Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Alan Dershowitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Source falsification

Jtbobwaysf falsified the source used. When challenged by an edit which provides the exact wording, they reverted it to their preferred version, reinstating their falsification of the source with a meaningless edit summary. WP:WEASEL.

For those unfamiliar with English, the word ‘retraction’ refers to ‘a statement saying that something you previously said or wrote is not true’ (OED)

For those unfamiliar with English, the legal statement employs modal verbs, which don't extend to truth propositions. Giuffre nowhere is quoted as saying what she said earlier was untrue.

Apart from the POV pushing. Dershowitz also dropped his suit, and no mention is made of that, giving a partisan verison favourable to Dershowitz. Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what side of partisan you are referring to. Please elaborate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please take the time to parse what I wrote above. Partisanship is selectively using a source that states two perspectives to highlight only one side of an outcome. I'm sure you now grasp the meaning of 'retraction', but you haven't explained why you used it abusively, without source authority.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well the American Bar Association also seems to think it was retracted. Your comments suggest a need to remember to WP:AGF. Do you agree to summarize the retraction or you continue to demand to leave the legalese in the article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Another example of careless writing. That is not the ABA writing, but Debra Cassens Weiss writing a report in that journal.

The fact that Weiss uses the word 'retracted' in the sense of 'withdraw' is something a philologist notes, just as they would note the use of 'transpire' to mean 'occur' and 'reticent' to mean 'reluctant'.

When you wrote 'retracted' I checked several mainstream reports. None used 'retracted'. The source you used definitely did not use it. You however came up with that word, and said I was using weasel words in providing a correct paraphrase of the actual outcome for both.

You erased that, knowing that the source failed to justify your choice of language. Now, google yields you one opinion where retracted is used, you attribute that the the American Bar Association.

It is true that Weiss uses the word. She also states that in the agreement, Dershowitz 'retracted'.

For his part, Dershowitz retracted allegations against Boies. I also now believe that my allegations that David Boies engaged in an extortion plot and in suborning perjury were mistaken,” Dershowitz said.

This is an example of the correct use of retraction. There is no modal verb. Dershowitz explicitly states his belief he was mistaken. Giuffre noted that she might have been mistaken.

The latter is not, in English usage, a 'retraction' since, as I observed earlier, while she dropped her suit she carefully used language that distinguishes between (a) I was mistaken (retraction) and (b) Perhaps I was mistaken (implied ineludibly there is,'perhaps not'.

Giuffre's statement was crafted by a team of lawyers and the distinction between Dershowitz's retraction and Giuffre's allowance that she might not have recalled the incident correctly, is important.

In any case, your edit was POV. It repressed the fact that the NYTs mentioned both parties had withdrawn their suits, and noted that only one of the plaintiffs had dropped the suit. Since language is important here, the elision of my note giving the ipsissima dicta of Giuffre's formal statement is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ms. Giuffre stated repeatedly in court filings that she was certain Dershowitz had sex with her while she was under age. She now say she is no longer certain. That is a retraction. The "something you previously said" in the OED definition is her claim she she knew with certainty. Without that certainty, her claims have no validity in a court of law, nor should they on Wikipedia. There is no need for her to say she is now sure it wasn't him for it to be a retraction. If anything this section's heading should read "Retracted allegations of sexual misconduct," with the retraction mentioned at the beginning, not at the end.--agr (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I support that proposed heading title. Would you like to go ahead and make the change? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Done.--agr (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with agr that Giuffre has quite obviously retracted her allegation "that she was certain Dershowitz had sex with her while she was under age," and that this retraction should be mentioned prominently to comply with our WP:BLP policy. Furthermore, any suggestion that Giuffre's recent court filings do not meet certain dictionary definitions of the word "retraction"—without (or in opposition to) verifiable sourcing—is tendentious original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hang on -- it's 'original research' to object to the use of a word that isn't used in the source? How odd... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, I was responding to Nishidani's statement that this source is perpetuating "careless writing" for using the word "retraction" in the following context: "A woman who was victimized by sex trafficker and financier Jeffrey Epstein has retracted her allegation that Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz had sex with her when she was a minor."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This looks like strongarming a contested edit by making numbers count over evidence, esp. when the original edit was verifiably flawed. Editorial judgement in issues like this (word use), we all (should) know, is dertermined by WP:Common name. What happened is this.

Jtbobwaysf chose to use the word 'retraction' to describe Giuffre's decision

I checked the source he used, and found (a) no mention of a retraction (b) several other sources, Washington Post, Reuters etc., did not employ that term either. So Jtbobwaysf had, at that point (1) engaged in WP:OR and (2) suppressed the fact that Dershowitz also dropped his suit against Giuffre in the same agreement, thereby showcasing Giuffre's withdrawal of her suit to Dershowitz's advantage =pov pushing.

tbobwaysf, reverted to his preferred form, erasing the actual text of the agreement which gave the complete picture, then eventually came back and said they'd found a source for 'retraction'. he then attributed to the ABA's authority a single opinion given by a contributor to its journal. Two errors and a blind revert

I noted that 'retraction' as used does not fit the circumstances, as that word is defined in the OED.

Two people drifted in and gave their opinions, opinions uninformed by textual analysis of the several reports of the episode. No new evidence supplied, and a severe misunderstanding of what the word 'retraction' means in English.

The Times are A-Changing. Calling an explanation with a dictionary and gloss, of a term that has been misused, WP:OR is fatuous, though I realize that snubbing a request for literacy is understandable in a twittering age. But this is an encyclopedia, however much changing times favour slapdash misprisions of simple words.

One opinion is given, based on a single googled source, to override the fact that the NYTs, Reuters, Washington Post, The Guardian,CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Independent, CBS,NBS, Fox News, USA Today, (I have to clean some drains, that's snough for the moment all speak of charges being dropped by both, in fact three, parties, and make no mention of Giuffre 'retracting'. Unless one can come up with 12 RS that outweigh this evidence that 'retraction' is a hapax legomenon with no weight, that 11 newspapers refrain from using it, all arguments based on just numbers and off-the-top of the head assertions remain waffle, wiki noise-making. And this in the service of giving the impression that Dershowitz was a victim when he is the only one who sources say 'retracted' his views on Giuffre. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

At wikipedia we summarize, we dont just follow all the PR floating around and you also dont address the ABA source I provided as a follow up. Relating to your continued allegations against me personally as an editor, these are not suitable here and be careful of the WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't summarize. You interpreted. And please address the argument. If you have no evidence than a single source against the majority of mainstream press reports, even your Original Research rationale collapses.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The solution to this problem is very simple. Just quote her: "I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz." That's what she said and wording that might lead a reader to infer she said anything else is a distortion. If readers care about the word "retraction", they can make up their own minds when informed of the bare facts. Zero^talk 08:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have followed Zero’s suggestion and made the section heading less loaded by focusing on the defamation litigation which is the subject of the section. —agr (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The notion of the sexual assault allegations are now put to bed, we are not going to refute an allegation (that we all can see has been retracted) with legalese that might confuse the reader. There is no longer any allegation, other than one that was made and now retracted. Leave your feelings about it at the door, this is a WP:BLP and we are always going to err on the side of caution, that is part of wikipedia policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Per above, I have expanded the "Academic disputes" section to "Academic and other disputes" and included the section we are discussing there, with no other changes. I also added a link to it from the intro and mentioned there that the suits were settled.--agr (talk)

agr . You have reinstated the POV pushing identified with Jtbobwaysf's edits, first by using retraction in the lead when the consensus here was to drop it, and now, after my correction, you have added Giuffre's remarks to the emended text, affirming she said she may have been mistaken. Leads summarize, and this goes beyond WP:MOS Lede because you are introducing a detail, of several (Dershowitz said he was mistaken re Boies), Boies's also made a statement. By selecting only Giuffre's comment you have prioritized Dershowitz as the wronged person, rather than neutrally leaving the details to the section below. That will have to be removed. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To illustrate. Someone who dislikes Dershowitz could easily transfer to the lead a phrase noting that Dershowitz contradicted himself re Clinton and Trump, stating a principle in the former case of perjury which he then denied in defending the latter. It's in the text. But that equally would be POV pushing, selective choice of text to make the subject look bad, just us your selective use of Giuffre reads as making Dershowitz look good. This is an elementary NPOV principle, which you violated, twice.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to all that WP:BLP applies just as much to the way we write about Virginia Giuffre as it does to the way we write about Alan Dershowitz.... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is too much detail in the intro, but I dare say you have introduced much of it, including Giuffre's and Boises' names. I see no consensus here against using the word retraction, just a suggestion by Zero0000 that we can avoid the issue by quoting Giuffre's words, which is what I did. Per our BLP policy we cannot leave the impression in the intro that there is an active allegation of sexual misconduct against Dershowitz. The pertinent fact here is that his accuser said she may have made a mistake. The litigation settlements are the excess detail. I see no BLP issue affecting Ms. Giuffre in quoting her statement. One alternative is to remove the paragraph in question from the intro entirely, as it calls attention a very serious accusation that has since been withdrawn as possible mistaken.--agr (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of retraction. The talk page shows that it was a controversial/contested edit and the neutral solution is evidently not to use it (per Zero). Every fact can be pertinent. NPOV obliges neutrality, not subtle favouritsm for one side or the other. To highlight Giuffre's remark, and gloss over Dershowitz's admission he believes he was mistaken in precisely the same context (re Boies) is tantamount to showcasing as pertinent a fact that makes Dershowitz seem to be unjustly accused, while suppressing as (impertinent?) irrelevant his admission that he was at fault in one of the suits. I don't know why these elementary errors of editorial judgement have arisen obsessively over a very simple statement of facts, neutral to all parties. BLP and NPOV oblige us to present neutrally on any single person's wikibio the facts regarding all living parties, without prejudice, and this has been persistently ignored to favour Dershowitz. Selfstudier's edit has restored equilibrium.stetNishidani (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring 1R

Since the issue appears to have been resolved, closing discussion per request.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@agr This page is under IRR, see the talk page header.

You made this edit, against talk page consensus

I rewrote that edit

You made a first revert

This was reverted reverted by a third party

here is your second revert, restoring what I and Selfstudier removed, thereby violating 1R

You have two options. To be reported, or to revert. And if you choose the latter, please don’t wait 24 hours+ to get your way again by edit-warring. The edit you insist on is challenged by other editors, and you are obliged to obtain consensus. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The user may say he is not aware of the restrictions so I have now posted an awareness notice to their page so that this excuse for edit warring in an article subject to sanctions is no longer available.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool -- though lack of awareness doesn't amount to a good reason for ignoring the requirement to self-revert. Of course perhaps that's not what AGR intends to do -- but just in case... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the issue we are discussing is remotely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I have self reverted as a matter of good faith. However I believe the current state of the article violates WP:BLP. The intro says that Dershowitz has been accused of rape but does not include the fact that his accuser now says she may have been mistaken, even though this fact well sourced is not even in dispute. Leaving in the accusation of rape while removing the proximate recanting statement by the accuser is one-sided and out of date. At this point I don't see why the entire Epstein paragraph belongs in the lede. It's only one of Dershowitz's controversial cases. What is the justification for the current one sided treatment in the intro?--agr (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't read it as one-sided but I see no problem in removing the reference to the film re Epstein for greater lead concision. Excise that excess detail, and the remaining text is terse and neutral. He was sued for underage sex, countersued the plaintiff and her lawyer for defmation, and in 2022 all three parties consented to drop their respective suits.* I would leave others to do that, since recent editing here has not shown the disinterestedness required esp. for such delicate issues.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. That is comically ambiguous, esp. in this context!Nishidani talk) 22:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, since BLP applies to talk pages, Dershowitz was never sued for underage sex. He was accused of it in an affidavit submitted in a different proceeding that did not involve him. Our article summarizes the litigation that ensued.--agr (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Apropos the I/P angle. It's relevant to the whole page for the simple reason that an I/P editor, from either side, could edit tendentiously other sections in favour of, or against Dershowitz, in the desire to whiteash or alternatively, blacken his reputation. Were it not to apply, such an indirect tactic would lead to disruption of the article. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to 1R (vs I/P)? If so I see your point. I'll be more careful in the future.--agr (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit was based on the premise that the lead should contain a reasonable summary, leaving the detail to the body. Since may/might and may/might not are logically equivalent, this seemed reasonable to me. Personally I do not read may/might as equivalent to retraction, I expect people will read it as they choose but I don't think it is a leadworthy tidbit per se. Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If I said Selfstudier raped me and then later I say I may have made a mistake identifying Mr. Selfstudier, you think the second half would be a mere tidbit??--agr (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If this information is included in the lede, then it should also be included that she said she may have been mistaken (or equivalent terminology). To not do that I think would be a WP:BLP violation - talking about a serious allegation and then not including the dropping (per AP and CNN, or whichever term is correct) of that allegation leaves the reader misleadingly thinking that the allegation may still stand as it did before. Tristario (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed it entirely from the lede out of an abundance of caution and per comments on this page. As other editors have noted (and I agree) we cannot imply there is a sexual abuse allegation if there isnt one. We editors here are arguing if there ever was one (a retraction would retract that and we have a very good source, the ABA news site, calling it a retraction). As for the lawsuits, it is no longer due as the allegation and the lawsuits are all retracted and settled. We could add something bland in the lede that states that Dershowitz has been on both sides of numerous defamation lawsuits (could maybe be worded better) if editors feel it is necessary. But the weight of the now retracted allegations in the lede is UNDUE and appears to be a BLP violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The word "retraction" or "retracted" appears in what source, please? Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alan-dershowitz-accuser-says-she-may-have-been-wrong-defamation-suits-dropped. The ABA Journal is certainly a reliable source for legal matters and this article is in their news section. In any case I believe we agreed not to use the word retracted in the article, per a suggestion by Zero, and instead just quote the exact words she said. That quote is the text you removed.--agr (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We would be hard pressed to find a better source for a legal interpretation in a US matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Argufying by repetition when the issue has been answered (and not replied to) earlier is WP:Bludgeon behaviour. See also Selfstudier below. It is a blog. Desist.12:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

The ABA Journal is not a blog and the article cited is in their news section, not an opinion piece. Selfstudier brought the matter up, asking for a source, and I gave one, one that fully meets WP:RS. And if questions on the status of that source were not replied to before, consider this the reply. Again we are not using or proposing to use the word "retracted" in the article.--agr (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sheer disattentiveness. The ABA article was first cited by Jtbobwaysf who attributed it to the ABA, confusing the venue with the author of the piece. Referring to it as the opinion of the ABA gave the impression this rare use of ‘retraction’ bore the authority of the American legal establishment. I gave the full form of attribution, to Weiss, writing in, not for, that journal (b) I cited 11 mainstream newspaper sources to show that the mainstream press never used the term ‘retraction’ (c) I asked editors favouring ‘retraction’ to provide a high number of mainstream sources to corroborate their opinion. (d) Silence on the substance, as the waffle dragged on. Selfstudier didn’t raise this issue, nor did you bring it up. Selfstudier merely alluded to the earlier discussion, and you now are merely appropriating the kudos for spotting Weiss’s article, with its notorious misuse of the word ‘retraction’ when she appears to have meant ‘withdrawal’ of a suit.

Bludeoning on like this has all the hallmarks of the cunctator tacticis used in, to cite just one case, the election of Katie Hobbs in Arizona. An edit contested for its egregious POV tilting by the selective prioritizing of a single source's term, led to a consensus to remove ‘retraction’, and you are still niggling away at the result. The points you make are incoherent, muddle the factual record and have the appearance of 'political' angling, and this whole thread is way past its use.by date. Drop it, as I am doing now with this final reminder to stop bludgeoning, or flogging a dead horse.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead as unnecessary detail, it was in the body and that was enough. We should use legal blogs only if the writer is a recognized expert in the field and that does not appear to be the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

As ArnoldReinhold says above, the ABA source says it is news, it doesnt say it is a blog. WP:RSN would be the correct venue if you think it isnt an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Most mainline sources do not use retracted or retraction, making ABA an outlier. Most use the term term dropped or settled. It seems to me you have simply decided yourself it is a retraction and that's why you keep saying it is in edit summaries and comments here. Selfstudier (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If a word like "retract" has to be used, can't a softer word be used as a compromise? Such as "dropped the allegations/accusations" (there's a couple of sources for this I gave above), "withdrew the allegations" etc.

I'm also not sure why this is still being discussed, because I thought it was agreed that it wasn't necessary to use the word "retract" anyway Tristario (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Me either, still Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Retract seems like the wrong noticeboard given the discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Posted this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Retract User has argued above this is a blog and not an RS. RSN is the correct venue for that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not to use "retract" whether or not ABA is an RS. Selfstudier (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You have stated above it is a "legal blog" which is clearly you challenging the source. Or were you referring to a different source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On doing some reading, I find that "retraction" is a legal concept that varies greatly among different US states. Whether a particular statement is a retraction is a legal opinion that depends on what body of law is being applied, and only a court can positively affirm or deny it. A writer in ABA can give an opinion that a statement is a retraction, just like countless other opinions on legal matters are given there, but that isn't really relevant to a publication like Wikipedia that aims at a general audience. Zero^talk 06:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we shut this discussion down? We seem all to agree to simply quote Ms. Giuffre and not use the word retraction in the article, as Zero suggested. While the fact that most sources covering the story do not use the word may not prove anything, it does suggest a journalistic precedent that supports our avoidance. That makes the status of the ABA Journal moot. Let's move on.--agr (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was this an RFC? Confused why you would close the discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions, no requirement for a "discussion" to be an RFC/formal and any discussion can be closed or not if there is a consensus. Since a closure was requested, I made one. If you disagree for some reason, it can be reopened.Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, first time I recall seeing a non-rfc discussion closed, struck me as odd. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Dershowitz have Polish ancestry

Does Dershowitz have Polish ancestry? 174.240.67.112 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

This edit request to Alan Dershowitz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This phrase, consisting of two quotations, is slightly awkward, because it's easy to misread it as a single long quotation:

"To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago, I am correct today". "During the Clinton impeachment, the issue was not whether a technical crime was required, because he was charged with perjury."

In the middle, please move the full stop into the first quotation, and place "and" between them. The end result will be:

"...today." and "During..."

Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Done I checked the original, and it is reported using the style of a continuous quotation with "he said" in the middle for readability and ease of comprehension, so I have replaced the internal quotation marks with an ellipsis. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Academic and other disputes" section

Is this section header appropriate? Two subsections, one paragraph each, pertain to academic disputes per se. The other — pertaining to Guiffre's misconduct allegations — spans sixs paragraphs and is twice as long as each. Misternails (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It has THREE subsections. The number of paragraphs is irrelevant. I don't see any problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the gravity of the matter (and the fact that Epstein child sex trafficking-related content is a section of its own on the pages of others who have been accused of involvement) the allegations by Guiffre should be in a separate section as they are hardly covered by "Academic or other disputes". It is a major topic and to keep it buried like this suggests an attempt to unfairly insulate the subject from attention related to the case. BHolmes555 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the Guiffre matter is they now refer to retracted allegations. As a WP:BLP we give very little weight to retracted allegations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Further reading

Source falsification

Edit warring 1R

Does Dershowitz have Polish ancestry

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

"Academic and other disputes" section