Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 5

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

A quote about his religious experience in grade school

I consider this quote an interesting perspective on his religious experience that's missing from the article.

I was a terrible student in elementary school and at Yeshiva University High School, especially in the religious subjects. I simply couldn’t pay attention to the rote manner by which we were ‘taught’ to memorize and recite portions of the Torah, prophets, and Talmud.... I recall proudly announcing to a high school teacher that I had become an apikoros. In the Hebrew–Yiddish idiom, apikoros –a Hebrew variant of the Greek term for a follower of Epicurus –means ‘disbeliever’ or ‘heretic.’... I do... precisely what orthodox religions say you can’t do: I pick and choose –hopefully on some principled basis –among the religious practices and select those with which I wish to comply.

Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1991), pp. 41, 12–13.

I found it in the introductory essay of Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism.

I don't meet the requirements to edit this page, so someone else would have to add it. I don't have an opinion about whether it should be paraphrased in a sentence or two or added as a quote. Franzboas (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alan Dershowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

About "Publicly stated willingness to defend Hitler"

This is not to attack him -or- his attackers (re the reported "posters showing his face defaced with Hitler mustaches, he said.").

The man's life is not for me to judge. Knowing a small bit about his life and reputation,

I put aside the clipping, long ago. Before discarding it, this is my way of simply placing Newsweek's words into a place where someone else can give the quote better context. (edited) 22:08, 21 May 2017 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.62.90 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Anon undid (my) anon by saying "unreliable source, libelous, malicious twisting of words, violation of WP:BLP)"
  • Is it not libelous to label Newsweek an "unreliable source"
  • "malicious" - please (re)read the above statement in which I gave my reason for placing this here
  • "twisting of words" -
  • did I misquote him
  • did I misquote Newsweek
As for WP:BLP, the top 3 criteria are
  • verifiability - the sources are quoted and cited correctly
  • neutrality - what am I missing here? I quote, someone deletes, is that more neutral than my above request that "someone else can give the quote better context"
  • Original Research - was placing this into the article's "Controversies" section the wrong place?
I'll try to be patient awaiting response(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.61.169 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edit was clear cherry-picking and out of context manipulation to suggest that Dershowitz was willing to defend Hitler, which is complete nonsense. It's not supported by any reliable source.--181.14.125.124 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alan Dershowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Dershowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Add his Twitter and FB Please

Twitter @AlanDersh and on Facebook @AlanMDershowitz

Via The Hill (well known and reputable and famous liberal news organization): http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/379372-trump-is-right-the-special-counsel-should-never-have-been-appointed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.178.244 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsupported POV statement in lead

I have reworded a statement in the lead, changing "a leading defender of civil liberties" to "a noted civil libertarian." Neither the AP nor the Washington Post sources support the statement that Dershowitz is "a leading defender of civil liberties." The statement is inherently slippery in the first place: "leading" in what sense, or what context? Does it mean he is a leading defender of civil liberties in all of American history? In the 20th/21st centuries? Only among his contemporaries?

But even beyond the problems of the phrase, the text of both sources is insufficient to stake a claim that Dershowitz is a "leading" anything in this area. The Washington Post refers to Dershowitz—in a story about the appeal of the criminal conviction of Scooter Libby, i.e., not a civil liberties context—as a "noted civil libertarian". To be "noted" is not necessarily to be "leading". The story only mentions Dershowitz in passing and supplies no other comment on Dershowitz's reputation as a leading defender of civil liberties. This kind of claim should be staked, if at all, on a source primarily about Dershowitz, his career, and his reputation, not an article which only mentions him in passing and makes a less substantial claim than the Wikipedia text.

The AP story, which is at least primarily about Dershowitz, comes closer but falls short. The AP refers to Dershowitz as "the defender of the civil rights of Soviet refuseniks and U.S. Nazis"; it says "Four days out of five Dershowitz teaches. On the fifth, he practices law and generally makes a public fuss in defense of civil liberties." Finally, it says "His staunch, orthodox defense of civil liberties has led him to take unpopular cases." It also lists many of Dershowitz's past clients in a civil liberties context. Again, we certainly have an impression that he has taken on many civil liberties cases, even those that are controversial, and that he has experience, expertise, and a passion for civil liberties. But does this make him a leading defender of civil liberties? The AP doesn't compare his stature to anyone else. It certainly gives the impression that Dershowitz is a notable civil libertarian, but not necessarily a leading one. The sum of the two articles together doesn't work to support the claim, either. Being called a notable figure in a field twice—once in passing, once more substantially—does not make one a "leading" figure in the field.

I went back through the article history to trace the origin of this phrase. Precision123 made these additions to the lead in 2015. First, on April 30, 2015 Precision123 added a statement calling Dershowitz "a strong defender civil liberties" [sic], using the AP source and a NY Times source not present in the current version. That source calls Dershowitz "a man with unusual energy and a deep dedication to civil liberties, [who] says he tries to become involved in 'the most challenging, the most difficult and the most precedent-setting cases.'" Again, the first part of the statement supports identifying Dershowitz as a notable civil liberties attorney, not not necessarily a leading one; the second part of the statement comes from Dershowitz himself, and we can't cite Dershowitz to say "[Dershowitz is] a leading defender of civil liberties." The bigger picture of the NY Times article, which is a review of his book The Best Defense, is a bit more nuanced: see, for example, the paragraph that begins: "And his courtroom defeats are somehow never his fault. This is the crux of the book. When Alan Dershowitz wins, it is because of his brilliance; when he loses, it is because the system is corrupt." The article also says "Still, there is a fuzziness as to what principle led him to become involved in some of the cases he describes." These statements taken together suggest that the writer acknowledges Dershowitz as a lawyer committed to civil liberties causes, but also as a lawyer who may have been less candid about his work and motivations than one would hope to find in a memoir. On March 2, 2015, Precision123 removed the NY Times source, added the Washington Post source, and changed the phrase from "a strong defender" to "a leading defender."

I searched the talk page archives to see if this issue had come up before. There was a discussion in 2005 about the use of the word "leading" in the lead section, but it was in a different context. See this edit, which was also linked in the previous discussion.

I wanted to post my rationale here, in advance of even making the edit, out of recognition that the topic has been recognized as controversial per the banner heads at the top of this talk page. That said, this edit does not touch on what has been identified as the most controversial and sensitive material on the page, i.e. Dershowitz's commentary on the Arab–Israeli conflict. In the spirit of good faith, I also tagged Precision123 so that he has an opportunity to see the changes I'm making and to respond. I'm open to other alternate wordings, I just think "leading" overstates the sources. —BLZ · talk 03:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion and the good faith. I do not, however, think this merits the five or six paragraphs and research into edits from three years ago. The issue is noted versus leading defender? Two words that are synonymous. As are advocate, proponent, and defender. Dissecting these words is unnecessary.
CNN has introduced him as "a leading civil liberties advocate". The NY Times refers to him as "a leading civil-liberties scholar". The Boston Globe has referred to him as "a famous civil liberties advocate" and as an "internationally known scholar and high-profile defense and civil liberties lawyer". The Associated Press refers to him as "a leading civil liberties lawyer". The LA Times has referred to him as "a prominent civil liberties attorney" and as someone "who built a national reputation as a civil liberties lawyer". Biography.com refers to him as a "civil liberties icon" and "a famed attorney and Ivy League scholar known for his emphasis on civil liberties". Reuters has referred to him as a "famed civil liberties lawyer" and "noted civil liberties lawyer". Foreign Policy refers to him as "a staunch civil liberties advocate for decades—he represented Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel in the Supreme Court in 1972 after Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record". Haaretz refers to him as "a prominent civil liberties lawyer". Encyclopedia.com refers to him as "an emphatic proponent of civil liberties". Business Insider refers to him as "a leading proponent of civil liberties".
The original language in the intro is well supported. --Precision123 (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

How is he liberal?

The 3 sources cited for the claim that Alan Dershowitz is supposedly "liberal", in the first paragraph of the article, involve him taking conservative policy positions. The first of the 3 sources cited to back up this claim of him being supposedly "liberal" is his conservative position in favor of torture, in agreement with the administration of George W. Bush, and against virtually all American liberals. The second of the 3 sources cited to back up the claim of him being "liberal" involves him defending what was said in an offensive article making fun of a feminist law professor who had been brutally murdered, with the ACTUAL liberal, Laurence Tribe, disagreeing very strongly with Alan Dershowitz, so essentially Alan Dershowitz took an anti-feminist position in that incident, which is hardly liberal. The 3rd of the 3 sources cited claiming Alan Dershowitz is supposedly liberal is his advocacy of a national ID card that all citizens would be required to carry at all times "which would have the name, the address, the Social Security number, the photograph and a print fingerprint or retinal print, matchable to a computer chip", to quote Alan Dershowitz, quite an authoritarian right-wing policy position.

He also has a policy of unapologetically supporting Israel and opposing the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement, a movement made up of actual liberals, and denouncing anyone who dares to criticize Israel as being anti-Semitic, the same tactic that the right-wing Likud Party supporters use. Hardly liberal. --Yetisyny (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

1) See my comment below regarding trying to make out that support for Israel is ipso facto a conservative postion (an assumption which Dershowitz's work strives to challenge.)
2) Some of the people involved in BDS are some of the most desperately conservative people on the planet, to put it mildly.
3) An entire chapter of The Case For Israel is given over to denying that simple criticism is antisemitic and that only certain specific kinds of "criticism" (rejection of Israel's right to exist, disproportionate criticism not lodged against other nations with far worse track records, invocation of classical Judaeophobic tropes/imagery) are antisemitic. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

He said and wrote completely inaccurate things about the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on Israeli influence on American politics, making many false accusations about its authors as well as the content of that paper, a peer-reviewed paper that is very accurate.

He has long supported the use of torture --Yetisyny (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. He said that legally-controlled torture, under the strict control of the judiciary, in which the victim has access to full legal and medical support throughout is a lesser evil than nations' security services torturing people on the sly with no accountability.
He also said that even legally controlled physical pressure is only acceptable in cases where someone is refusing to give information that could save lives, such as a terrorist chief who clearly knows of plans for terror plots and is refusing to divulge (the "ticking time bomb scenario") and is NOT acceptable for extracting confessions. He also praised Israel for banning its security services from using physical pressure EVEN in the case of the "ticking time bomb" but observed that, in the light of the US "rendition" program, clearly not all nations feel capable to operate at such a high moral stance. Therefore, if they MUST torture, this should be done under strict legal control.
He had been a critic of Israel's use of physical pressure prior to the ban and had come round to the position of the lesser evil of putting physical pressure under judicial control after debating the issue with young Israeli law students while on a lecture tour back in the 1990s.31.49.211.90 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

and been opposed by actual liberals such as those at Amnesty International. He has also publicly opposed the U.S. deal to disarm Iran's nuclear program, a position that virtually all Republicans and conservatives agree with (including all 2016 Republican Presidential candidates) and which virtually all Democrats and liberals disagree with (including both the administration of Barack Obama as well as the Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders).

Although he is often referred to as supposedly being "liberal", more often than not, he takes policy positions that are typically associated with conservatives. He might be a supporter of the Democratic Party and might call himself a "liberal" but rather than take him at his word, we should compare his policy positions to actual liberals and see if they match up, and compare them to conservatives and see whether he is a better fit with them. Apart from his position on gun control, the rest of his positions all fit within the conservative half of the American political spectrum. Various Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani who are considered conservative have also supported gun control, so just because he is liberal on one issue does not make him a liberal if he is conservative on the rest of the issues. I really must take issue with him being characterized as a "liberal", as many of his policy positions run so counter to American liberalism and the progressive movement, they are anathema to it. And while believing pornography should be kept legal and supporting some limited amount of animal rights are more popular among liberals than conservatives, keeping pornography legal is also supported by a majority of conservatives, especially Constitutional conservatives, and a number of conservative publications have published conservative cases in favor of animal rights.

Instead I suggest he be described as a "neoconservative Democrat", terminology that would perfectly describe him. Alan Dershowitz has virtually identical policy views to Joe Lieberman, a former U.S. Senator who was essentially kicked out of the Democratic Party for being too conservative and for always siding with the administration of George W. Bush, and who went on to endorse John McCain in 2008. Unlike former Senator Lieberman, Alan Dershowitz remains a loyal Democrat, but his policy views are certainly not in keeping with the liberal wing of the party, but do fit in with the centrist/conservative wing of the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the neoconservative wings of both major parties. I don't think it makes sense to describe people as liberals or conservatives just because they describe themselves that way. People can call themselves whatever they want but that doesn't make it true. Someone can claim to be a liberal or claim to be a conservative but if their policies do not match that description, those claims should be viewed as false claims. Alan Dershowitz seems to me more of a conservative in the tradition of political philosopher Edmund Burke than a liberal in the tradition of political philosopher John Stuart Mill. Many other people have made similar observations to me and questioned whether Alan Dershowitz being characterized as liberal is a credible claim. Also, his legal history of representing wealthy perpetrators of heinous crimes rather than representing poor or working-class people is fairly conservative too. I don't see how an advocate of torture who has publicly praised Ted Cruz as brilliant and often appears on Fox News and agrees with its conservative hosts and who publicly proclaims how he hates liberal groups like MoveOn.Org, namely Alan Dershowitz, could possibly be considered a liberal. Back during the administration of George W. Bush he publicly argued in favor of many of the Bush Administration's policies, in agreement with conservatives, and now during the Obama Administration he has publicly criticized many of the Obama Administration's policies, in agreement with conservatives. He often publicly criticizes the rest of American liberals and claims he is a real liberal and everyone else who calls themselves a liberal is not. That is not the way words in the English language work. If the vast majority of liberals think one way and you think the opposite way, you are not a liberal. English is not a constructed language like Esperanto or Volapük or Klingon, but a living language like most languages, and so its words have meaning through collective understanding of what they mean, and thus it is inaccurate for Alan Dershowitz to refer to himself as a liberal or for other people to parrot this false claim of his since he is using the word to mean pretty much the opposite of what the rest of society, including the rest of people who consider themselves liberals, think it means.

In short, Alan Dershowitz calling himself a liberal is akin to Rachel Dolezal calling herself African-American. It just isn't true and we should not repeat people's false claims about themselves any more than we do with someone like Rachel Dolezal. Both of them make similarly false claims regarding their identity, Rachel Dolezal with regard to her ethnicity and Alan Dershowitz with regard to his political ideology. Most news organizations take people at their word and if someone calls themselves a liberal, news organizations report this to be the case, which infuriated many people in the case of a similar person, former Senator Joe Lieberman. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at an accurate description of reality, not hagiographies that accept whatever people say about themselves to be the case. Alan Dershowitz's political beliefs are neoconservative, or "neocon" for short, very much in keeping with the rest of the American neoconservative movement and other neoconservative thinkers. The sources cited to back up the claim that he is liberal are all articles whose content points in quite the opposite direction, all articles telling about him taking positions in opposition to the vast majority of liberals. So I would say that if this article is going to call him liberal, there is citation needed of him agreeing with other liberals and being considered part of the American liberal movement rather than opposed to it. The current citations indicate the opposite of him being liberal if you look at the larger context in each of those articles rather than simply accepting that the adjective "liberal" correctly describes Alan Dershowitz just because he uses it to describe himself. The only reason those articles used that adjective to describe him is he uses it to describe himself but that sort of claim needs to be fact-checked. --Yetisyny (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree with much of what you write, it is not our role as Wikipedia editors to "compare his policy positions to actual liberals and see if they match up"; that would be unacceptable original research. All the sources that we cite describe him as a liberal, and unless you can find a reliable source describing him as a neoconservative, we cannot add this. Meanwhile, to console yourself, I recommend that you listen to Phil Ochs's song Love Me, I'm a Liberal. RolandR (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Roland is correct. It is a good example of a self-descriptor (how Dershowitz consistently promotes himself in public) being accepted as the default term by the mainstream press when introducing him. However Anatol Lieven, America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, OUP Oxford, 2012 p.202 calls him a 'self-described liberal'and others called him a 'self-avowed liberal democrat'(Dan Gordon and Richard Baehr,'Dershowitz Finally Endorses a Republican,' American Thinker 18 June 2010). There is therefore a case for introducing per such sources a qualification that he presents himself as a liberal. Given the quality of Lieven as a source one could I think gloss 'liberal' with 'self-described' (he is a liberal on internal American issues, mostly. He is at the opposite pole on anything regarding Israel and Americdan foreign policy affecting it)Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with virtually everything that Yetisyny wrote, but I agree with RolandR's final conclusion. Reliable sources are what dictates what is placed in Wikipedia.
Nishidani, if only you ended your thought with "...he is a liberal on internal American issues, mostly". With regard to Israel, Dershowitz favors a two-state solution [Liberal, check!]; he's fought Israel against "administrative detention" on behalf of Palestinians [Liberal, check!]; he's written against Israel's use of "unacceptable interrogation methods" [Liberal, check!], and he's litigated against Israeli policies such as de facto discrimination against Israeli Arabs [Liberal, check!]. (Many liberals, as he is, are anti-BDS.) I'd say that his overall liberal credentials are in tact. KamelTebaast 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It is news to me that Dershowitz opposes administrative detention. I well remember his scandalous treatment, nearly fifty years ago, of my friend Fouzi el-Asmar. Dershowitz not only defended his administrative detention, but wrote that it would be better named "preventive detention". If necessary, I can find sources for this. But it makes no difference to our description of Dershowitz; liberals can hold abhorrent positions, and if that is how reliable sources describe him that is what we must follow. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
As there is NO formal consensus on this issue, can we hash it out? It is irresponsible to include language, in the lead no less, that Dershowitz is a "political liberal." This irresponsible non-sensical label and politicalizing is being justified because on the grounds of rules lawyering and technicalities to keep it in here. Dershowitz is certainly a lawyer and a political commentator. But he's not a politician! Either remove the liberal label completely, or simply change this to say "A political commentator" which is fair and factual. Dershowitz is not some official unofficial spokesperson for liberals everywhere or their movement anymore than Trump is an official fascist, also a political affiliation. Would people be okay with language in Trump's bio page saying, "A political fascist"? Of course not!
The justification on this seems to be that several sources say it is so! Well, I can find several sources calling Trump "a political fascist" or Steve Bannon "a political racist" (something he's proudly labeling himself, these days). But the rules against blp clearly forbids this. I see rules against including weasel words. I see rules against using this label in the lead paragraph. This is a nobrainer people! The only reason to use it seems to be that some conservative commentators like to say "Dershowitz is a liberal" so when he takes to the rightwing echochambers or Fox News to defend a conservative point of view these same conservative commentators can say that "if a liberal says it, then it must be true!"
I would like to see wikipedia return to its roots of encyclopedic content instead of being a platform for fake news and political culture-warring. I'm politically nonpartisan and an independent voter, and would like to stay neutral in this. This content should be removed or altered unless an overwhelming consensus says otherwise and can justify it reasonably and in the voice of wikipedia. As far as Dershowitz being referred to in the lead or elsewhere as "A Political Liberal" I would like to go on record as a Vote against.Parttime711employee (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Eh? I didn't understand your comparison to Bannon. Leaving aside your nonsense, Dershowitz has been an historic supporter of Democrats and liberal positions (including gun control, sexual and racial issues, socioeconomics, etc). There are at least three reliable sources that confirm this. Being a liberal in America doesn't mean a Jeremy Corbyn, it could mean someone like Bill Maher as well. Stop disrupting, please.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I am still learning the ropes. You got me there. However, being a "historic supporter" doesn't make him a professional "liberal", a spokesperson for liberals everywhere, or notable in his political commentary on liberals. He is not a politician. However, he is notable for being a celebrity defense attorney and a political commentary. He often defends far-right conservative radical Dinesh D'Souza. By your same line of logic this could make him a political conservative. The sources listed contain opinions at best. You are advocating for something here called "original research" by coming to a conclusion based on the sources. That is apparently a serious violation. I also saw that this is referred to as weasel words and a violation of blp on living people. Neutral language is required according to that standard. If you are not going to vote against or for, then your objection is noted.Parttime711employee (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
"far-right conservative radical Dinesh D'Souza" lol! You've made your personal opinion clear and showed me you have no idea about American politics. If you want to change consensus, you'll need to work from content policies instead. Extracted from one of the MANY sources available in article: Even liberal legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz have been brave enough to make the argument publicly...
I'm done with you.--יניב הורון (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, you've made "your personal opinion clear" and demonstrated that you have no understanding of American politics if you can not even acknowledge D'Souza's well-documented partisan conservatism and bias, something even the official wikipedia article on him does.
As far as Dershowitz is concerned, even your source you listed doesn't go as far as you do "referring to him as a liberal scholar" not a "political liberal" (the language of this article I object to). My post here was meant to find out how 'all' involved editors feel about this choice of content. It was not personally directed at you since we don't know each other, so it was your choice if you took it that way.
Given your choice in the tone you specifically took with me, if you are truly "done with me" then I will thank you in advance.Parttime711employee (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Eliminate "liberal" from the lead

Or change it to better reflect his ambivalence and sometimes conflictive political views. In many ways, what I am doing is a call to reconsider what other editors have mentioned here before (here). I think that leaving "liberal" in the lead, without any context, misinforms and may confuse readers. Just last month, he admitted to have long been a loyal liberal (here). But he often bashes liberals as a group and left-wing pundits in a way that seems more than simply self-criticism. He is also broadly seen as an idiosyncratic or a sometimes-centrist thinker. He implied it in that article, and admitted as much in this other piece. So, I propose that we either delete that from the lead, or change it to "centrist liberal," which is closer to what he said of himself (like-minded... centrist liberals), with a short reference to the plasticity of his opinions. Additionally, adding a more complete explanation in the article's body is a must. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 14:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Am I trying to find some way to formally arbitrate this since this article is being abused in the way you describe. Would like to have a formal vote and consensus on this issue, one of many I am seeing across wikipedia where content is being used in the service of fake news to disrupt democracies by foreign powers.Parttime711employee (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Agenda?

Without wishing to cast aspersions on individual posters on here, it seems to me that the campaign to remove the word "liberal" on here is part of a wider (and in relation to Wikipedia, bad faith) agenda to make out that support for Israel is ipso facto a "conservative" position and to reduce the Israel/Palestinian conflict to a Right/Left issue (as though a person who strongly supports Israel must also automatically sign up to free market economics, cuts to benefits and public services, opposition to national healthcare, greater equality for women/minorities etc.) In Dershowitz's case, trying to delete "liberal" from his description is a particularly gross distortion, since the crux of The Case For Israel and its sequels is that the books put forward the pro-Israel case as being a left wing cause in tune with the best of liberal values. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

He had a spat with Richard Painter on TV a few days ago1: Dershowitz started attacking Painter personally (and, yes, trying to put in a bit of a rant about Israel) after Painter had admonished him for calling Robert Mueller a liar. I also saw him described as "Alan Dershowitz, who’s become a staunch defender of Donald Trump"2. Therefore it seems to me that there's more than just his support of Israel that marks him as a conservative. So no, I don't think pointing him out as conservative is neccessarily part of an agenda against Israel, nor do I think pointing out his support of Israel is conclusive proof that he's more conservative than liberal. But yes, from what I gather, in the US conservatives tend to be more unreservedly pro-Israel, leftists less so. So it looks like a legitimate piece of evidence for his conservative-ness to me.
1: https://www.msnbc.com/david-gura/watch/alan-dershowitz-richard-painter-clash-over-mueller-s-integrity-1226970691637)
2: http://mindy-fischer-writer.com/2018/05/dershowitz-has-complete-meltdown-on-msnbc-in-unhinged-attack-on-richard-painter-video/ Yeah, that doesn't look very unbiased.3
3: As a counterweight, here's the opposite perspective on the same thing: http://mindy-fischer-writer.com/2018/05/dershowitz-has-complete-meltdown-on-msnbc-in-unhinged-attack-on-richard-painter-video/
--CRConrad (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
https://newrepublic.com/article/148080/happened-alan-dershowitz Not a "staunch defender of Trump" at all, just a stickler for adherence to the law even when it relates to removing from office a politician with whom one profoundly disagrees. Similar to the defence of the anti-Iraq war movement agaist accusations of being apologists for Saddam.
Also with respect, I put it to you that the sources from which you gather that "the US conservatives tend to be more unreservedly pro-Israel, leftists less so" could well be themselves influenced by - or even be consciously part of - the same agenda to equate "pro-Israel" with "Conservative". This does not necesarily mean that they are influenced by anti-Israel sources - there is also plenty of pull on the other end from conservatives eager to monopolize support for Israel.
The irony of this all is that in practice Israeli society is one of the most institutionally liberal, in fact downright hippyish societies in the Western world, up there with places like Sweden and New Zealand. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
"Trump himself has denied fundamental civil liberties by his immigration policies, his attitude and actions regarding the press, and his calls for criminal investigations of his political enemies. The ACLU will criticize those actions as it should ..." Doesn't sound like a Trump fan to me. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
And more from the same source: 'Dershowitz told me he diverges with the Trump administration on many other issues. “I’m very much opposed to the president’s travel ban,” he said. “I’ve very much opposed to the free availability of guns in school. I’m opposed to the death penalty.” Indeed, capital punishment is where the contrast is clearest. Trump is not only a supporter of the death penalty, but an enthusiast of it. As a Supreme Court clerk in the early 1960s, Dershowitz helped launch the legal war in the 1960s that led to its brief abolition a decade later." ' 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Support of Trump Travel Ban

The following topic needs adding as a section:

Dershowitz's Support of President Trump's 7 Muslim majority country ban or Executive Order 13769 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

1- After the order was suspended by the federal judge in Washington state appeal court ruling on the 9th circuit decision, Dershowitz appeared on CNN numerous times defending the premise of President Trump's order as justified and predicted the 3 federal judges would quash the ban and grant a win to Administration.

2- Immediately after the ban was upheld unanimously by 3 Federal judges on February 9th 2016, Dershowitz appeared on CNN and advised president Trump to draft a new executive order in consultation with congress and the senate which would basicaly implement the same effects which in Dershowitz's opinion was needed to protect the country. He repeated these support and his advice numerous times on the night in video call and later by phone to various presenters through the hours.

Both his support of President Trump on this historic event and his sugggestion, taken up or not, are in deed much more important than much of the topics in the article. Several of President Trump's surrogates through the night on CNN supported and applauded Dershowitz's support and suggestion.

"“ ... I’m very much opposed to the president’s travel ban ..." 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Sue Barlach?

Why does the personal life section completely omit his marriage to Sue Barlach? For whatever reason, this article completely omits any discussion of her, her allegation of abuse against Dershowitz, and her subsequent suicide.108.70.12.24 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings fellow Grey Wolf. It gets weirder. Dershowitz's book Chutzpah, published 1991, has three references in the index to Barlach and three of Cohen. It first mentions his present wife Carolyn Cohen as his wife on page 8. It then mentions (in his biographical chronology) Sue Barlach by name, mentioning them meeting and being married on page 48. The second Barlach reference is on page 58 which refers to "my wife" (Borat voice). Now get this: the final two references are to Cohen on page 347, and then to Barlach on 348. 347's reference, purportedly to Cohen, is "Each of us is married to a Jewish woman". Then on the very next page, the reference, purportedly to Barlach, is to "our wives" (him and his friends). Neither wife is mentioned by name yet the two pages are seemingly one continuous description of his present-day 1991 life with his friends and family, and there is nothing in the book to explain this seemingly bizarre conflict of information. There is however one other index entry: "Dershowitz, Sue (first wife), see Barlach, Sue". There is no similar entry for "Dershowitz, Carolyn". Chutzpah indeed, Alan. Jamieli (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have other reliable references that cover Sue Barlach and Dershowitz, feel free to add them here. With reliable sourcing, I believe that the article could have an additional sentence or two about their marriage and divorce without running into issues of undue weight.Dialectric (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DM0aTJaUrLIC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false
A New Yorker Magazine profile of Dersh (he's interviewed for the piece) says they divorced at some unspecified date and that Sue died in 1984. They had at least one son named Elon, born 1961, who is this film producer (also mentioned in the New Yorker piece):
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0220642/
His IMDB lists his parent as Carolyn Cohen, but that's probably just an error. Jamieli (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Could someone add his newest books to works section

Here they are:

Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy August 15, 2017 ISBN-13: 978-1974617890 http://a.co/d/eLc6Ejw

The Case Against Impeaching Trump July 9, 2018 ISBN-13: 978-1510742284 http://a.co/d/cI54VmC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.21.1 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Education - correction in entry.

Prof. Dershowitz’s high school was in Brooklyn (not Manhattan) and named Brooklyn Talmudical Academy, or BTA (as an alternative to YUHSB). There was another YUHS in Manhattan called YUHSM. Eli Uncyk (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: Dershowitz-Rothschild-Epstein

Source: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2016/12/11/alan-dershowitz/2/

Quote: Dershowitz' "social profile began to improve in 1996 upon meeting the financier Jeffrey Epstein through Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a Martha’s Vineyard friend. She told him Epstein was a brilliant autodidact who loved meeting interesting people." --93.211.209.144 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Have a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. At a glance I think the edit might be warranted, but it needs discussion first. The article is not hiding his connection to Epstein anyway. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


"civil libertarian"

Alan Dershowitz is a defender of Israel's blockade of Gaza (in which the Gazans are denied any freedom of movement to leave Gaza, subject to checkpoints, etc )so it's hard to construe him as a civil libertarian. Moreover, plenty of critics dispute this flattering self-characterization. I understand this is a BLP. But I think instead of calling him a civil libertarian we should say he describes himself as a civil libertarian. THe current version now is not only non-NPOV but doesn't make much sense unless one does not consider Gazans worthy of civil liberties. GergisBaki (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well various reliable sources have recognized that Dershowitz is not in fact a civil libertarian. Since the label is contested it's non-neutral to simply present it without qualification. "describes himself as a civil libertarian" or "identifies as a civil libertarian" would be neutral POV. GergisBaki (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statutory rape allegations

The Miami Herald has reported on accusations that Dershowitz had sex with a minor[1]. Should it be covered in the Wikipedia article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It has also reported that this affidavit was stricken by the case by a federal judge - so this is a tad less substantiated than "he said / she said" - in this case "she said + didn't quite manage to make the case in court". So, seems rather UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Salon has already retracted significant portions of its article on this matter and corrected several inaccuracies it reported. Per WP:BLP, we have to rely on the absolute highest quality sources; also, this is already covered in the article. There are several NYT pieces cited that cover it effectively. And frankly, we should really refer to this as a legal dispute. Charges were never filed, and it appears that any mention of the allegations were already either sealed/ordered stricken by a judge, according to NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a recent article in the Daily Beast that mentions Alan Dershowitz several times in connection with the "sex-with-minors" trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein: Jeffrey Epstein Arrested for Sex Trafficking of Minors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.174.123 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say she "didn't quite manage to make the case in court." It was struck from the record procedural reasons, because it was off-topic. (Incidentally, Dershowitz ended up paying a settlement to the woman's lawyers, who sued him for defamation over his statements about their motives for representing the woman).
The young woman is currently suing Dershowitz for defamation. She claims that he did commit statutory rape against her, and that (therefore) he is lying when he says she made the whole thing up. We need a more neutral and thorough presentation of this issue in the article. GergisBaki (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the statement Dershowitz made about receiving a massage from a minor in his underwear was made by Dershowitz himself, perhaps for now it is fair to at least put this in the personal life or controversies section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.57.115 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker also has a very recent article describing in detail the accusations of statutory rape:

"She asserted that she’d had sex with Dershowitz at least six times, in Epstein’s various residences, on his island, in a car, and on his plane. When I asked why she had decided to name Dershowitz, she said, “Jeffrey got away with it, basically. And Dershowitz was one of the people who enabled that to happen.” She went on, “Dershowitz thinks he’s a tyrant and can get away with anything. And I wanted to say, I might be as meek as a mouse, but I’m going to hold you accountable.”

Alan Dershowitz Devils Advocate 91.114.251.169 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable Cases: Jeffrey Epstein (2008)

Please change "Epstein eventually pleaded guilty in 2008 to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence."

to "Epstein eventually pleaded guilty in 2008 to a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18 and began an 18-month sentence of which he served only 13 months."

Reason: Soliciting prostitution is quite a different thing from procuring underage girls for prostitution. Just ask Dershowitz ;)

Sources: [2] [3] [4]

91.114.251.169 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2019 (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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan Dershowitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs) 00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Well formatted, NPOV, well sourced. Should be passed through.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Meets high standards for encyclopedic coverage of the subject matter.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    It is very well-sourced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It covers a wide array of topics, subjects, and related matters.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Despite the loaded subject matter, the article is able to keep a neutral point of view.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Disagreements are being sorted out through the talk page.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good use of images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A very good article, don't know why it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Further comments

Comment- Not the reviewer, but I see some bare urls in the references that I think should be addressed. Knope7 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I just looked over this again after I started to make review comments a few weeks back. I found then, as I still see now, some quality issues. Though the content looks mostly alright, I think we all recognize this isn’t an article for 'innocent mistakes. I would suggest a community assessment for the benefit of getting multiple eyes on it, but as such a prominent article I feel it will attract comments from multiple users anyway, and have put it up for 2nd opinion/additional reviews based on this. Hope all is good Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  • As mentioned, some bare urls:
  • His son Elon's birth date and job is sourced to IMDb, surely there's something else for it?
  • Dershowitz' own film roles are also sourced to IMDb, again, he's famous enough that there will either be other mentions or its not notable enough for this
  • Failed verification for "Dershowitz Exposed: What if a Harvard Student Did This? February 8, 2003. Finkelstein, Norman"
  • The lead's part on his most notable cases is cited to his profile on HuffPost, which looks like he wrote it? Is there a slightly more reliable source for this opinion of his work?
  • Any sources of dubious reliability seem to be those authored by the subject himself, generally sourcing quotes and his opinions.
  • Plenty reliable sources, but based on the failed verification I would want to do a better check
  • Some quotations are unreferenced, I assume the next ref is the one that supports it. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

  • All appropriately licensed and free
  • Used well in article
  • No other illustration Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

  • About the right length
  • There are refs for things that don't seem like they need them - not controversial and should be included in body. Some of the things, of course, do need refs (also note the ref issue mentioned above)
  • Lead well written and comprehensive of article content Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Body

Early life

Some more trivial info, but well written

Education

Compact, well written. Perhaps more details on university if available?

Legal and teaching career
  • Is the camp counselor mention more apt for early life section or not?
  • Needs an update on Julian Assange
  • Progression of legal career could be more detailed, it reads like an overview
  • Should the notable cases not be a subsection?
Notable cases
  • Some of the details are more trivial, rather than about the trial
  • Need more refs in von Bülow
  • The Glemp part is generally unclear, on Dershowitz' involvement, what the case was, etc.
  • Same with Barnicle
  • The OJ section is more or less a link and a quote, some more detail on his involvement would be needed
  • More about Epstein and Weinstein, too
  • Trump impeachment part is weaker in style/phrasing than the rest of the article - probably its newness. A rewrite would help, especially with the part like He stated his motivation was that he was opposed to the impeachment saying. But it's got a fair amount of detail. Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The but in 2016 he stated that he would cancel his party membership... part reads a little strange - the use of 'but', in particular, since it suggests he did something against membership, when all he did was make a comment. Needs rewording.
  • Any reason for using United States presidential election of 2016 when it's not known as that?
  • Either wikilink rescission or use a more accessible word. Or both.
  • The structure of the comments on Trump is strange: In a single paragraph after the 'not to impeach Trump, but he's corrupt' part is However, Dershowitz said that Trump's alleged disclosure of classified information to Russia is "the most serious charge ever made against a sitting president". Dershowitz has received some criticism from liberals and praise from conservatives for his comments on these issues The second sentence doesn't follow the first at all, and the first sentence could also be incorporated into the part before.
    • Everything that comes after that paragraph is not well established, seem tangential to the Trump topic, and read like they've been added at the end without trying to match style.
  • I assume "moving father left" is a typo, but if that's what the source says, it needs a [sic] or correction.
  • Needs a source for Joe Biden quotation.
  • At the same time, he is on record as stating that both the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people supported a genocidal war, and revere a figure, Amin al-Husseini, probably because, in Dershowitz's view, the latter actively participated in the Holocaust. In addition, he has criticized President Barack Obama on his foreign policy stance toward Israel after the United States abstained from voting on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned Israel for building Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. This needs some rewriting for style, clarification, grammar.
  • The part In his 2015 book, The Case Against the Iran Deal, Dershowitz argues that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has urged the Iranian military "to have two nuclear bombs ready to go off in January 2005 or you're not Muslims". On February 29, 2012, Dershowitz filed an amicus brief in support of delisting the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) from the State Department list of foreign terrorist organization. also has the problem of the sentences not relating to each other.
    • Also need to wikilink Amicus brief, and change 'organization' to 'organizations'
  • Civilian casualties doesn't mention the Middle East, not appropriate for section
  • The Harvard-MIT divestment petition part has elements of storytelling, especially the rhetoric use of Dershowitz' quotation in narrative
  • The 2nd Amendment part needs to either ditch the quotation or incorporate it; embed it or introduce it, but just putting a random quote on the end of a paragraph is not how to write.
    • The same with the Animal rights part.
  • The entire Takings Clause, 5th and 14th Amendments (business law) part is near-illegible jargon. Please put it in non-specialist terms, also please update it.
  • Need to better incorporate the quotation "I will prove without any doubt that she is lying about me. She is going to end up in prison."
  • Only need to link Boies once.
  • Any updates on Giuffre/Boies?
  • I'm also not sure how TV appearances relate to awards?
  • Needs better sourcing for family
  • Some minor neutrality concerns for the contentious topics mentioned in the article, especially given how dividing a figure Dershowitz is. However, nothing too serious and, in this, nothing that appropriate phrasing can't fix.
  • Sections/parts are fine unless otherwise noted
@Wikieditor19920: This is my review, I'm putting this on hold for a week. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the in-depth review. I'll get to working on the above-noted issues this week. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Closing as fail: no edits or comments for over a week, though the nominator had time to get into arguments on related pages... Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2020 (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.

More recent sources for "liberal" in the lede?

There are three sources in the lede for the term "liberal", all older than ten years. We need a more recent source, especially given that he has spent a year or so defending Trump on a daily basis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's liberal in the original economic sense - in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term. "Civil libertarians" are not "liberal" in the US-specific "progressive" sense, but they absolutely are in the general sense. Trump himself is a liberal, though very obviously not a progressive. There is no need to change anything. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
He still considers himself a Liberal. But feel free to find those sources to add. We wouldn't want anyone using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to try claiming in this article that he's now a Conservative. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Does he defend Trump or does he merely defend the legality of what Trump is doing? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've seen him do both. As well as defend Trump supporters. But it really doesn't matter. Doing so doesn't mean he's "defected" from being a Liberal, it just means he's a critical thinker who thinks logically, legally, and independently. In other words: he's not a lemming and is not afraid to be honest and open about it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Two of the sources actually do not say anything about his liberalism, and the third source is a dead link. I suspect whoever added them in the past suspected no one would follow up—there's literally nothing to lend credibility to the description of him as a "self-described liberal". I suggest all three be removed and a "citation needed" tag be applied, if not an outright edit removing the claim. GavinMcGimpsey (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, which does not use the word "liberal" in reference to Dershowitz at all. Looking for it, all I find is "Dershowitz has received some criticism from liberals and praise from conservatives for his defenses of President Donald Trump". The statement does not belong in the lede, and I see Snooganssnoogans has removed it. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC).
This needs to be put back. There was no consensus to remove self-described liberal. Here is a source I found in 1 minute of searching https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/03/alan-dershowitz-says-friends-on-marthas-vineyard-are-shunning-him-for-defending-trump/?utm_term=.5356b78a719f 73.32.32.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans please revert your edit, here is the quote from the article "The Harvard law professor and attorney who defended O.J. Simpson says that he is a lifelong liberal but a hard-liner on civil liberties and that he's not about to flip his views just because of attempts to ostracize him." 73.32.32.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

First Wife Section in Family Life

Seems (to me) worth mentioning in this article that his first wife committed suicide, jumping off of the Brooklyn Bridge, after Dershowitz was awarded full custody of their children in a bitter divorce battle. For reference, the "Alan Dershowitz, Devil's Advocate" New Yorker article details this.

Agreed! The current version seems so vague as to be misleading.

I have added an additional sentence on this using the New Yorker reference. Her suicide was several years after the divorce, so I did not include that, as there is not a clear connection to Dershowitz / this article.Dialectric (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Better, but it seems to me that the suicide of one's ex-wife would be a relevant biographical detail for most people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.48.117 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicide should be included - crucial, substantial information left out. Given the lengths as to which the subject of this BLP will go to, it would be no surprise if there are confirmed Editor (if not admin accounts) that are used towards this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.32.65 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Add ISBN for new book

Please add 9781510757530 as the ISBN for his latest book, Guilt by Accusation[1] under the Works section

Doghouse09 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to add the following to the “Trump impeachment” section.


In defense of President Trump, Dershowitz asserted that, “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." MrMDog 01:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmdog (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Guilt-by-Accusation/Alan-Dershowitz/9781510757530

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Alan Dershowitz is not a constitutional scholar. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/alan-dershowitz-impeachment.html One can also view his list of books. I wonder if he wrote that he is a constitutional scholar to give himself credentials he actually does not have. 65.78.27.142 (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Take it up with the Washington Post and the LA Times, both of which are cited in the lead in support of the "scholar" statements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

The first sentence states that he is a "scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law." Strike "constitutional law" because he is not widely seen as an expert in constitutional law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/alan-dershowitz-impeachment.html ("Mr. Dershowitz is an expert on civil liberties and criminal law and procedure, not constitutional law generally.")Liubpy (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Liubpy (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Again, take it up with the Washington Post, which is cited in the lead. In their article, Dershowitz is described as one of "A dozen of the country's most respected constitutional scholars". Feel free to begin a discussion that provides wording that balances the two sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

THE URL FOR MR DERSHOWITZ'S WEBSITE IS SHOWN AS www.alandershowitz.com IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO www.alan-dershowitz.com

THAT IS: PLEASE CHANGE www.alandershowitz.com TO www.alan-dershowitz.com 2604:B2C0:1718:D600:387A:D97A:B4CE:F5CF (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction made. Thanks for the suggestion.--agr (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Content on evaluation of plagiarism

Valjean, in this edit [5] you have reverted to add WP:SELFPUB content to a WP:BLP. You cited WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the justification for inclusion of content, but PUBLICFIGURE does not relax sourcing requirements, it only allows for controversial content to be included IFF it is properly sourced. The content you are seeking to add is an essay written by an attorney promoting his book and listed on a blog website that published user generated content. How does this become an RS in your opinion? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch is not a blog website, it is a magazine with editorial oversight. Articles in a magazine, including opinion articles, are not self-published sources. The epilogue to Finkelstein's book, which contains a much longer (32 page) version of this essay, is not self-published either — it is published by the University of California Press. Zerotalk 09:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf kindly informed us of this RSN discussion (not). Zerotalk 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not a blog and the content is not self-published. Per WP:RS/P, CounterPunch is "a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed." I did not mention PUBLICFIGURE as a reason, but only mentioned it to show that extremely negative content, much more than what's under discussion, is allowed here with the proper sourcing requirements. This is just a slightly negative comment, and trying to keep this long-standing content out using specious arguments that ignore policies isn't right. -- Valjean (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please explain why this author is WP:DUE to be included in this WP:BLP?.--Shrike (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a blog. The author is clearly notable and this article was cited in many books and studies. (e.g [6][7])--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
What make him notable? --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Most BLPs of public figures contain attributed criticism. This article is notable for how little it contains, despite the subject's highly controversial and exceptionally combative nature. More should be added, not less. On this particular topic, NPOV also requires some counter to the claim that the plagiarism allegation has been disproved. There is no requirement that the author of a source must be notable, though some amount of qualification is expected (a law degree and a PhD in this case is plenty). Zerotalk 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He has a law degree from UCLA School of Law and he is a judge in the California superior court.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Shrike, even if he wasn't notable, the author does not have to be notable, so this is a red herring (which doesn't even apply in this case). Notability is a requirement for article creation. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
That's false. WP:DUE applies and in this case undue weight is applied because someone is a UCLA grad and a judge, as an editor laughably argues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This thread was started with a post that contained inaccurate factual claims and a misunderstanding of relevant policy. I don't think it should be necessary to have an extended discussion here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised that our policies aren't understood better by an editor who has been here so long. The edit summary here was especially bizarre, as it's totally wrong: "not WP:RS for WP:BLP. we dont include opinions, that is obvious from POV perspective." That last "from POV perspective" is really puzzling. Why should the POV of the author be an issue? If they didn't have a POV on the subject, we wouldn't even use them as a source. Think about that. We are supposed to use content from RS, including content from biased sources with clear POV. -- Valjean (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:NPA applies to your critique. The thread is starting by me discussing a non-noteworthy person promoting his personal opinion/book, signing his personal email address, published by a dubious political blog website (already listed as a dubious source per perennial sources). Hard to believe there is so much discussion here of this. Amazing how these AP2 battles get so far off kilter. In a BLP we err on the side of neutrality, despite whatever nonsense you may have written in your essay. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Disagreeing with your understanding of policy is not a personal attack; it is a type of discussion we are supposed to have. What I'd like to know is why you keep repeating that this a blog website when it isn't. Next, your statement "we err on the side of neutrality" is correct, but your version is essentially "he was accused and the accusation was found to be false". Taking sides in an argument is the opposite of neutrality. Zerotalk 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Found to be false by who, an author who writes a blog post? Nah, that is WP:UNDUE. You are advocating a NPOV goal to add the personal opinions of a non-notable person's e. I understand that notability applies to article creation, but the same principal also applies to content inclusion in general per WP:DUE as a number of other editors are pointing out here. If a donkey says hee-haw and someone on youtube takes a video of it, that doesnt mean we include it on wikipedia, per UNDUE, even if the donkey is very handsome from the editors POV and the editor has done extensive WP:OR to determine the donkey is very smart and has a degree from UCLA and maybe his university's free press department published his book on donkey grooming. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Which only goes to show that if you don't read what I write then your reply won't make any sense. Incidentally, your nonsense words "blog text" and "free press department" show that you are out of your depth. Zerotalk 06:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For opinion to be included, the person holding the opinion does not need to be notable, but the principle of due weight means that opinion included needs to be noteworthy. A huge number of opinion pieces exist that could be cited here, so attention needs to be paid to what makes this particular opinion noteworthy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." CounterPunch is a pretty fringe source, so it's hard to see what the argument is for this obscure lawyer to be mentioned. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Reasons: (1) This is the only opinion in support of Finkelstein that is reported, though many could be reported. One opinion from someone obviously qualified to make it is not undue, but required for balance. (2) The nature of CounterPunch is the least of the issues here, since I have the long version of Menetrez' response published by the University of California Press and could easily cite directly from there. Actually Menetrez doesn't just propose that the accusation wasn't properly investigated (what we cite to him now), but that he investigated the accusation himself and considers that it is true. I'm wondering why that isn't reported. Zerotalk 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Since nobody else cares, it makes this DUE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump content

@Soibangla: Is that the famous Soi Bangla? I have reverted your edit [8] that adds Medium.com content (not an WP:RS, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), as well as the content violates WP:LONGQUOTE which I had summarized and toned down. Seems you have also been engaged on related content added by DougHill (talk · contribs) here [9] as well. This is a WP:BLP page and doesn't need excessive focus on the trump impeachment, there is a whole another article for that. This article is not a venue for micro-analysis of Dershowitz's legal opinions, whether they are right or wrong. Please discuss here and find consensus before re-adding it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the scholar letter from Medium supplements the NYT source that states in sentence one "Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense" that supports the edit statement "The Trump legal team reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars." This topic regards a major constitutional issue about which a prominent constitutional scholar made extensive, unequivocal, decisive and emphatic remarks which he has now completely reversed, so the full context of this episode is justified here. Anything less is a whitewash. 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)soibangla (talk)
No Medium content on this BLP, per policy. Please review the perennial sources link above. If no RS cares, it for sure doesnt belong here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, let's replace it with this and this. Good to go now? soibangla (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Do either of these sources mention Dershowitz? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, They don't need to. They show that scholars roundly reject Dershowitz's current position, and support his prior position which he so emphatically made clear. But we can add this and this if you'd like. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This content is already in the article in summarized form. What is it you are trying to add? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, I'm not trying to add anything. Others are trying to subtract. For no good reason. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
That should be a sign that the content might not belong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf DougHill Or it could be a sign of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dershowitz has been the go-to guy on television for decades whenever a constitutional issue arises, millions of Americans consider him to be the expert on the Constitution, and for decades he has trained hundreds of other top constitutional/criminal law experts at the nation's historically most prominent law school. The Trump case is the culmination and capstone of his long career, this is as big as it will ever get for him, and only after video surfaces his views of 22 years ago, which he has not since walked-back a single inch, he suddenly pulls an epic 180 to retract his extensive, unequivocal, decisive and emphatic remarks. This is a momentous episode in his career, likely to be mentioned early in his obituary, and it deserves a solid paragraph in his BLP, as well as a mention in the lead. This is a BFD for his BLP. soibangla (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The content is already summarized in the article. You are pushing to change the summary to WP:LONGQUOTE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The content is already summarized in the article. The original content was unduly eviscerated. In this particular case, a significant excerpt of his statements is warranted, especially his reference to "we look at how they conduct the foreign policy," which cuts to the heart of the impeachment he is now involved in, and perhaps it should be prominently displayed as a blockquote. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla:, reverted another addition [10] of single sourced 'controversy' violating WP:LONGQUOTE and weight issues on this BLP. Similar to your POV edits discussed above in this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the edit contains no POV whatsoever, it is fully balanced, it does not violate LONGQUOTE, and I again recommend you refrain from casting aspersions upon me lest I seek administrative remedies. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: you continue POV pushing on the article. I have again reverted here [11]. No reason for Adam Schiff's quotes on this article. Your edits have been seeking to politicize this BLP. Third time you have been seeking to add WP:LONGQUOTE to this BLP regarding various POV's. These POVs are better covered on the other AP2 articles that are not BLP regulated. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf: You just made an edit you described in your edit summary as "cleanup," when in fact you removed the characterization of Dershowizz's comment, but you left behind his rebuttal to the characterization, thereby creating a non sequitur that mangles the paragraph. You removed the content that shows why his statement stirred controversy, which is the whole point of the paragraph, supported by multiple reliable sources. I am not pushing POV, you are impugning my integrity by repeatedly casting aspersions upon me and I am on the brink of seeking administrative action against you. soibangla (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is not a venue for mundane legal arguments and rebuttals. You can refer to WP:BLP rules if you are confused. Lawyers make arguments, thats what they do. Obviously wikipedia is not a storehouse for every nonsense that comes out of a lawyers mouth, and even more so the opposing lawyer's response to it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf: These are major statements he is making during the biggest case of his career, consequently they are highly relevant to his BLP. Your stated basis of "cleanup" for removal of content accomplished the exact opposite, and despite having this plainly and clearly explained to you this twice, you chose to escalate an edit war. And here you are falsely accusing me of impropriety. Unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that show that this is the biggest case of his career? Or just your WP:OR? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf: You removed vital content from the paragraph that resulted in it being a mangled non sequitur, then impugn my motives. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so surreal. soibangla (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess it is not the biggest case of his career, since you have no retort for that. I dont care about your motives, at wikipedia we dont discuss other editors, we focus on the content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
at wikipedia we dont discuss other editors, says Jtbobwaysf after repeatedly impugning my integrity and motives over multiple days. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
See WP:APR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf: Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Cease the WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is not appropriate, nor is WP:BATTLEGROUNDing with editors who disagree. Kudos to Jtbobwaysf for staying calm. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unacceptable caption

The caption under the image of Finkelstein said "unproven accusation of plagiarism". Since the charge has never been judged by a court, it would be equally true to call it an "undisproved accusation of plagiarism". Therefore the word "unproven" amounts to a commentary and I'm changing it to just "accusation of plagiarism" which doesn't express a judgement about it. Zerotalk 08:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not a crime and does not normally get adjudicated by a court of law. In academic settings, such charges are normally investigated by the institution where the accused works or studies. That happened in this case and Harvard determined that no plagiarism occurred. I've clarified the caption, but including a picture of someone who made an unfounded charge seems like undue weight. I'm inclined to move the picture to the article about the controversy between them.--agr (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Plagiarism is regularly prosecuted as fraud or copyright violation, and charges of plagiarism are often prosecuted as libel. So that much is incorrect. The new caption is factually incorrect as the alleged investigation by one person, albeit the president, is not the same as an investigation by the university. Investigation of academic (faculty) misconduct by universities involves appointment of a committee that includes subject experts. I'll stop complaining if "investigation by Harvard" (which is false) is replaced by "investigation by the president of Harvard" (which is true). Deleting the image as suggested is also ok. Zerotalk 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this GA review has already closed as unsuccessful, I'm going to move this section to the talk page and hat the review so no further edits are made to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. @Zero0000: As this reference [12] points out, the sort of plagiarism at issue here is unlikely to be criminally prosecuted. I would have no problem adding the President of Harvard to the caption, but since you don't object, I think the best solution is to remove the photo from this article, which I will do.--agr (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not notable and the photo doesnt add anything to the article. Just delete the photo. Also deleted the opinion quote in this section, doesnt belong here and violates sourcing rules relating to BP:BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If "we dont include opinions" was true about BLPs (which it isn't), you would have deleted Bok's opinion too. Zerotalk 00:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I have restored the quote with an edit summary that explains policy. The author of the quote need not be notable, and we do include opinions and attribute them. There is no "sourcing rule" that forbids opinion sources for BLPs, none at all, not even a shadow of one. On the contrary.
I have written an essay about NPOV and how to deal with biased sources and content: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zero0000: The accusations were unproven, and BLP requires this notation. BLP applies to any reputationally damaging information, not just criminal convictions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
"Accusation" does not imply "true accusation" by virtue of the English language. Qualifying it as "unproved accusation" adds an editorial comment to it. We are supposed to report facts (in this case, that there was an accusation) without adding our commentary. Zerotalk 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Dershowitz/Archive_5&oldid=1136504744"