Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 2

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

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

message: Other sources for information: www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?Spea_ID=90 and www.israelnewsagency.com/israeljewsracismdersh130112.html — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 07:18
*Another source with a large amount of information, that could at least be used for background, is the archives of The Harvard Crimson: www.thecrimson.com/archives.aspx?SearchTerms=&SortField=0&PageSize=10&News=1&Opinion=2&Sports=3&Magazine=5&Arts=4. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sources

message: Do we know who made this legally worded threat? If this is what prompted the article rewrite, it is somewhat frightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtdirl&diff=prev&oldid=30260859 Tfine80 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked  indefinitely until he settles whatever dispute led to those legal threats. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: The address 140.247.201.190 reverse-resolves to the hostname "roam201-190.student.harvard.edu". I believe the "student.harvard.edu" part of the hostname indicates that editor is unlikely to be Alan Dershowitz himself. Though by now it's likely someone has told him about the article. -Seth Finkelstein 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but 140.247.219.31 resolves directly to Dershowitz. Anyone who has received an email from Dershowitz in the past will be able to tell you that. 140.247.219.31 is responsible for the two blankings above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29842720&oldid=29838673  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29843782&oldid=29842802- Xed 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the page should be unprotected. I disagree that there's any evidence that this nonsense originated from Dershowitz himself. For one thing, I'm guessing that Dershowitz knows proper spelling and grammar, unlike the anon legal threatener mentioned above. More likely, it's a student or fan attempting to kiss up to him. Firebug 18:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with you that we should not let ourselves be bullied around. Part of that is not giving the bullies and vandals any leverage. You're currently not helping: you cannot presume that the Harvard anon was Dershowitz; it's conceivable, but not even all that likely IMHO. Speculation may be Ok (though not very helpful), but asserting that the anon was "most likely" Dershowitz himself is positively unhelpful. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is equally probable that it was an eager research assistant of his or another Harvard fan of Dershowitz's. They might have then complained to Dershowitz, leading to him sending the letter. However, if Dershowitz himself made the legal threat posted on a user's talk page, I think this is very, very serious and a chilling sign for Wikipedia. Looking at the old version, it is not defamation that is the problem, but what Wikipedia users considered the most notable aspects of his biography. While Wikipedia is sometimes idiosyncratic, this has cultural origins and should not be a reason to exclude these elements. In fact, they are what make Wikipedia unique and valued. I hope they will be returned in a NPOV manner. Tfine80 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede that it might be Mitch Webber, his assistant. But the effect is the same. A legal threat in typical Dershowitz language posted on Wikipedia, followed by a real legal threat to Jimbo via email " this could not conceivably be coincidence. Jimbo should reveal the email which resulted in this strange state of affairs. And he should check if the IP in the email is the same as the anons. - Xed 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to check ips, we are not talking about vandalism here but a complaint. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about vandalism. FakeName has been banned as a vandal. - Xed 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably no connection, but this faintly reminds me of RGluckman, see also Talk:Harvard University, who kept removing the Harvard Veritas shield from the Harvard article and kept implying without ever stating that was connected with Harvard, e.g "Please contact the Office of General Counsel, Harvard University, if you wish to apply for permission to use the Harvard logo. If you already have explicit consent from the Counsel, please state this in your article." BTW I find it believe Alan Dershowitz would be reluctant to use his own name. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Thank you all for finally making this talk page longer than the article itself. It is clear now that Wikipedia is a message board first, a community second, and an encyclopedia third. Now, if only this ordering could be brought back to what it once was, then maybe some work could get done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 19:43
:The only reason this talk page is longer than the article is because of the misguided decision to blank, and then protect, the article. Mark Sweep says: "Just propose changes on the talk page." Well, I've asked twice that Dershowitz's advocacy of legalizing torture in certain specific situations, and the resulting controversy, be included (and I cited two mainstream media sources, one of which was an interview with Dershowitz) but that hasn't happened. Firebug 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Write up a proposed, neutral addition, thoroughly sourced, and I see no reason not to add it. The key part, though, is for it to be neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:50
The talk page of any truly high-quality article should be longer than the article itself, from the extensive discussion about what material to include, how to ensure that all important aspects are covered, verification of the contents, negotiation about how to appropriately represent different points of view, building of consensus over disputed points, etc. In all likelihood, there would be enough discussion that we'd already have archived it a time or two. Perhaps we should make this a requirement for featured article status. --Michael Snow 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: One point about the article that I'd like to make is one I tend to make about biographical articles generally: it contains a section of selective quotes that are not tied together by any encyclopedic writing.  Of  its nature, any section of such quotes is difficult or impossible to check for neutrality.  People come along and add a quote, but the selection of the quote and its placement say as much about the selector as about the subject.  Think George W Bush: "Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we"; Bill Clinton: "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."  Both of those quotes could be used, appropriately, in an article about the two most recent Presidents.  Neither would really be much use if just placed unadorned in the text.
As an encyclopedia we don't just pick and choose words from those that a person has said and plonk them down into an article, instead we write about those words that are considered significant--not by us but by named commentators, pundits, biographers, and whatnot, and cited in a particular context.  And in doing so we should write why those particular words are considered important, and by whom. We should, in a sense, quote the quoters.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: The article has improved, but activity seems to be petering out given the limited pool of available editors. Perhaps it's time to reopen it to the wider community again? I trust quite a few people will continue to monitor it to prevent inappropriate changes. --Michael Snow 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, and it being long after the page was protected, I've unprotected it. -Splashtalk 02:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: Jimbo, Can you confirm that the "very strong complaint" you received was from Alan Dershowitz or his staff? - Xed 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may deserve it's own entry - just like John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dershowitz legal threat 

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

message: I've removed Patricia Hearst and Penthouse from the list of clients, as I'm unable to confirm these right now. If somebody can identify the case in which he represented these, they can be reinserted. He's published in Penthouse, certainly, but has he represented them? --Michael Snow 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following site (from the external links section) contains a longish list of clients, including Penthouse: www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?spea_id=90. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen that now, and I'm still dubious. The site is an agency that handles speaking appearances, and Penthouse might have been included based on their usual meaning of "clients", which could include his regular writing engagements rather than legal representation, which is the meaning we want here. Given that Dershowitz has written for Penthouse, under some circumstances it might even be a conflict of interest for him to represent the magazine as a lawyer. I'm not saying that it is, but I would want information about what case he represented Penthouse in before including it in a list of clients here. On Patricia Hearst, I'll take the evidence provided as good. --Michael Snow 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clients 

message: Dershowitz, or one of his minions at Harvard, has started editing the article anonymously again. - Xed 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean those edits pertaining to torture? They don't seem very extensive or problematic to me, but I may not know enough to judge. Everyking 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Xed, why not email him, or assistant Mitch Webber? (I'd suggest trying Webber first, since the student part of the hostname makes it more likely that he's the editor). That might clear up some of the conflict. Just a suggestion. Seth Finkelstein 17:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: * User:140.247.219.49
* User:140.247.238.185
* User:140.247.201.190
* User:FakeName
* User:140.247.219.31
The last one is likely to be Dershowitz himself, as confirmed from the Originating-IP from the header of various emails from Dershowitz sent to several different people.
 (Received: from WAGNERHA518DELL.law.harvard.edu (roam219-31.law.harvard.edu 140.247.219.31)
: -> Xed, regarding the IP's, my guess is that it's the same person, not Dershowitz, at different locations. Matching the IP's doesn't prove it's him because that assumes it's a machine he and only he ever uses (i.e., both he and various assistants may use the machine). Now, I wouldn't stake my life on it not not being him. But I think you'd need some strong evidence to rule out a much more likely candidate of a research assistant. By the way, I don't think the person is reading this page. Again, what's wrong with just emailing Mitch Webber and asking? (I don't want to do it myself, since I've been very critical of Dershowitz's torture-related arguments, so I'd rather not get involved in anything which even sounds accusatory, even if it's in fact the exact opposite - too much potential for misunderstanding). Seth Finkelstein 18:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For similar reasons, I won't email Webber myself. There are several other people forensically investigating the issue who have greater technical knowledge than I. And I'm happy to leave them to it. Personally, I have enough definitive proof to know that several occasions of vandalism have come directly from the computer that Dershowitz uses to send his emails. To me, that suggests that it's Dershowitz. I think Harvard, or Dershowitz, can afford to give people their own computers. - Xed 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Harvard vandals

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=30295173&oldid=30263136 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30257445&oldid=30048352 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29842720&oldid=29838673  
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Dershowitz%2Fold&diff=29843782&oldid=29842802
-Xed 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of vandalism from Harvard vandals

message: I just removed a number of names that had been added to the client list, including John Lennon, 2 Live Crew, Benjamin Spock, and William Shockley. I can't easily figure out in what way these have ever been Dershowitz's clients. They're not even on the fairly lengthy list from his lecture agency, the precision of which I've already cast doubt on above. Under these circumstances, I'm going to insist that people be able to provide information to support claims that X has been a client of Dershowitz, preferably by indicating the specific case involved.
Also, keep in mind that when speaking of an attorney, the word client refers to a relationship in which the attorney represents that party in some matter. Speaking and writing engagements from an organization do not make it a client in this sense. Nor does debating an issue publicly convert the side Dershowitz might take into his client. --Michael Snow 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client list again 

message: Can someone confirm whether I've gone crazy or the wiki has? I'm seeing references for the "debate" with Chomsky, but no debate with Chomsky.James James 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the most recent one I'm aware of: iopforum.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/fr112905israel.rm.  Though I don't know if that's the debate you're looking for.  They have debated numerous times.  noosphere 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky 

message: The merge request with Alan Dershowitz/temp has been active since February 8. If someone who is active in editing this article, or the editors of this article could decide whether there is anything worth merging or discuss the merits of the temporary article and go with that. This merge requests should be dealt with promptly and the temp article should be deleted following a decision. Pepsidrinka 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's scarcely any point editing this article. It's been Jimboed.Grace Note 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure what you mean. Nonetheless, should I just go ahead and have the article speedy deleted? Pepsidrinka 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: I just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=45300128&oldid=45297984 cut the following addition from :
In March 2006, Dershowitz appeared on the Joe Scarborough show, Scarborough Country to discuss the matter of the recent affair regarding a professor's research paper on Israeli influence in American politics. On the show, Dershowitz made numerous false claims that put him under fire, such as claiming the the research paper lifted material directly from "neo-nazi websites" and "radical islamic websites", claims he has not backed up. Critics also cited numerous unprofessional behavior in the directing of the show, such as the talk show talking over guest speaker David Duke while pausing to give Dershowitz extra time to speak. There were also criticisms that the show seem staged and the lines rehearsed beforehand. www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=A842CC7D-F9D1-4B1B-AE76-5&action=10
I suggest that the above needs a lot more verifiability than simply a link to a video hosting site.  Jkelly 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the above to be put in, I think three things need to be identified:
# Are the "false claims" actually false? Given that this cannot have happened more than a few weeks ago, has it been firmly established that Dershowitz's claims are false? Has Dershowitz had a right of reply?
# Who are these "critics" of the show? Where does it verifiably say that the show was badly directed? Do the claims about Duke matter to the story - if there is one - about Dershowitz? Is there any evidence for the "staged" claim? Has it been published by any verifiable source?
# (Perhaps most importantly) Is the incident itself important enough to warrant a paragraph in the Dershowitz article? Dershowitz is a prominent public academic, and appears in the media dozens if not hundreds of times a year. His views, as are stated in the article, are controversial, and he is regularly attacked by his (many) critics. Without this page becoming either a flame war, or too long, I think we need to differentiate between his major, long-running disputes (particularly with Chomsky and, lately, Finkelstein; although the two are very closely related) and small, minor, will-be-forgotten-within-a-few-months disputes over supposed, unverifiable claims made by unnamed "critics", which should not be included Batmanand | Talk 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on "Israeli influence paper" - discussion needed 

message: [[User:Lokifer] added in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=47622470&oldid=47412470:
"For several years, Dershowitz has written a monthly column in the pages of Penthouse (magazine)."
It is unsupported as is and it just doesn't seem to fit with Dershowitz character thus I have moved it here until someone does find a reference for it.  --64.230.121.230 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be fairly conclusive (although it really doesn't seem like Dershowitz; oh well. Rich tapestries and all that). Is there any chance of an offical source from Penthouse itself (like a copy of one of his articles?) that would "seal the deal"? Batmanand | Talk 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to get some free porn from me? Well, here's a link to an article he wrote in 2004 for Penthouse.www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Articles/videotapes.html The source shouldn't be questionable to anyone since it comes from his Harvard webpage. I wish I could narrow down the time period for Dershowitz's contribution to the magazine, but I've been unable to establish when he started writing for Penthouse or if he's even still writing (does anyone have a current issue?). I'm guessing that he began writing for Penthouse shortly after he represented the people responisble for Deep Throat in the 1970s, but can't confirm that.Lokifer 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. Now we can have an argument about whether or not this is notable enough to be included in the article lol... Batmanand | Talk 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs in the article.  I also think it was fair to question the veracity of this information when it was originally added without support.  --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penthouse contributor?

message: I re-wrote this section, making a number of changes:
:1. Dropped D's accusation that F's mother was a concentration camp Kapo.  This is trivial: it is mentioned neither in Norman Finkelstein nor Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair.
:2. Added F's charge that D did not write The Case for Israel.  
:3. Added F's charge that D ignored human rights group findings.
:4. Added D's defense that Harvard exonerated him.  I'm shocked this wasn't included.
:5. Added D's defense that citing Peters' references is good scholarly practice.
:6. Sentence about D's legal threats and their impact.
Overall, I tried to use language from Norman Finkelstein, and to give D & F the same amount of text.Ragout 03:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The debate with Finkelstein 

message: N.B.: Xed is a "banned Wikipedia editor" (see category of "banned Wikipedia editors" for more info.) --NYScholar 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merecat, thank you for posting these. I've deleted them because these were some of the edits that I believe were deleted after a formal complaint, and I'm not familiar with what was decided, except that they're not currently on the page. I therefore want to check the situation with one of the editors who was involved back then. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't restore the material until then, either here or in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since an intervention was previously necessary on this article, everything in it needs to be backed up by a reputable source. Anyone wanting to add to the article is welcome to find such sources, but other people are not obligated to do that work for them. In the meantime, copy-and-paste additions of content that is unsourced, not integrated into the structure of the article, and frequently duplicates content already there, should continue to be removed. I'm not saying the present article is any great shakes, but "contributions" like that don't help the situation either. --Michael Snow 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine that edits like "He successfully defended Claus von Bülow in 1984 on a charge of attempting to murder his wife with an injection of insulin, a case dramatized in the film Reversal of Fortune (1990) starring Glenn Close, Jeremy Irons, and Ron Silver as Dershowitz." are pretty uncontroversial, but ones like "Dershowitz worked on the legal defense team of boxer Mike Tyson, who was convicted of rape in 1992. He was also a member of the legal defense team ("Dream Team") for O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted in 1995 of double homicide despite overwhelming evidence pointing towards guilt." (empahsis added) are more controversial. I would advocate a case-by-case basis form of editing for this most divisive of topics. Batmanand | Talk 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Xed|Xed]]'s  edits 

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

message: I have restored the references to civilian casualties and refugees in Lebanon.  I gather that they were removed in a good-faith effort to avoid POV, but they are crucial context without which this section makes no sense.  The series of articles by Dershowitz discussed in this section do not constitute a general defense of the Israeli campaign but a specific response to the controversies surrounding the civilian toll in Lebanon.
I have also highlighted the shift in Dershowitz's argument from the LA Times piece to the one in the Boston Globe.  In the former, Israel is responsible for some civilian casualties; in the latter, none at all.User:G-Dett 30 July 2006
JKelly has twice deleted material in the section about Dershowitz's essays regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict, citing the NOR policy.  The deleted material is of two kinds: 1) figures regarding civilian casualties in Lebanon, and 2)  a description of the shift in Dershowitz's thinking between two articles, the first which proposes discarding the term "civilians" as "increasingly obsolete," the second which resuscitates the term and employs it as a central concept.  
Will JKelly provide separate explanations for how these (very different) categories of material constitute original research?  The figures in category (1) above, for example, have been reported by every major news organ in the world, are a matter of universal consensus, and are indeed the very subject and occasion of those articles by Dershowitz discussed in this section.  G-Dett
:This is the edit in question.  Please see Wikipedia:No original research; we don't get to come up with our own brand-new analysis such as "several days later, however, Dershowitz shifted course and argued".  We're not qualified to make judgement calls about what constitutes a shift in course, and it is fundamentally not our job to do so.  Further, this article is not the place to describe the current crisis in the following way; "which had killed hundreds of civilians and created 500,000 refugees as part of an effort to weaken or destroy Hezbollah, a militant/political entity whose partial raison d'être is to destroy the State of Israel."  This may or may not be a perfectly good description of the crisis and the actors, but we shouldn't come out and imply that it is important for an understanding of Dershowitz.  Dershowitz is an important legal thinker.  Our biography of him should not resemble a blog post about his views on Israel, and even the current version now has more on his two op-eds on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict than on his career.     Jkelly 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do feel free to edit the article to reflect the distinction between "Israel's campaign" and "media response to civilian deaths from Israel's campaign".  It is an important distinction, and we would best serve our readers by making it concisely and clearly.  By a strict reading of WP:NOR describing that shift in thinking is a problem.  We don't usually read WP:NOR so strictly, but we have higher standards for biographies of living people in a number of ways.  I have been quick on the revert button largely for that reason.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: *"Israel and Palestine After Disengagement: Noam Chomsky debates with Alan Dershowitz," John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, November 29 2005. (RealPlayer video accessible at Harvard IOP Forum; transcript accessible at Chomsky.info.)
That is the information that I provided earlier, which SV reverted, to an earlier version.  This is correct information.  The way it is since she reverted it in wholesale reversion is not as readable and uses incorrect Wikipedia formatting.  The links don't post as well and they are harder to make out what they are.  I provided the exact title of the source.
External links are usually placed last in Wikipedia articles.  This article still needs some major copy-editing; its references are inconsistent in format and not useful.  See the earlier comments that SV reverted (in History).  I have not got time to restore my earlier corrections to problems still in the article now due to the reversions. --NYScholar 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and External links

message: This is what I suggest (incorporating previous changes that I made to the paragraphs, later reverted by SV, with a few later alterations that I suggest as well); the material in the note could be in the text, but I've currently put it in a note for people's information.  I watched the entire O.J. Simpson case in real time or recorded on the same days as the trial, and I recall many times when the media commentators referred to Dershowitz's participation as a member of "The Dream Team" (see the box at bottom of this article).
With the box at the bottom, and the reference to "a number of high-profile legal cases" in the opening paragraph of this article, it seems very odd to me (to say the least) for the second paragraph to mention only the von Bulow case (one case) and to make no mention of the more-recent and far-more "high profile" O.J. Simpson case (another of this "number" of cases), which made Dershowitz far more a household name (due to constant daily and nightly media coverage over a much more-prolonged period of time).  It is also very odd to omit the name of the victim of the murder in the other trial, Sunny von Bülow, which links to an article in Wikipedia offering additional information about that "case."
<<
Alan 'Morton' Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is a lawyer and jurist from the United States. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School, where at the age of 28 he became the youngest full professor in the law school's history, and is now the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law. In addition to his teaching, Dershowitz is a prolific author who makes frequent media and public speaking appearances and has worked on a number of high-profile legal cases.
Dershowitz often comments on Judaism, Israel, civil rights, civil liberties, and the First Amendment and frequently appears in the mainstream media as a consultant relating to such issues and to current events in the Middle East.
As a criminal appellate lawyer Dershowitz successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, in a widely-publicizled trial.  Dershowitz's book on the case, Reversal of Fortune, was adapted by Nicholas Kazan in his screenplay for the 1990 film starring Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close.  Dershowitz became even more of a public figure as a result of his participation as the key appellate specialist on Simpson's defense team, popularly dubbed by the press "The Dream Team," in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial for the murder of Nicole Simpson.Since Simpson was acquitted of all charges in that trial, no defense appeal of that verdict ensued, though Dershowitz provided advice throughout the trial on grounds for possible future appeals should Simpson have been convicted.
>>
The three paragraphs could also be combined into one coherent paragraph (if one deletes the spaces between them.  --NYScholar 21:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraphs

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

message: Dershowitz is hardly a major or particularly well-known (or indeed vocal) supporter of animal rights; indeed, only two sources seem to have been found (and, if I remember rightly, the Rights from Wrongs reference is a passing comment; but I read the book a year ago so that might be wrong). The point is that Dershowitz is a major media pundit and public figure, writing literally hundreds of articles a year, expressing views on pretty much everything. I am just not sure that his views on this subject deserve a section in this article. What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He devotes a chapter to animal rights in that book, not a passing reference. Harvard Law School is a leading institution in the United States in the development of animal rights law, and Dershowitz is involved in that. I think lots of people would be surprised to hear that he'd expressed these views, and therefore the section is worth keeping. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there also be sections on the right to life, separation of church and state or whether the deceased have rights in their bodies and organs, as these are also chapters in Rights from Wrongs? Batmanand | Talk 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he has expressed any unusual or interesting views, views that would surprise people, by all means yes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough (at least there is some consistency...). I will leave the stuff in the article for now.  Good luck with the animal rights sction. Batmanand | Talk 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I reorganized some of the order of the sections a bit more chronologically, so this section is moved closer to where it fits chronologically in the controversies in which D. has become engaged.  Some may begin earlier but they are also ongoing (into 2006), so I've placed those later in the article.  The organization itself may appear to be rather controversial and subject to debate as well.  There is still more work to do for editors to make this article to follow Wikipedia:NPOV.  Diction, emphasis, choice of sources, manner in which quotations and paraphrases of sources are presented, and even structural placement of sections, e.g., often seem not to be as "neutral" as they could be. --NYScholar 22:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Rights 

message: This information (quoted below in the "blockquote"), added by another user, is being moved to the talk page.  It is more "trivia" than part of a biography; it is not "encyclopedic"; it needs reliable sources and to be rewritten somewhat (e.g., "referenced" probably could be "cited" or "alluded to" etc.  Reference is a noun; the use of it as a transitive verb is awkward.  "To reference" is to make reference to, to refer to, to allude to? 
He has been referenced on several occasions in popular entertainment, especially during the O.J. Simpson trial. On television, he has been parodied on Saturday Night Live and mentioned in the episode "Homer: Bad Man" of The Simpsons. 
Suggestion: (Check accuracy of general claim; qualify to match supporting examples?)
Popular television entertainment programs referred to Dershowitz during the O. J. Simpson murder trial; for example, Saturday Night Live parodied him  and the episode Homer: Bad Man of The Simpsons alludes to him in a comic manner.[add supporting quotation(s) in note?]
The link to Homer: Bad Man does lead to information that one can quote in a supporting note at the end of the above sentence; this article needs to cite it specifically.  (Readers shouldn't have to read through another full article to find such support to verify it; this article needs to support the examples given with specific citations.)  More work needed to support the point relating to Saturday Night Live.  It needs support with a reliable source for which episode, when, etc.  Only two examples appear in the claim; the earlier phrasing seems to be a logical fallacy (overgeneralization; generalization from too small a sample).  --NYScholar 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced information

message: Can we say that? Especially in the header. Shouldnt it just be "His defense of Israeli positions..." instead? I dont see what would constitute as aggressive when it comes to this. --Shamir1 09:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Shamir1 has a point; see article changes that attempt to deal w/ comment. --NYScholar 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "His often-aggressive..."

message: The introductory paragraph to Dershowitz's position regarding the Lebanon war has two problems:
1) The first sentence is too long and cumbersome to read. Maybe it should be split into two shorter sentences.
2) The synopse of the run-up to the war is unbalanced, since it mentions the Hezbollah provocations only, and fails to cite the repeated Israeli airspace violations.
Please introduce the necessary changes. 200.117.129.3 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph to Lebanon war long & unbalanced 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Item added by another user; moved to talk page from article; reformatted as well, with embedded editorial note: see BLP tag above for links to W editing policies.  Cannot just put in opinion pieces from student newspapers and blogs.  This is not a news report.  It is a personal opinion by a student? Notability? Reliability of source? W:Reliable sources; WP:BLP.
<<
*Borst-Censullo, Stefan. "Opinion: Why I Ignored the Man from Harvard." The Hoot (The Brandeis Community Newspaper) February 2, 2007.  Accessed February 2, 2007. 
>>
Note: In his 15 minute opening remarks (his "speech"), Jimmy Carter drew a laugh when he wondered whether Brandeis students needed a professor from Harvard to tell them "how to ask questions." (Carter's answer to a student's question as reproduced in the Carter QA blog hosted by Brandeis University--See Ext. links in the article on the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.)  The opinion piece cited by another user (reformatted above in bibliog. format) alludes to that remark. --NYScholar 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability and notability of source? 

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

message: Repeated warning to Anon IP user User:70.162.248.147: cease and desist from this repeated continual obvious vandalism of this section; repeating same changes w/o any explanation, which others revert w/ cause; your repeated change of the heading of this one section and other language in article violates consensus on the article; see: contributions history:
16:24, February 17, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
22:53, February 11, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
02:12, February 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
21:53, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→"Calls to destroy Palestinian villages") 
21:52, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→"Responding to Palestinian Terrorism") 
21:49, February 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz
04:48, February 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
04:42, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (grammar)
04:41, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
04:40, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
04:35, February 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
02:25, January 26, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
19:59, January 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
20:15, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
16:56, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
16:55, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
16:55, January 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
04:52, January 23, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz 
01:57, January 20, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz (→Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid)
01:55, January 20, 2007 (hist) (diff) Alan Dershowitz. --NYScholar 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further heads up: Apparent vandalism; reverted

message: The following removed by user (twice in various forms) is hardly "irrelevant"; earlier consensus discussion deemed it relevant; notable and reliably and verifiably sourced: see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles policies:
Text of the note: preceded and followed by "ref" codes:
In contradistinction to this point of view, see Nathan Lewin, "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green), Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007. Cf. "Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other." The other part of this two-part presentation is "A Stronger Moral Force," by Arthur Green, accessed January 25, 2007. (The journal title Sh'ma is explicated in Shema Yisrael.) In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism," which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's (in Lewin's phrase) "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law."
The source discusses the same topic that Dershowitz is discussing in the article in the section and Lewin cites the article directly in his essay as cited. (previous user did not sign comment: please add user name.)
I do not want to interact further with this other user. I hope that earlier editors who wanted this material cited will consider these issues.  The material from Lewin is not material that I myself originally added to this article (see earlier comments).  --NYScholar 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous discussion in this talk page #House demolitions, #Sources and citations, #Once again: Revision of POV editing, #Heads up: Apparent vandalism, #Further heads up: Apparent vandalism; reverted. --NYScholar 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the user apparently does not perceive that this section is not supposed to present only "criticism" (negative views) of Dershowitz's article; it is supposed to present various POVs on the article as documented in notable, reliable, verifiable sources; in this case, an earlier editor added this source as representing a secondary source POV which appears to believe that Dershowitz's "proposal" is actually too "modest" and that he does not go far enough.  This source is not being added as "criticism" of Dershowitz's article; it is being added to illustrate that there are some sources (in this case, another lawyer), who find Dershowitz's "proposal" less radical than others already cited before and after this point in this section (e.g., Bamford and Finkelstein).  To be rendering this topic (the article) in neutral point of view, one has to present various POVs on it if they exist, and they do.  The note to Lewin's comment illustrates that.  I object to its continual removal by the reversions of the other user.  I will not, however, directly address him as I have had extremely unpleasant encounters with that user in the past and am unwilling to engage directly with that user any further. The objections raised appear to me to misunderstand the source and to be wholly unreasonable in view of Wikipedia guidelines that I have already cited.  (See my presentation of the passage below.)--NYScholar 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You adding this, and having another editor comment on it does not make a consensus. The sources may be discussing  the same topic that Dershowitz is discussing in the article, but they are NOT discussing the Dershowitz article (except as a passing mention. Isarig 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Re: that source: I have seen it before, cited by others, perhaps even in earlier versions of this Wik. article.  The source is: Ami Eden, "Top Lawyer Urges Death for Families of Bomber", Jewish Daily Forward 7 June 2002.  (Appears no longer accessible online at the Forward.com website.  (Cited by a number of online sites, some more reliable than others; others' blogs, message boards, and listserves not citable in an article about Dershowitz, a living person.)  --NYScholar 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewin/Green citation that one user is continually removing by reverting

message: Probably been coved ad nauseum, but why is the Carter section so long? Also one on the references is broken so there is an entire section that is unsourced. Could we/you/I please trim this down? I'll start later, thanks! --Tom 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated reverting of the citations in that above passage are now injecting POV into this article; tagged it due to this interference in the good-faith attempts of editors (including me) to adhere to guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry I am late to the table

message: --NYScholar 03:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated reverting of the citations in that above passage are now injecting POV into this article; tagged it due to this interference in the good-faith attempts of editors (including me) to adhere to guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment