Israeli influence in American politics. On the show, Dershowitz made numerous false claims that put him under fire, such as claiming the the research paper lifted material directly from "neo-nazi websites" and "radical islamic websites", claims he has not backed up. Critics also cited numerous unprofessional behavior in the directing of the show, such as the talk show talking over guest speaker David Duke while pausing to give Dershowitz extra time to speak. There were also criticisms that the show seem staged and the lines rehearsed beforehand. www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=A842CC7D-F9D1-4B1B-AE76-5&action=10

I suggest that the above needs a lot more verifiability than simply a link to a video hosting site. Jkelly 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For the above to be put in, I think three things need to be identified:
  1. Are the "false claims" actually false? Given that this cannot have happened more than a few weeks ago, has it been firmly established that Dershowitz's claims are false? Has Dershowitz had a right of reply?
  2. Who are these "critics" of the show? Where does it verifiably say that the show was badly directed? Do the claims about Duke matter to the story - if there is one - about Dershowitz? Is there any evidence for the "staged" claim? Has it been published by any verifiable source?
  3. (Perhaps most importantly) Is the incident itself important enough to warrant a paragraph in the Dershowitz article? Dershowitz is a prominent public academic, and appears in the media dozens if not hundreds of times a year. His views, as are stated in the article, are controversial, and he is regularly attacked by his (many) critics. Without this page becoming either a flame war, or too long, I think we need to differentiate between his major, long-running disputes (particularly with Chomsky and, lately, Finkelstein; although the two are very closely related) and small, minor, will-be-forgotten-within-a-few-months disputes over supposed, unverifiable claims made by unnamed "critics", which should not be included Batmanand | Talk 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That kind of behavior though from Dershowitz appears to be a consistent pattern. Therefore, I think that an article about him that doesn't mention that pattern smacks of being P.O.V. Barkmoss 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Penthouse contributor?

[[User:Lokifer] added in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=47622470&oldid=47412470: "For several years, Dershowitz has written a monthly column in the pages of Penthouse (magazine)." It is unsupported as is and it just doesn't seem to fit with Dershowitz character thus I have moved it here until someone does find a reference for it. --64.230.121.230 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the uniformed anons (those clothed with the laziness to object to facts that are written yet won't bother with a few seconds of internet surfing to prove that the facts exist) attack again. Since this anon wants proof (and instead of looking it up for himself), I will supply more than just this article that says Dershowitz has been a long time contributor to Penthouse. traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1105 Here's a link to pictures of the Meese Commision on pornography.www.porn-report.com/601-photographs.htm If you scroll down, you will find Dershowitz described as a columnist for Penthouse. This was in Janurary of 1986. This link uses the Jult 1993 article from the monthly column from Penthouse by Dershowitz as a reference. www.forensic-psych.com/artRebirth.html On this webpage, someone references an article by Dershowitz in the July 1997 issue of Penthouse.www.etherzone.com/2001/port080601.shtml 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be fairly conclusive (although it really doesn't seem like Dershowitz; oh well. Rich tapestries and all that). Is there any chance of an offical source from Penthouse itself (like a copy of one of his articles?) that would "seal the deal"? Batmanand | Talk 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to get some free porn from me? Well, here's a link to an article he wrote in 2004 for Penthouse.www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Articles/videotapes.html The source shouldn't be questionable to anyone since it comes from his Harvard webpage. I wish I could narrow down the time period for Dershowitz's contribution to the magazine, but I've been unable to establish when he started writing for Penthouse or if he's even still writing (does anyone have a current issue?). I'm guessing that he began writing for Penthouse shortly after he represented the people responisble for Deep Throat in the 1970s, but can't confirm that.Lokifer 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Now we can have an argument about whether or not this is notable enough to be included in the article lol... Batmanand | Talk 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it belongs in the article. I also think it was fair to question the veracity of this information when it was originally added without support. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate with Finkelstein

I re-wrote this section, making a number of changes:

1. Dropped D's accusation that F's mother was a concentration camp Kapo. This is trivial: it is mentioned neither in Norman Finkelstein nor Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair.
2. Added F's charge that D did not write The Case for Israel.
3. Added F's charge that D ignored human rights group findings.
4. Added D's defense that Harvard exonerated him. I'm shocked this wasn't included.
5. Added D's defense that citing Peters' references is good scholarly practice.
6. Sentence about D's legal threats and their impact.

Overall, I tried to use language from Norman Finkelstein, and to give D & F the same amount of text.Ragout 03:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Xed's edits

N.B.: Xed is a "banned Wikipedia editor" (see category of "banned Wikipedia editors" for more info.) --NYScholar 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with Dershowtiz's history, having followed his career for a number of years. these edits by Xed, do not appear to be problematic, except that they should be in the career section, not the introduction and they need citations to prove them. I ask that instead of simply deleting this material, Jkelley and SlimVirgin help find the citations needed. Thanks. Merecat 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, thank you for posting these. I've deleted them because these were some of the edits that I believe were deleted after a formal complaint, and I'm not familiar with what was decided, except that they're not currently on the page. I therefore want to check the situation with one of the editors who was involved back then. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't restore the material until then, either here or in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, ordinarily I might object to you doing that, but in this instance, with AD's strong objections to this article, caution must be used. But now, how do we have scratch page to work on Xed's edits? Merecat 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since an intervention was previously necessary on this article, everything in it needs to be backed up by a reputable source. Anyone wanting to add to the article is welcome to find such sources, but other people are not obligated to do that work for them. In the meantime, copy-and-paste additions of content that is unsourced, not integrated into the structure of the article, and frequently duplicates content already there, should continue to be removed. I'm not saying the present article is any great shakes, but "contributions" like that don't help the situation either. --Michael Snow 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine that edits like "He successfully defended Claus von Bülow in 1984 on a charge of attempting to murder his wife with an injection of insulin, a case dramatized in the film Reversal of Fortune (1990) starring Glenn Close, Jeremy Irons, and Ron Silver as Dershowitz." are pretty uncontroversial, but ones like "Dershowitz worked on the legal defense team of boxer Mike Tyson, who was convicted of rape in 1992. He was also a member of the legal defense team ("Dream Team") for O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted in 1995 of double homicide despite overwhelming evidence pointing towards guilt." (empahsis added) are more controversial. I would advocate a case-by-case basis form of editing for this most divisive of topics. Batmanand | Talk 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Xed's edit's may also have copyright problems student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=1882 . This is a good start though for finding actual citations for the claims. --Tbeatty 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted apparently-malicious comment left anonymously by —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) on December 20, 2006. (See WP:BLP.)--NYScholar 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Miramax as client?

Does anyone have a citation for: In 1994, Miramax Films hired Dershowitz to help appeal the NC-17 rating giving to the Kevin Smith comedy Clerks.. The film was given an R rating by the MPAA soon after.? Jkelly 16:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here's one from the www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/clerksrhowe_a01b71.htm Washington Post: "Then, after winning the Filmmakers Trophy Award at the Sundance Film Festival, “Clerks” was promptly given an NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. When Miramax Films sicced lawyer Alan Dershowitz on the MPAA, however, the rating changed miraculously to an R." -- Seth Finkelstein 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[deletion of potential libel and slander. WP:BLP. --NYScholar 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]

Disqualification of online petition and newspaper by one user

User Bibigon has twice reverted another contributor's citations and I believe wrongly so. bibigon claims The Harvard Crimson together with an online petition listing the names of the petition signers is insufficient evidence to support the point. I disagree. Bibigon appears to be pressing personal viewpoint, and fails to cite any Wikipedia policy to buttress his edit warring. Nowhere on Wikipedia is it stated that student newspapers are not to be cited. Like any respectable newspaper, the Crimson corrects its errors and has a solid reputation. To allow POV-pushing to disqualify reputable reporting is wrong. To also disqualify the evidence presented in an online petition that supports what the newspaper article says is non-neutral POV-pushing, pure and simple.

Anyone else have an opinion on this? Skywriter 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have issues with the passage being included on two counts. First, I am not convinced on the reliability of any student newspaper, not even Harvard's. Award winning though it may be, I've personally written for this paper in the past, and I know the fact checking that goes into it. Writers are often a bit loose with their attention to detail when taking down quotes, and the paper doesn't have any process for checking those quotes which a reporter submits. Second, I do not believe that the Harvard Crimson citation even supports the text that I removed. "The exchange brought to at least seventy-six the number of fellow Harvard professors Dershowitz has publicly described as “bigots”" implies that he's done so over the course of many years, and this is some running total. If the quote from the Harvard Crimson can be verified somehow, then this information could reasonably remain in the article, just rewritten. Perhaps along the lines of "Dershowitz said that anyone who signed the petition was a bigot." The current wording is extremely misleading. Bibigon 05:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would err on the side of caution when it comes to student papers, and as such I think I agree with Bibgon on this one. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:RS. The Crimson is partly a self-publication under their definition, and as such should not be discounted but should certainly not be taken as gospel. I think we need at least a second source for the "bigots" comment to make it includable. Batmanand | Talk 08:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Harvard Crimson is not "partly a self-publication." The wiki-rules read: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses." The Crimson is owned by Harvard University, and articles are vetted by an editorial board. This argument is a feeble attempt at discrediting a newspaper that has been in existence since 1879, is routinely cited by national media organizations, and has included, over the years, a number of essays written by Dershowitz himself. Why is this a less reliable source than the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" which the article also cites. Why didn't Bibigon delete that? The bottom line is that Dershowitz has once again embarrassed himself with wild accusations and intemperate remarks, and his partisans want to whitewash the record. --Hiramhamilton 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd request that you try and refrain from making this personal. With that out of the way, while The Crimson is indeed quite old, it remains in some cases a self-publication, in that the editorial board doesn't check the veracity of quotes with other sources, and in this specific case, these quotes are key. I'm going to remove this section until a better source, or a corroborating source can be added. Bibigon 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better myself. Batmanand | Talk 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the King of England and in my days at Harvard, I edited The Crimson and was strict about fact-checking every single article, even the ads.

Okay, I see your raised eyebrow and itching fingers. You want to begin typing, "You are a liar. We can verify that you are not the King of England."

Yes. Anyone can verify that. What you can not verify is "in my days at Harvard" or "I edited The Crimson and was strict about fact-checking..." You would be correct in deducing that there is no credibility in my claim to having contributed to The Crimson because my claim is not subject to verifiability.

www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html On the Internet, you can claim to have written for The 'New Yorker (or The Crimson, but an anonymous claim is not verifiable.

Whether bibigon's statements (or mine) about having written for The Crimson are true or not is beside the point. On Wikipedia, the standard is not truth but verifiability That such a claim is anecdotal, and not subject to verifiability makes it worthless for the purpose of Wikipedia or in defense of summarily deleting another editor's contribution.

Similarly, if I were to claim to have written for The Crimson, that means www.thecrimson.com/info/about.aspx I am or have been a Harvard student. Only Harvard students or faculty write for and edit The Crimson.

Bibigon wrote that he has "personally written" for The Crimson suggesting that he is or has been a Harvard student (or faculty). He further states: "I know the fact checking that goes into it. Writers are often a bit loose with their attention to detail when taking down quotes, and the paper doesn't have any process for checking those quotes which a reporter submits."

Bibigon, we will safely ignore your claim that you have "personally written" for The Crimson because it is not subject to verifiability. We can, however, examine your claim about fact-checking by looking at Fact checker which states, 'The resources and time necessary for fact-checking are considerable. As a consequence, this work cannot be applied to copy filed on a daily basis. For this reason, fact-checking is not commonly done at most newspapers, where reporters' ability to correct and verify their own information in a timely manner is chief among their qualifications.

Therefore, the standard you apply to The Crimson is a false standard. No daily newspaper engages in fact-checking unless the accuracy of an article is challenged or a writer's honesty or attention to detail is questioned. Economics preclude it. However, when an article or writer's veracity is questioned, newspapers often go all out to determine the veracity of not only the article in question but other stories by the same author. The Crimson has recently been in the news for fact-checking and exposing, in April 2006, the plagiarism of Kaavya Viswanathan, an event that resulted in widespread acknowledgement of worthy journalism by The Crimson and the cancellation of a $500,000 book publishing contract. The Crimson's story is/was the talk of the publishing world, and there would not have been a story--in any media-- without savvy fact checking by journalists at The Crimson. www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512948 www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512999 www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/books/29book.html www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/books/27cnd-author.html www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/books/26book.html

In the "see also" section of the Wiki article on Viswanathan, Wikipedia notes how The Crimson addressed problematic journalism when it was brought to their attention. Notice it is the same way daily newspapers deal with it.

You also stated, "Second, I do not believe that the Harvard Crimson citation even supports the text that I removed. "The exchange brought to at least seventy-six the number of fellow Harvard professors Dershowitz has publicly described as “bigots”" implies that he's done so over the course of many years, and this is some running total. The wording did not imply what you claim. The editor who added that link correctly linked to the article AND to the online petition listing the signers, which included 76 Harvard professors.

bibigon, your claims about the The Crimson are not verifiable. I believe I have carefully made the case to revert your changes.

It is wrong that you deleted this entry. If you had modified the language slightly, that would have been acceptable. To delete valid references smacks of POV-pushing. Will you revert your changes, or modify the text? Skywriter 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Batmanand-- you claim The Crimson is a self-publishing enterprise and therefore not suitable for use on Wikipedia. You say "The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:RS."

1. On that basis, would you recommend deletion of the article on Kaavya Viswanathan and all other articles sourced to The Crimson? 2. I fear you misunderstand Wikipedia policy on citing self-published books. The Crimson is not a book. It is an independent multi-million dollar publisher. 3. Your interpretation of "self-publishing" would disqualify every publication on earth in that they are all, by your definition, "self-published." Skywriter 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I do not have time right now to answer every single point that you have just made, but here goes for a brief rebuttal.
1. The Crimson is self-publishing in this case in that its editorial policies, whilst being pseudo-professional, are simply (by virtue of the fact that it is a student paper, for example, with a limited budget) not ever going to be at the level of a reputable national or international newspaper. This is backed up, anecdotally, by what Bibigon has said; he says that he has worked there, and they that they do not always adhere to strict journalistic standards. You state that Wikipedia values verifiablility above truth, which is true in articles, but is silly on talk pages. He was not saying "this is the truth", he was merely providing supporting evidence for his point of view in a talk page discussion. Also, remember to assume good faith, especially when we are in a dispute such as this.
2. The Kaavya Viswanathan article should not be deleted, but note why not. If it was simply something that The Crimson had reported then it would be not be suitable for Wikipedia. However, it turned out that the allegations were picked up by other, more reputable sources. The story is of a plagarist and the student newspaper that caught her; the facts are backed up by research of other media outlets. The Crimson is not the only source cited in the article. If it was, perhaps it should be deleted.
3. WP:RS and the issue of self-publication are of course revelant to The Crimson. It is a multi-million dollar publisher, yes, but it is also a newspaper. As such, the guidelines still apply
I hope this clears a few things up. Batmanand | Talk 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Batmanand-- I appreciate your what you say but facts would add to your ability to persuade.

  • The Crimson does not have a "limited budget" as you claim. "The Harvard Crimson is a multi-million-dollar corporation. Funded by subscriptions and advertising revenue, The Crimson is independent of the University. The Crimson operates out of its own building located at 14 Plympton Street, which houses its own printing presses, making it one of the few college newspapers in the country that publishes on its premises."[www.thecrimson.com/info/comp.aspx]
  • bibigon did not claim "journalistic standards" as you claim he said. He claims the newspaper does no fact-checking. I pointed out that no newspaper does fact-checking. Fact-checking is an expensive and time-consuming process that select magazines and book publishers do on select books and articles. Please read the Wiki article on this, cited above, and re-read what bibigon said. You are overstating what bibigon said to the point of exaggeration.
  • verifiability in argument builds trust. bibigon has claimed that he has written for The Crimson. The only way for bibigon to have written for The Crimson is for him to have either been a student or faculty member at Harvard, and to have gone through that newspaper's comp process.www.thecrimson.com/info/comp.aspx Whether bibigon is telling the truth about that does not matter. What does matter is that neither he nor you have come up with an independent resource showing that The Crimson is not a reliable source. It is not on the list of Wikipedia sources that have been excluded from use. Therefore, it is okay to source to it, and it is not okay to use one user's claim of personal experience, without independent corroboration, to exclude a resource. That is not the Wikipedia way.
  • I don't know what your #3 means. What guidelines? The ones you site WP:RS apply to self-publishing books and web sites, not wholly owned newspapers. WP:RS is irrelevant to this discussion.

I hope bibigon comes up with a verifiable case for excluding this citation based on Wikipedia policy. I have no opinion on the content of the quote but note that the comment is backed up by the online petition, a point that both you and bibigon ignore. It is the exclusion of a valuable resource that I find troubling, and that is the point of dispute. bibigon is making a decision that the Wikipedia community has not decided, and that is to exclude a resource. If bibigon insists on excluding this newspaper as a resource, then I would like to see independent corroboration to back up the claim that The Crimson is not a valid resource. Failing that, I would like to re-include this statement in this article because it was wrongly excluded. If either of you disagree, perhaps we can take this to arbitration for other members to weigh in. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Skywriter 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Err according to my reading of WP:RS, it says: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses." (emphasis added). "Includes" does not mean that personal websites and books are the only things that are self-published, but are some common examples of them. WP:RS is very relevant to this discussion.
Furthermore, please do not threaten things like Arbitration quite yet. This dispute is hardly at that level quite yet; if you think the current talk page discussion is not helping, perhaps you might want to read WP:DR in order to see some other, less severe ways to resolve our differences. Batmanand | Talk 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do not see arbitration as a threat. It is a useful way to bring in other editors when a dispute can not be resolved, particularly as to the meaning of Wikipedia policy.

The first dispute is "what is the meaning of a self-published source? does it include independent publishers like The Harvard Crimson or The New York Times, both of which can be said to self-publish, according to your interpretation.

The second point of dispute is whether The Crimson is different from any other newspaper in that it does not employ a fact checker. bibigon insists that The Crimson should be excluded as a resource because it does not employ a fact checker. I contend that the Wikipedia article is correct, that daily newspapers do not employ fact checkers, although the process of editing, rigorous at most newspapers, including The Crimson, as its guidelines state, catch many errors, and when not caught, newspapers run corrections. The Crimson is no different from any other newspaper in that respect. So the question is this: should The Crimson be excluded as a resource because bibigon alleges that, in his personal experience, The Crimson is "loose" with regard to fact checking. bibigon has offered no citation to back up his personal anecdote, and has not participated in this challenge to his edit. The underlying question for arbitration is: should the Harvard Crimson be excluded as a source in Wikipedia articles?

Do you see the dispute as different from what I have described? If so, please say precisely how, and also how best you see to resolve whether or not The Harvard Crimson should be rejected as a Wikipedia resource (due to an unsupported claim by one user that the corporation's fact-checking practices are "loose"? Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I welcome any and all other editors weighing in on this question. Skywriter 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do wish to reply - I do not totally agree on what the nature of this dispute is - but I am a little busy for the next day and a half, so if possible can my reply wait until Friday morning (UK time)? Batmanand | Talk 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I defer to Bibigon's summary of the dispute; it is shorter and more elegant than what I was planning to say, whilst still expressing the same sentiments. Batmanand | Talk 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Skywriter, you are mistaken in your belief that the NY Times does not employ a fact checker. The Wikipedia entry on reliable sources even mentions this: "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable." I don't believe you have made the case that the Harvard Crimson is a reliable source. The burden of proof is on you in this regard, given that you're making the positive assertion. You are absolutely correct however that my comment about having written for the Crimson is to be given little weight. I didn't intend for it to be definitive; it was largely a throw away remark. My argument in no way relies on my personal experience with the Crimson.
Now moving to a more substantive issue, namely, this article. Please find for me where in the article in the Crimson, it makes the assertion that Dershowitz has described all those people publically as bigots? It appears to be original research to be. My compromise proposal was an attempt to do away with both these issues, by quoting Dershowitz specifically, and citing the source in the text itself, so readers know it's a college newspaper. Please explain the origins of the "The exchange brought to at least seventy-six the number of fellow Harvard professors Dershowitz has publicly described as "bigots"" claim before reverting. Bibigon 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict

I have restored the references to civilian casualties and refugees in Lebanon. I gather that they were removed in a good-faith effort to avoid POV, but they are crucial context without which this section makes no sense. The series of articles by Dershowitz discussed in this section do not constitute a general defense of the Israeli campaign but a specific response to the controversies surrounding the civilian toll in Lebanon.

I have also highlighted the shift in Dershowitz's argument from the LA Times piece to the one in the Boston Globe. In the former, Israel is responsible for some civilian casualties; in the latter, none at all.User:G-Dett 30 July 2006

JKelly has twice deleted material in the section about Dershowitz's essays regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, citing the NOR policy. The deleted material is of two kinds: 1) figures regarding civilian casualties in Lebanon, and 2) a description of the shift in Dershowitz's thinking between two articles, the first which proposes discarding the term "civilians" as "increasingly obsolete," the second which resuscitates the term and employs it as a central concept.

Will JKelly provide separate explanations for how these (very different) categories of material constitute original research? The figures in category (1) above, for example, have been reported by every major news organ in the world, are a matter of universal consensus, and are indeed the very subject and occasion of those articles by Dershowitz discussed in this section. G-Dett

This is the edit in question. Please see Wikipedia:No original research; we don't get to come up with our own brand-new analysis such as "several days later, however, Dershowitz shifted course and argued". We're not qualified to make judgement calls about what constitutes a shift in course, and it is fundamentally not our job to do so. Further, this article is not the place to describe the current crisis in the following way; "which had killed hundreds of civilians and created 500,000 refugees as part of an effort to weaken or destroy Hezbollah, a militant/political entity whose partial raison d'être is to destroy the State of Israel." This may or may not be a perfectly good description of the crisis and the actors, but we shouldn't come out and imply that it is important for an understanding of Dershowitz. Dershowitz is an important legal thinker. Our biography of him should not resemble a blog post about his views on Israel, and even the current version now has more on his two op-eds on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict than on his career. Jkelly 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jkelly. I won't get into an edit war, of course, but several things bear remarking. First of all, the op-eds in question (there are three, not two) are explicitly a response to the controversy about civilian suffering in Lebanon. They are not a general defense of "Israel's campaign," as the article now erroneously states. Here is the first sentence of Dershowitz's piece in the LA Times: "The news is filled these days with reports of civilian casualties, comparative civilian body counts and criticism of Israel, along with Hezbollah, for causing the deaths, injuries and 'collective punishment' of civilians." It is genuinely bizarre to withhold this context from Wikipedia readers, on grounds which seem to shift from POV to NOS to, most recently, the desirability of concision.

Apropos of this last, the section is indeed too long now, but this is precisely because concise summaries of positions have been replaced by unselective extended quotations. Is it a violation of NOS to summarize a position? On twenty-four separate occasions within a short piece, Dershowitz uses a term which two days earlier he had advocated retiring as "meaningless." To observe this shift is to produce a "brand-new analysis" based on original research? I can see that this shift, once observed, might lead some to regard Dershowitz's ethical reasoning as more opportunistic than serious. Nevertheless, a shift is a shift, no? G-Dett

Please do feel free to edit the article to reflect the distinction between "Israel's campaign" and "media response to civilian deaths from Israel's campaign". It is an important distinction, and we would best serve our readers by making it concisely and clearly. By a strict reading of WP:NOR describing that shift in thinking is a problem. We don't usually read WP:NOR so strictly, but we have higher standards for biographies of living people in a number of ways. I have been quick on the revert button largely for that reason. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - all clear now. G-Dett

Dershowitz does not support the killing of civilians, he defends Israel's actions in the conflict. WP:BLP means we must not make any defamatory statements about living people, and this is a very strict rule. Jayjg (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Jayjig. Obviously defamation is out of bounds. That said, I don't understand the thrust of your first sentence above. Of course Dershowitz doesn't "support" the killing of civilians, and the word "support" doesn't appear in any of the edits in question. He defends Israel's actions, as you say. These actions include the killing of civilians, however; indeed the killing of civilians is precisely what Dershowitz takes up as his central subject in the series of articles discussed in this section. Do have a look at those articles, if you haven't already (as well as comments by JKelly and G-Dett above). They do not "defend the Israeli campaign" against Hezbollah in general terms, as the wikipedia entry now erroneously suggests. They set out explicitly to "critique the media response to and international outcry against civilian deaths," as the phrase you keep deleting aptly put it. It is both accurate and neutral to say that he critiques the response and the outcry: the piece in the Toronto paper critiqued the international outcry to civilian casualties, specifically the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights' allegations of Israeli war crimes. The subsequent pieces parsing the meaning of the word "civilian" and so on focused on the media response. The sentence you keep deleting was in other words accurate, and therefore by definition not defamatory. If you think there's a POV problem in the phrasing, that's quite a different matter from defamation. I would still disagree with you, but the ball's in your court to rephrase it in such a way that the result is still accurate.

Of course it's important to be vigilant about defamation of living persons, and the POV rule is important as well. But one doesn't pursue these worthy goals by simply softening the factual focus, blurring and smudging any contextual detail that might be seen in a negative light. G-Dett

Jayjig, I've gone ahead and corrected the sentence in question. I trust that we now agree defamation is not at issue; as regards POV I hope the current wording is alright with you. As it stood before, the sentence was misleading to the point of being inaccurate. As has been shown exhaustively, the subject of the articles is not Israel's campaign generally; it is, specifically, the international outcry and media response regarding civilian deaths resulting from that campaign.

Furthermore, to say those "Dershowitz wrote a series of articles defending Israel's campaign in Lebanon as part of an effort to weaken or destroy Hezbollah" literally means that he defends the legitimacy of the Israeli campaign by situating it within the overall effort to cripple Hezbollah. (This is the thrust of the idiomatic phrase "defends as.") This may be merely an awkwardly phrased sentence, a syntactic Frankenstein, but the effect here is totally obfuscatory, off-point and misleading. G-Dett


Does the last paragraph:

"Later that month, Norman Finkelstein described Dershowitz in Counterpunch as "bravely fir[ing] away op-eds from his foxhole at Martha's Vineyard" in an effort to "lay waste the fragile infrastructure of international law." According to Finkelstein, Dershowitz's arguments regarding the killing of non-combatants - if pursued to their logical extent - would make Dershowitz himself a legitimate target for extra-judicial assassination. "Of course, the preponderance of humanity, this writer included, does not think this way...As Dershowitz descends into barbarism, it remains a hopeful sign that few seem inclined to join him."[20]"

seem in any way appropriate for an encyclopedia article about Alan Dershowitz? Or does it seem more like a ctrl-C ctrl-V from someone's personal webpage? Jonshea 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do help to keep a check on the apparantly endless fascination some editors have with Dershowitz's views on Israel and the criticism thereof. Jkelly 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "endless fascination," note that virtually all of Dershowitz's writings in the last five years, polemical and scholarly, have focused on defending Israeli policies. This is true even of works with ostensibly more general topics, such as Why Terrorism Works and Preemption: a Knife that Cuts Both Ways. For my part, my edits have focuesed on his dynamically evolving views regarding the legitimacy of targeting non-combatants. And take note that generally speaking, Dershowitz is controversial not for his "views on Israel," which after all are very mainstream (support for Israel and its right to defend itself, support for the two-state solution, blame for the failure of the peace process on the Palestinians, etc.). Dershowitz is controversial, rather, for the various positions on human rights, torture, preemptive war, collective punishment, and now the legitimacy of targeting non-combatants, that he finds himself advocating in the process of justifying Israeli policy.

Though I agree with Jon Shea's edit, in general I think these controversies absolutely deserve to be underscored in an encyclopedia entry on Dershowitz. Dershowitz has made his mark chiefly as a controversial public intellectual, more than as a legal thinker of any depth or consistency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs).

I would be interested in comparing our coverage here with a mainstream brief biographical writeup. Jkelly 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Existence of Israel Lobby

How about making mention of the fact that, in his rantings against the "Israel Lobby" paper, Dershowitz seemingly denies that such a lobby exists, while in his own book (Chutzpah) he brags about being part of "what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy". This was mentioned in a NY Observer article (http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/07/dershowitz-contradicts-himself-on-the-power-of-the-israel-lo.html) and seems like it would be relevant to the section about his response to the paper. 69.237.76.98 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

NYscholar, your copy editing of other articles has been controversial, and this article is watched by a lot of people, in part because of a prior complaint, so it's probably fine as it is. If you want to make changes, please seek consensus for them on talk before making them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[Reply by NYScholar: (just added threading to several-paragraph reply from last month). --NYScholar 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)]

In terms of my "copy editing of other articles" being purportedly "controversial", you yourself are repeatedly and largely behind the controversy, so please do not make changes in a talk page about one article referring to other articles as if they pertain here. They do not.
You are reverting all my changes, many of which were simply copy-editing corrections and which corrected earlier problems of lack of W:NPOV (language like "fueled" is not neutral, but presents an unsubstantiated implication through a past participle and hidden action--it is as if the sentence claims surreptiously that there was some invidious motive on the part of the subject, Alan Dershowitz--see the tag re: W:Blp and other simply-factual problems. By reverting wholesale you reverted to earlier versions with some of these continuing errors.
By using the phrase "Some civil libertarians," one implies that Alan Dershowitz is not a "civil libertarian"; yet he is considered by himself and many others to be a "civil libertarian," and his work often does comment on civil liberties; by eliding the phrase civil liberties to "liberties," one attempts (again in a veiled manner) to reduce the value of the phrase. There is no other reason to elide it, and eliding it does not "improve" the article; the additional conciseness simply masks the value of the whole phrase in the sentence. There are apparently other subtle attempts to present opinion in this article on Dershowitz as opposed to actual neutral pov. I corrected that problem earlier, and I have corrected that problem again (in that sentence). I haven't time now to find all the other minor corrections that I made; I'll do it later perhaps if I do have time. If I did introduce any actual errors in the copy-editing that I did earlier, I apologize, but I don't currently know what they are. I'll try to come back to check the article and this talk page later, to see if there is anything that I can do to rectify any possible errors that I introduced in it and/or to correct any remaining problems that I have time to consider.
Please don't place in editing summaries personally-directed comments to a single editor (in this case me). Specific comments about specific changes, if "controversial," belong on the talk page. As far as I could and can tell, (most of) my changes were not "controversial," and if there is "a prior complaint" about this article, please refer directly to it in your own more recent comment and don't be vague.
Your attempt to render changes that I make into veiled personal attacks violates Wikipedia policies. By claiming that I am "introducing errors" without stating precisely what these "errors" are, you make unsubstantiated claims, and you do not advance the article by "improving" it.
Minor copy-editing changes to correct typographical, mechanical, diction, or emphasis errors in an article do not need discussion on talk pages. If one examines each change, and the editing history summaries, one can see what each one is. From your own reverting to an earlier version with errors, one cannot understand a rationale for your changes. Please make factual and objective not subjective comments on the talk page to substantiate why you revert each one of the changes that you reverted earlier.--NYScholar 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the information that I provided earlier, which SV reverted, to an earlier version. This is correct information. The way it is since she reverted it in wholesale reversion is not as readable and uses incorrect Wikipedia formatting. The links don't post as well and they are harder to make out what they are. I provided the exact title of the source.

External links are usually placed last in Wikipedia articles. This article still needs some major copy-editing; its references are inconsistent in format and not useful. See the earlier comments that SV reverted (in History). I have not got time to restore my earlier corrections to problems still in the article now due to the reversions. --NYScholar 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

This is what I suggest (incorporating previous changes that I made to the paragraphs, later reverted by SV, with a few later alterations that I suggest as well); the material in the note could be in the text, but I've currently put it in a note for people's information. I watched the entire O.J. Simpson case in real time or recorded on the same days as the trial, and I recall many times when the media commentators referred to Dershowitz's participation as a member of "The Dream Team" (see the box at bottom of this article).

With the box at the bottom, and the reference to "a number of high-profile legal cases" in the opening paragraph of this article, it seems very odd to me (to say the least) for the second paragraph to mention only the von Bulow case (one case) and to make no mention of the more-recent and far-more "high profile" O.J. Simpson case (another of this "number" of cases), which made Dershowitz far more a household name (due to constant daily and nightly media coverage over a much more-prolonged period of time). It is also very odd to omit the name of the victim of the murder in the other trial, Sunny von Bülow, which links to an article in Wikipedia offering additional information about that "case."

<< Alan 'Morton' Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is a lawyer and jurist from the United States. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School, where at the age of 28 he became the youngest full professor in the law school's history, and is now the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law. In addition to his teaching, Dershowitz is a prolific author who makes frequent media and public speaking appearances and has worked on a number of high-profile legal cases.

Dershowitz often comments on Judaism, Israel, civil rights, civil liberties, and the First Amendment and frequently appears in the mainstream media as a consultant relating to such issues and to current events in the Middle East.

As a criminal appellate lawyer Dershowitz successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, in a widely-publicizled trial. Dershowitz's book on the case, Reversal of Fortune, was adapted by Nicholas Kazan in his screenplay for the 1990 film starring Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close. Dershowitz became even more of a public figure as a result of his participation as the key appellate specialist on Simpson's defense team, popularly dubbed by the press "The Dream Team," in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial for the murder of Nicole Simpson.[1] >> The three paragraphs could also be combined into one coherent paragraph (if one deletes the spaces between them. --NYScholar 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've introduced some of the changes that I suggested above (and some others) in the article very carefully. --NYScholar 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The current wording was the appellate advisor in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson doesn't make it clear enough for readers unfamiliar with legalese that he was part of the defense team.--87.162.34.29 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Format of notes/references

It would be helpful if some editors could help with changing all the external links placed throughout sections of this article into the kinds of notes that are otherwise used throughout it. They are not as helpful as notes would be and they all need to be verified the way other references have already been. Some of them are subjects of debates in previous sections of this talk page and comments of other people in those sections. These external links begin appearing in the separate sections relating to debates and controversies in this article and may have been introduced by the editors who originally contributed them as well as subsequent editors. Thanks if you can help. I cannot do it due to other demands on my time. --NYScholar 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal Rights

Dershowitz is hardly a major or particularly well-known (or indeed vocal) supporter of animal rights; indeed, only two sources seem to have been found (and, if I remember rightly, the Rights from Wrongs reference is a passing comment; but I read the book a year ago so that might be wrong). The point is that Dershowitz is a major media pundit and public figure, writing literally hundreds of articles a year, expressing views on pretty much everything. I am just not sure that his views on this subject deserve a section in this article. What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He devotes a chapter to animal rights in that book, not a passing reference. Harvard Law School is a leading institution in the United States in the development of animal rights law, and Dershowitz is involved in that. I think lots of people would be surprised to hear that he'd expressed these views, and therefore the section is worth keeping. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Should there also be sections on the right to life, separation of church and state or whether the deceased have rights in their bodies and organs, as these are also chapters in Rights from Wrongs? Batmanand | Talk 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If he has expressed any unusual or interesting views, views that would surprise people, by all means yes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough (at least there is some consistency...). I will leave the stuff in the article for now. Good luck with the animal rights sction. Batmanand | Talk 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized some of the order of the sections a bit more chronologically, so this section is moved closer to where it fits chronologically in the controversies in which D. has become engaged. Some may begin earlier but they are also ongoing (into 2006), so I've placed those later in the article. The organization itself may appear to be rather controversial and subject to debate as well. There is still more work to do for editors to make this article to follow Wikipedia:NPOV. Diction, emphasis, choice of sources, manner in which quotations and paraphrases of sources are presented, and even structural placement of sections, e.g., often seem not to be as "neutral" as they could be. --NYScholar 22:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorial interpolations in main article

It is not clear who wrote this (somewhat edited now to match citations format more consistently used in the article; used italics for previous quotation of citation and used note format of first name, last name), when it was written, and whether or not the writer still intends to follow through; it appeared right after the section entitled "References"; I've placed it here for discussion (if any); I've deleted the angle brackets so that the whole note would become visible here for purposes of discussion (if any):

this is to make visible the citation to

Alan Dershowitz, "A Reply to the Mearsheimer Walt "Working Paper," April 6, 2006, accessed April 6, 2006.

in the "Mearsheimer and Walt Paper" subsection: I [who?] propose to redo the references of this article using the more flexible "ref" template; else switch the ref above using the "Note" template [signed by? date posted?]

--NYScholar 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the norm now to use cite.php as standard? (Not as policy, but in the absense of a pressing reason to the contrary it is encouraged). Batmanand | Talk 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a direct link to what you are referring to so that people can consult what is giving you this idea.
As far as I can tell from WP:Cite and other W features about formatting citations, notes, references, etc., there is no "standard" citation format recommended in Wikipedia; if there were such a "standard," it would be stated as such in WP:Cite and elsewhere. People can use "cite.php", but they must do so consistently throughout an article, and it must be the primary citation method used throughout it (consistently and accurately). If another format is used more consistently and accurately throughout an article, that format would continue to prevail. Unfortunately, various people who introduced citations throughout this article used all kinds of mixed formats, and there were many errors that occurred in how these citations posted. I've tried to correct them by at least providing the accurate bilbiographical information and links so that people can locate the sources or Wikipedia:Reliable sources when unchecked, unreliable sources (like blogs, personal commercial websites selling books, etc.) were being cited in this article. More copy-editing of this kind may still be needed in this article.--NYScholar 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: Please do not add new comments below the [following] LINE BREAK. Thanks. (I've moved and threaded the previous user's comment.) --NYScholar 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information

This information (quoted below in the "blockquote"), added by another user, is being moved to the talk page. It is more "trivia" than part of a biography; it is not "encyclopedic"; it needs reliable sources and to be rewritten somewhat (e.g., "referenced" probably could be "cited" or "alluded to" etc. Reference is a noun; the use of it as a transitive verb is awkward. "To reference" is to make reference to, to refer to, to allude to?

He has been referenced on several occasions in popular entertainment, especially during the O.J. Simpson trial. On television, he has been parodied on Saturday Night Live and mentioned in the episode "Homer: Bad Man" of The Simpsons.

Suggestion: (Check accuracy of general claim; qualify to match supporting examples?)

Popular television entertainment programs referred to Dershowitz during the O. J. Simpson murder trial; for example, Saturday Night Live parodied him [citation needed] and the episode Homer: Bad Man of The Simpsons alludes to him in a comic manner.[add supporting quotation(s) in note?]

The link to Homer: Bad Man does lead to information that one can quote in a supporting note at the end of the above sentence; this article needs to cite it specifically. (Readers shouldn't have to read through another full article to find such support to verify it; this article needs to support the examples given with specific citations.) More work needed to support the point relating to Saturday Night Live. It needs support with a reliable source for which episode, when, etc. Only two examples appear in the claim; the earlier phrasing seems to be a logical fallacy (overgeneralization; generalization from too small a sample). --NYScholar 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

House demolitions

In the section about D's controversial viewpoints, no mention is made of his proposal that a small Arab village should be demolished each time a Palestinian terrorist blows himself up. This has been widely viewed as the advocacy of collective punishment, which is forbidden under the Geneva conventions. Doesn't it merit a paragraph? --Alberto, 20 Sept. [2006]

Any such quotations need to be placed in context (not quoted out of context, as A. above), vetted, fully verified, and sourced (See earlier discussions on this talk page. The discussion that I have seen of this quotation earlier provided some context the last time I saw it. Controversial quotations need such sourcing and careful presentation, especially pertaining to WP:BLP. (See policy above.) Please do post new topics above, not below, the footnotes, and please read earlier sections of this talk page, to find previous discussion of same topics. Thank you.)--NYScholar 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I found where I read it in Wikipedia; it's in the Wikiquote section (click on the link toward the end of the article).
In context, it appears that Dershowitz is engaging in his rather typical rhetorical hyperbole to illustrate his point. He is not advocating such an action literally; hyperbole is a figure of speech; he is being metaphorical for effect (it seems to me). He is not advocating (literally) engaging in a Geneva convention-defined war crime.
I don't think that the statement merits "a paragraph," unless the paragraph deals in some significant way with examples of how Dershowitz employs (or deploys) "words as weapons" or rhetoric.
He is not using literal weapons, or throwing stones or dropping bombs--at least not literally; he often seems to engage in extremely exaggerated speech modes that readers and listeners may (mis)take as "extremism," but, in my view, it is metaphorical extremes that he goes to, not actual ones.
Maybe the distinctions are worth discussing, because people do fear that readers and listeners who do not grasp the metaphorical aspects of speech acts (language) may be misled to do criminal acts of violence (similar arguments to what people argue about violence in film inciting violence in real life, and so on) and the sometimes fine lines drawn (or not drawn) between political or highly-rhetorical speech and "hate speech". All of that is highly controversial and not an easy subject to discuss without violating WP:NPOV; all one can do is try to remain within Wikipedia guidelines in how one approaches and discusses and defines such distinctions. --NYScholar 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not giving a source. I sincerely thought that participants in this talkpage would be fully aware of Dershowitz's village-demolition proposal, which caused an uproar at the time of its publication. The full text of the Jerusalem Post (11 Mar 2002) article where he put it forward can be read at:

http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0203&L=justwatch-l&O=D&P=53619

A few comments:

1) Claiming, as NYScholar does, that Dershowitz's proposal is "rhetorical" is like claiming that Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is also rhetorical. The proposal for razing Arab villages to the ground in response to terrorist attacks was spelled out in full detail in a mainstream newspaper. There's nothing in the article to suggest it is a mere hyperbole or an excercise in intellectual provocation. Please read it and be convinced.

Just a brief comment: (1) It's not precisely the same, if Ahmadinejad really intends to argue that the Holocaust did not occur (if he actually believes that--which, having heard him over and over again talking at the UN and interviewed about talking at the UN--I doubt). He was getting more and more "rhetorical" (and digging himself into and out of various holes) as he tried to rationalize his previous remarks as being taken out of context, providing this week a context by saying that the Holocaust did not take place in Palestine, so why punish the Palestinians, etc. and etc. His logical reasoning is very peculiar and not (in my view) at all convincing, but that is how he is weaseling out of his reported "denial" of the Holocaust; now he denies that he was "denying" the events by focusing attention on where the Holocaust occurred (not in the Middle East). He is not a very clear speaker/thinker it appears.
Dershowitz, on the other hand, is far more in command of his rhetoric and often does not seem to mind going out on limbs for rhetorical effect (as if he assumes that people couldn't possibly take him literally)--maybe not: but they are NOT similar in the way that the above user suggests. --NYScholar 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [corrected typo error 29 Oct. 2006]


2) The article was taken seriously and responded to by various intellectuals, obviously from the Left, although not the loony one.

I don't understand your point above. --NYScholar 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The most notable response has been that of Norman Finkelstein, who, in Beyond Chutzpah, commented "It is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it." (p. 176). (It must be noted that the Nazis killed the people of Lidice, apart from erasing the village; Dershowitz does not recommend that the Arab villagers be killed, but does not rule out the possibility of their perishing under their collapsing homes, in case they should chose to stay put.)

Also, columnist James Bamford wrote in the Washington Post (Sunday, September 8, 2002; Page BW03), in connection with Dershowitz's proposal, that demolishing houses of innocent people (which, he notes, Israel already does, although not on the wholesale scale promulgated by Dershowitz) constitutes "collective punishment" and "a practice outlawed under international law". See article (NYS added brackets so link would work)

3) I think that just because an idea is not very intelligent it shouldn't follow that the people advocating it are joking.

I never said "joking": often Dershowitz's heated rhetoric and rhetorical examples (tit for tat) illustrate his deep anger at what he perceives as injustices and breaches of Jewish people's human rights; he is not joking; he is serious in the effect that he strives for: he often seems to try to show how terrible something is by coming up with analogous example (shoe on the other foot) of the other side (other people--e.g., Palestinians) to make it clearer how dreadful (he thinks) the offense to the Jewish people/Israelis, etc. (His stance on animal rights might be worth considering in relation to his stances on human rights, civil rights, and so on. His mind is rather odd it seems to me, but I don't think that he proposes that crimes be committed to "right" other crimes; I think he's trying to show how awful the crimes are (a kind of "Golden Rule" in reverse): e.g., "How would you like it if that happened to you--if your houses were demolished, your villages ruined, etc.?" Who really knows? but I don't think that he advocates war crimes (what he sees as war crimes)--then again, he may think that if "they" are doing it, then they should get it done back to them--which is kind of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Biblical revenge, as opposed to modern justice. ???

In general, I think no attempt should be made at whitewashing astonishing proposals by otherwise respected thinkers, or at claiming that they didn't want to say what they clearly said.

I was not engaged in any "attempt . . . at whitewashing astonishing proposals" etc.--and I do resent the implication that I was. I was encouraging people to look at the uses of language and rhetoric, not to take everything that people say literally. Literal interpretations often lead to strife. Try to re-read quotations within their larger contexts; if you take them OUT of context, you wrench them to mean what they may not mean IN context. The context is the entire geo-political situation involving Middle Eastern peoples' rights (which are highly contested by all sides)--take a look, e.g., at the clean water issue in the Middle East for starters--Pres. Clinton mentioned it over the past couple of days repeatedly in some interviews re: his global conference; Václav Havel has been working on that one in Forum2000 conferences since 2000 (every year). It's not just these people's houses but whether they even have a safe water supply to drink where they might have houses. So one needs to keep matters more in perspective (I think) and not blow out of proportion one quotation taken out of context of the strife going on throughout the entire region of the Middle East.

4) I think mention of this proposal should be made, because it did stir controversy,

Almost anything will "stir controversy" these days! We can't talk about all of it!--NYScholar 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

even if one thinks that Arabs indeed deserve to have their villages leveled.

which I do not at all (That's D's example, not mine!)--NYScholar 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I offer to write the paragraph myself if nobody else volunteers.--Alberto, 21 Sept 2006.

If you do develop a paragraph, please provide reliable sources for it for verification following WP:NOR in the current prevailing documentation format used in the essay. (Many people who drop into this essay, add something, and leave never to return to it created problems in the editing process and weaken the article. I hope that what you provide will be an improvement rather than the opposite. I have no interest in writing such a paragraph and will not be doing so. You might want to offer your paragraph on the talk page for discussion by others and for developing some consensus about the topic, since this article has been the subject of heated controversies (scroll up). Thanks! --NYScholar 08:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We should certainly mention Dershowitz's 2002 article in the Jerusalem Post, "A New Response to Palestinian Terror." NYScholar, what evidence do you have that its argument was intended for rhetorical effect only?--G-Dett 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a fully-sourced section on this subject. 200.117.129.3 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit history for this article seems not to be working properly

First, a couple edits that I made disappeared, with no documentation of in what event this occurred. Second, when I replaced them, no record appeared of my replacement. Curious. -- DLH

Again, the article is not reflecting changes that I made. Going to the article history and clicking on the last change shows the changes I made, but going to "Current article" or directly to the article from elsewhere, it does not show them. Software broken? -- DLH

"His often-aggressive..."

Can we say that? Especially in the header. Shouldnt it just be "His defense of Israeli positions..." instead? I dont see what would constitute as aggressive when it comes to this. --Shamir1 09:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Shamir1 has a point; see article changes that attempt to deal w/ comment. --NYScholar 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph to Lebanon war long & unbalanced

The introductory paragraph to Dershowitz's position regarding the Lebanon war has two problems:

1) The first sentence is too long and cumbersome to read. Maybe it should be split into two shorter sentences.

2) The synopse of the run-up to the war is unbalanced, since it mentions the Hezbollah provocations only, and fails to cite the repeated Israeli airspace violations.

Please introduce the necessary changes. 200.117.129.3 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter at Brandeis

I didn't see anywhere in the article mention of the fact that it was decided to allow Carter to speak at Brandeis without the requirement that he debate Dershowitz. I am surprised that this was not included in the article. ~~ilnadmy 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already discussed in the article on the book--the link is in this article as a cross-ref. to: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Please click on such links for further info. --NYScholar 14:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Notes

  1. ^ Since Simpson was acquitted of all charges in that trial, no defense appeal of that verdict ensued, though Dershowitz provided advice throughout the trial on grounds for possible future appeals should Simpson have been convicted.

Dershowitz's posts at "Gather.com"

Is it permissible to link to these posts? I've removed the potentially-libelous material for the time being. Here is the site where Dershowitz has posted these "articles" about Jimmy Carter called "Ex-President for Sale?" (the implication in the title itself is potentially libelous? even if it is phrased as a question?): Alan Dershowitz at "Gather.com"); there is currently no Wikipedia article on this site. It is clearly a personal blog site for people but does not have the notability of HuffPo. --NYScholar 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Source?

An anon. IP user just tossed the following into the "External links" section of this article. If it is to be included, it needs to be integrated into the article better (in an appropriate section if deemed notable and reliable) and to be cited in proper prevailing documentation format (Notes format) as well. This is the source that was tossed in: from YnetNews.com. It is a blog and not notable or reliable in this article (WP:Reliable sources). The more appropriate source is the article cited in that blog (YnetNews): Canadian Jewish News article. The CJN article source needs conversion to reference format for note with author, title, place, date of pub., date accessed. Please follow prevailing format in article. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision of POV wording

I have been altering "aggressive" and phrases containing it to neutral point of view like "rhetorical" (deleted by another user) and "outspoken" (current, but previously also deleted by same user). See tag above re: BLP: avoid one's own independent, non-sourced value judgments and other indications of POV in a biography of a living person. To use such adjectives as "aggressive" or even stronger "highly-aggressive" is not neutral point of view and violates BLP policy. "Outspoken" gets the point across--he "speaks out" on behalf of and in defense of Israel. One needs also to keep in mind that speaking out for Israel has many sides; those "for" Israel may be for different positions than those that D. takes and vice verse. There is no one representative "for" Israel; Israel is a locus of issues that he and others discuss and disagree about, often vehemently; but "aggressive" is a value-laden term that needs to be avoided in a header of a biography of a living person. --NYScholar 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note also that this has been discussed and this very wording rejected before by other users. See above His often-aggressive. Please read the talk page and discuss such changes on the talk page; don't just change things without such consultation and discussion. --NYScholar 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of Issues

I reorganized some of these sections to follow the chronology of their inception in Dershowitz's biography (roughly); if they are ongoing they also continue chronologically into the present in some cases. The dates of the sources indicate the chronological order. So please consult the sources for such information. --NYScholar 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources and citations

I have also provided more source information in notes where some users had just tossed in ext. links. Please follow the prevailing citation format for documentation in this article. Please also do not give unreliable sources; listservs or blogs, e.g. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the editing history for explanations relating to such changes. --NYScholar 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

terrorism

does he ever define terrorism or what it is? I am very interested in what terrorism and terrorist means, so far i just come up with unfitting definitions that basically say the usa or israel government are terrorist too. There must be some definition that fits only some humans but not us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.113.28 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Talkheader added

Please consult the tag; see espec. guidelines for signing and note: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --NYScholar 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Revision of POV editing

See #Revision of POV wording and link there to previous section disc., or scroll up. --NYScholar 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consult previous discussion and discuss on talk page when considering making changes that are already controversial and especially those already rejected by other users. Please stop making such controversial alterations. See the tags on these page. Repeat warning: Any potentially libelous and non-neutral content will be deleted and replaced with wording in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines relating to WP:BLP. --NYScholar 01:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, you've done a terrific job improving the editorial quality of this article. I was the one who initially contributed the subsection on Dershowit'z proposal to demolish villages in response to terrorism. After your deft editing the subsection has improved enormously. However, I still believe my original title should be kept: "The village-demolition proposal." I don't see any NPOV problem with it. The issue is not Dershowitz' article but the proposal therein. All NPOV sources agree that the essence of the article lies not in the fact that he wanted to respond to terrorism, but in the proposal that the response could include destroying villages. The Harvard Crimson, for instance, said so in its single-line summary of the article: "In his article, Dershowitz called for the organized destruction of a single Palestinian village in retaliation for every terrorist attack against Israel." --Abenyosef 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, Abenyosef. The problem is that what you want as a heading is not NPOV. It is biased. [Its bias is that it distorts the hypothetical nature of Dershowitz's proposal by wrenching it out of its context (the article). The article is the source of the controversy. The heading that you keep trying to insert is also not parallel to other headings in this article. If one reads the paragraph, one gets the point. Headings should not slant in the direction of an interpretation to maintain NPOV. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and especially in the context of WP:BLP. See tags above. People who contribute changes to this article must be especially vigilant about adhering to these guidelines. Your preferred heading does not. There is no problem with the more neutral heading; there is a problem with the non-neutral heading. The Harvard Crimson is a college newspaper and its writers are students not professional journalists; moreover, the article in the Crimson presents interpretations. People can read the article by Dershowitz in the context of this brief presentation in this section about the article and interpret it however they want to interpret it, but the presentation of what is at issue must be clear and neutral in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an encyclopedia. --NYScholar 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for your clear explanation. My preferred heading hadn't anything to do with any bias on my part, but with my perception that the world has associated D's article with the demolition proposal, and that anyone consulting this article looking for information about it would be directly drawn to it if the word "demolition" were in the heading. But as you point out, this is the thinking of a journalist, which I am, and Wikipedia has other standards; I've gotten that point. Also, please note that I only changed the heading after asking for your feedback, waiting for 1 day and believing, erroneously, that you tacitally agreed with my proposal.
Your heading is fully satisfactory and beats, neutrality-wise, all other headings proposed. I wish all Wikipedia articles had editors as professional as you. --Abenyosef 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That's very nice of you to say. Thank you. (N.B. I do not check all articles to which I have contributed every day at the same time. Perhaps a few days are necessary to leave to be sure people see comments. Some users (often anon. IP users), however, drop in only once, make changes without explanations or comments in editing history or talk pages, and never return to see the results of what they have done to an article. I hope that these other users will stop doing that.) --NYScholar 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliability and notability of source?

Item added by another user; moved to talk page from article; reformatted as well, with embedded editorial note: see BLP tag above for links to W editing policies. Cannot just put in opinion pieces from student newspapers and blogs. This is not a news report. It is a personal opinion by a student? Notability? Reliability of source? W:Reliable sources; WP:BLP.

<<

>>

Note: In his 15 minute opening remarks (his "speech"), Jimmy Carter drew a laugh when he wondered whether Brandeis students needed a professor from Harvard to tell them "how to ask questions." (Carter's answer to a student's question as reproduced in the Carter QA blog hosted by Brandeis University--See Ext. links in the article on the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.) The opinion piece cited by another user (reformatted above in bibliog. format) alludes to that remark. --NYScholar 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [Updated w/ link.] --NYScholar 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up: Apparent vandalism; reverted

Anon IP users User:68.34.84.120 User:128.196.224.8 appear to be engaging in vandalism in Wikipedia. See the editing history for the link to those IPs and the deletions of sourced material that he/she/they have been making in some Wikipedia articles without any discussion or explanation. Vigilance appears necessary. --NYScholar 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Further heads up: Apparent vandalism; reverted

Repeated warning to Anon IP user User:70.162.248.147: cease and desist from this repeated continual obvious vandalism of this section; repeating same changes w/o any explanation, which others revert w/ cause; your repeated change of the heading of this one section and other language in article violates consensus on the article; see: contributions history:

16:24, February 17, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz

22:53, February 11, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
02:12, February 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
21:53, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→"Calls to destroy Palestinian villages")
21:52, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→"Responding to Palestinian Terrorism")
21:49, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:48, February 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:42, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (grammar)
04:41, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:40, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:35, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
02:25, January 26, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
19:59, January 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
20:15, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
16:56, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
16:55, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
16:55, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:52, January 23, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
01:57, January 20, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid)

01:55, January 20, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz.

--NYScholar 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Lewin quote

NYScholar, I applaud the tireless, detailed, and judicious work you've done on this and other articles. So take the following quibble in that spirit. I'm not sure I understand or agree with the logic of this edit. Does it make sense to quote Lewin describing Dershowitz's proposal as "extremely modest" without giving the context of this judgment (Lewin's counter-proposal of executing the family members of suicide bombers, a plan in turn described by Dershowitz as "legitimate if flawed")? I appreciate that you've retained that information in a footnote. My opinion is that Lewin's critique and counterproposal should go together (either both in the body of the article or both in the notes); it doesn't contribute to our understanding to know that so-and-so finds Dershowitz's proposal "modest," if we don't know where so-and-so is coming from. --G-Dett 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous approach. Re: the edit you link to: at one point, I think that I had placed the same sentence within parentheses in the text, and (to me) it seemed that it was focusing too much attention of the paragraph on Lewin and losing the focus on Dershowitz, so I placed the material in the note, where (I believe) it serves as a context for understanding Lewin's quotation. Moreover, very importantly, there is a note on the web documents with the Lewin essay, saying that one cannot provide a link to his essay without providing a link to the essay that he is responding to and vice versa. So all that is part of the multiple contexts of his quotation, and readers need to read the full contexts of his comment. I have no POV on either Dershowitz's or Lewin's proposals; I am just trying to supply the information in as neutral and non-POV manner as possible while still giving readers of Wikipedia access to the information (that is, not hiding it). If anyone takes the time to click on the Wikipedia internal links and external citations links to read these materials relating to this section, one will see the contexts of these writers' (Dershowitz, Lewin, et al.'s) comments. All Wikipedia is supposed to do is to present reliably and verifiably-sourced material in relation to WP:POV in a W:Neutral point of view way; Wikipedia editors are not supposed to present it in a manner that tilts in favor or against the sources' own POVs (or the editors' own POVs); that would create bias in the article. Readers come to articles with their own biases and POVs, and they will make of these sources what they will. Editors are not to present or even to suggest their own evaluations of the source material. The repeated problems with the way many other editors have tried to present this section is that they seem unable to do so HE HAS VOICED COMPLAINTS AGAINST STEELWORKERS 231 (RENO) without injecting POV into it. I have been struggling against that kind of POV editing (in this section and elsewhere in this article and in other articles in Wikipedia). I've explained my position a number of times in the editing history and talk page discussions to make it as clear as I can. I hope that this further explanation suffices. Having considered the matter again, I still favor putting the material in a note rather than in an even parenthetical sentence in the text. Thanks again for asking. [Please note: Beginning this coming week, I will be away for approx. two weeks due to family illness; so I will not be able to respond to messages in my talk page directed to me or comments directed to me in talk pages of articles.]--NYScholar 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I know about NPOV, etc. Indeed my concern was precisely about that. I appreciate the transparency of the edit (and of your editing in general), and I agree that the point of Wikipedia is to provide links, bibliographies, access to materials, and so on. But NPOV is also relevant with regards to rhetorical presentation. Having Lewin's relative assessment ("moderate") in-line and his counter-proposal (kill family members of suicide bombers) tucked away in a footnote may leave the casual reader with the impression that Dershowitz's plan was criticized equally from both sides, that Lewin's take on it was somehow representative, etc. But Lewin represents an extraordinary, perhaps sui generis, case of a prominent figure finding Dershowitz's plan too moderate and proposing something more extreme as an alternative. If we're including Lewin as representative of the reception of Dershowitz's plan, we're way, way off. If we're including it because it represents an interesting exchange that adumbrates the discussion out of which that proposal emerged, then that's different; but then in that case I think we should let the reader know (in-line) how and where Lewin figures in that discussion. In any case, I don't see the logic of decoupling the rhetoric of Lewin's relative assessment from the substance of his counter-proposal. They go together.
In other words, I disagree with you. But I'm inclined to defer to your judgment on a page you've done so much to improve.--G-Dett 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see the most recent editing changes: after considering two of the sections further, I've tried to integrate material from quotations and sentences previously in the notes into the text in a more coherent way, eliminating redundancies, while still attempting a neutral factual presentation of this material. There was also an allusion in this section to a note in another section (on Dershowitz's "idea" of "torture warrants") that this revision attempts to eliminate by putting the relevant portion of the quotation (from Bamford) in that section, enabling me to refer back to him coherently in the text rather than in a note. [In that way, I've eliminated a couple of parenthetical sentences from notes and put them in the text in what I think is a way that improves the coherence of both sections. Please review the changes and let me know whether they do seem both more effective and still NPOV (as I intend them to be). --NYScholar 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone else, without discussion on this talk page despite ongoing discussion of these content issues, has removed the work that I did on the part that G-Dett asked me to consider here. (This is not material that I myself originally brought to this article; however, I did spend a lot of my time providing proper full citations for it, and I do object to that user's just preemptorily removing the material without prior discussion; it violates Wikipedia's editing policies in "controversial" articles. (See tagged notice at top.) Speaking for myself, I think that such material, while perhaps not crucial, was indeed properly sourced and the subject of considerable prior discussion in the talk page(s) of this article. Engaging in such deletions of references and sourced material (which is indeed notable and reliably- and verifably-sourced) violates the guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; it is not up to such editors to decide that such material is not important because it mentions a subject "in passing"; doing so is contrary to WP:POV as well. I may restore it or someone else can in the course of getting greater consensus of other long-standing editors of this article. --NYScholar 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already restored the citation note in keeping with prior discussion on this talk page. The opinion expressed below was posted while I was doing that. I believe that the citation in the note is completely within the guidelines and policies of both WP:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:Cite, W:Reliable sources, and WP:AGF. My manner of handling this matter respects the positions on this matter expressed prior to today (scroll up talk page/archives). As G-Dett observes, the POV of Lewin appears to be unusual, yet it is part of the debate on this issue. --NYScholar 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Lewin's POV might be unusual, and might be relevant on his own article, but it is irrelevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Isarig 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)|Isarig 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Isarig 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isarig 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)|contribs]])
Please don't. The debate is between 2 unrelated parties (Greenm, Lewin). It is notabput Dershowitz, and is not a critiicsm of his article. It mentions the article in passing - there are literally hundreds such references. It addd nothign to the article, as all major poitns regarding this article have already been mentioned. Isarig 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewin/Green citation that one user is continually removing by reverting

The following removed by user (twice in various forms) is hardly "irrelevant"; earlier consensus discussion deemed it relevant; notable and reliably and verifiably sourced: see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles policies: Text of the note: preceded and followed by "ref" codes:

In contradistinction to this point of view, see Nathan Lewin, "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green), Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007. Cf. "Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other." The other part of this two-part presentation is "A Stronger Moral Force," by Arthur Green, accessed January 25, 2007. (The journal title Sh'ma is explicated in Shema Yisrael.) In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism," which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's (in Lewin's phrase) "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law."

The source discusses the same topic that Dershowitz is discussing in the article in the section and Lewin cites the article directly in his essay as cited. (previous user did not sign comment: please add user name.)

I do not want to interact further with this other user. I hope that earlier editors who wanted this material cited will consider these issues. The material from Lewin is not material that I myself originally added to this article (see earlier comments). --NYScholar 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in this talk page #House demolitions, #Sources and citations, #Once again: Revision of POV editing, #Heads up: Apparent vandalism, #Further heads up: Apparent vandalism; reverted. --NYScholar 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the user apparently does not perceive that this section is not supposed to present only "criticism" (negative views) of Dershowitz's article; it is supposed to present various POVs on the article as documented in notable, reliable, verifiable sources; in this case, an earlier editor added this source as representing a secondary source POV which appears to believe that Dershowitz's "proposal" is actually too "modest" and that he does not go far enough. This source is not being added as "criticism" of Dershowitz's article; it is being added to illustrate that there are some sources (in this case, another lawyer), who find Dershowitz's "proposal" less radical than others already cited before and after this point in this section (e.g., Bamford and Finkelstein). To be rendering this topic (the article) in neutral point of view, one has to present various POVs on it if they exist, and they do. The note to Lewin's comment illustrates that. I object to its continual removal by the reversions of the other user. I will not, however, directly address him as I have had extremely unpleasant encounters with that user in the past and am unwilling to engage directly with that user any further. The objections raised appear to me to misunderstand the source and to be wholly unreasonable in view of Wikipedia guidelines that I have already cited. (See my presentation of the passage below.)--NYScholar 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You adding this, and having another editor comment on it does not make a consensus. The sources may be discussing the same topic that Dershowitz is discussing in the article, but they are NOT discussing the Dershowitz article (except as a passing mention. Isarig 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, your edits to the section in question since our exchange look fine to me. Well done.--G-Dett 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Forward initially reported on the Dershowitz and Lewin proposals together. According to the Forward, Dershowitz described the Lewin proposal as "legitimate if flawed." --G-Dett 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Re: that source: I have seen it before, cited by others, perhaps even in earlier versions of this Wik. article. The source is: Ami Eden, "Top Lawyer Urges Death for Families of Bomber", Jewish Daily Forward 7 June 2002. (Appears no longer accessible online at the Forward.com website. (Cited by a number of online sites, some more reliable than others; others' blogs, message boards, and listserves not citable in an article about Dershowitz, a living person.) --NYScholar 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove verbose and over-sympathetic treatment.

I hesitate to edit this article without discussion, but saying "in which he proposes "an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against terrorist attacks" and, "following the end of the moratorium," the institution of a "new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume"" looks like an over-sympathetic view of Dershowitz's proposal. The proposal would appear to be for communal punishment and it's not difficult to tell what people would say of it (indeed, have said of it). PalestineRemembered 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are misrepresenting those quotations: they are quotations from the article of Dershowitz's own words; they should be presented in the comment above as quotations within quotations. Those are not the words of the editors of the Wikipedia article; the section is reporting what Dershowitz says in quotations from the article documenting that he said that. You need to reread the passages in the context of quotation punctuation in the current version:

Dershowitz's 2002 article "Responding to Palestinian Terrorism"

On March 11, 2002 Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem Post entitled "Responding to Palestinian Terrorism," in which he proposes "an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against terrorist attacks" and, "following the end of the moratorium," the institution of a "new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume": as "an example," he says, Israel "could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings."[1][2]

Dershowitz's "proposal" stimulated much criticism at Harvard University and beyond.[3] In an article considering Dershowitz's book Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (which reprints Dershowitz's Jerusalem Post article) and books by others, The Washington Post columnist James Bamford observes that "the Israeli government's program of collective punishment against the Palestinians –– demolishing the homes of innocent relatives of those involved in suicide bombing," which Dershowitz "analyzed" in that book, is "a practice outlawed under international law."[4][5]

In his book Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein comments: "It is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it."[6]

Sorry I am late to the table

Probably been coved ad nauseum, but why is the Carter section so long? Also one on the references is broken so there is an entire section that is unsourced. Could we/you/I please trim this down? I'll start later, thanks! --Tom 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Notes
  1. ^ Alan M. Dershowitz, "Responding to Palestinian Terrorism," originally published in The Jerusalem Post March 11, 2002; rpt. in The Record (Harvard Law School) March 21, 2002, accessed January 25, 2007 (incl. headnote by Dershowitz); also rpt. in Alan M. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003).
  2. ^ Cf. "'If Not for 9/11, Bush's Approval Ratings Would Be Very Low': Alan Dershowitz interviewed by Suzy Hansen, Salon.com September 17, 2002, accessed March 6, 2007 (incl. links to five-page transcript of full interview and to audio excerpt). [Cf. featured links to other versions of this interview; e.g., Suzy Hansen, "Why Terrorism Works". Salon.com September 12, 2002. Accessed March 6, 2007.]
  3. ^ David Villarreal, "Dershowitz Editorial Draws Fire," The Harvard Crimson March 18, 2002, accessed January 25, 2007.
  4. ^ James Bamford, "Strategic Thinking: A year After Sept. 11, Students of U.S. policy Still Disagree about What Went Wrong and How to Fix It." Washington Post September 8, 2002: BW03, accessed January 25, 2007.
  5. ^ Cf. Nathan Lewin, "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green), Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007; Arthur Green, "A Stronger Moral Force," Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007. In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism, which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law." ["Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other." (The journal title Sh'ma is explicated in Shema Yisrael.)]
  6. ^ Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press, 2005) 176.

--NYScholar 03:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[updated. --NYScholar 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

Repeated reverting of the citations in that above passage are now injecting POV into this article; tagged it due to this interference in the good-faith attempts of editors (including me) to adhere to guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Pretty fleshed out, but too fluid and controversial to be GA or A status just yet. Confirming B. -- Avi 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Dershowitz/Archive_2&oldid=1136504733"