Talk:Alan Dershowitz

Temporary protection

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

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

This is just about unprecedented. "A very strong complaint" - I think we can guess who that is. Jimmy Wales has now pared back the article to show almost nothing, just D's works. What I think has happened is that Dershowitz has taken note over the controversy over the John Seigenthaler Sr article, and Dershowitz has realised that this gives him an opportunity to pressure Wikipedia into removing critical and unflattering info on him on Wikipedia. Over the last few weeks several anonymous users have slowly been removing any info which is critical to Dershowitz. It would be interesting to know where those IPs are coming from. - Xed 00:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Checking some of the IPs reveals Harvard University. It's clear that someone at Harvard, probably Dershowitz, has been removing unflattering information about Dershowitz. A bit of an own goal. - Xed 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This edit is typical of the Harvard vandal. Everything unflattering removed. - Xed 01:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody should add back all the stuff that looks OK but keep that in HTML comments until it is sourced. --mav 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, everything that's currently there checks out. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is disturbing that admins have now been granted the right to decide what truth is. The page should be immediately unprotected. Any anonymous vandals (including Dershowitz himself) should simply be banned.

I agree with Mark, though I suspect that A.D. has better things to do than "vandalize" his own wikipedia entry. Jonshea 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure he does. I wish he would. However, 4 of the contributors (3 with no usernames) who vandalised the article have been traced to Harvard. The only one with a username (User:FakeName) has been banned for vandalism, which no doubt made Dershowitz desperate, and he complained to Wales. - Xed 13:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Dershowitz might not have better things to do than keep track of the Wikipedia entry. After all, if you type the words Alan Dershowitz into Google, this entry is the third link, after his own staff page and a CNN article on his views of torture. If the third link of your name was a problematic entry that touts itself as being part of an encyclopedia, you'd probably set aside a couple minutes to muck around. -- Guy

We now have a lie inserted in the text. It says "He is noted for defending the right of free speech even where that speech is contrary to his personal beliefs, as in his 1977 case where he argued for the American Nazi Party's right to free expression in Illinois." He argues for free speech only when it suits him. He vilified Noam Chomsky for defending a Holocaust denier's rights. [1] — Chameleon 05:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A belief in free speech doesn't rule out criticizing someone else's views. Firebug 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Was that disingenuous or do you actually have no idea? — Chameleon 09:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon, am I confused or are you vilifying Firebug for defending Alan Dershowitz's rights? Jonshea 13:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are confused. — Chameleon 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The form of protection being used here is a very, very bad idea, and fundamentally un-wiki. If this is to be used in this article, what stops it from being used in any other controversial article? Soon we will have a wiki where only admins can edit any controversial article. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but this will make it the most important thing on Wikipedia. A big mistake. Firebug 05:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. It may just be an experiment, but it's not a good experiment. Furthermore, I think there needs to be a standard procedure for dealing with such complaints in the community. An example procedure would be this:

1) Someone complains to the Board or to Jimbo that a Wikipedia article is libelous.

2) A standard letter will be sent back, noting that the complaint is being examined, and asking for permission to publish it.

3) The article is replaced with a template similar to Template:Copyvio, which states that a complaint has been expressed that it contains libelous information. It links to the most recent revision, and encourages Wikipedians to check the facts and rewrite the article at [[{{PAGENAME}}/Libel check}]]. The article page is protected.

4) A template is added to the top of [[{{PAGENAME}}/Libel check}}]]. It says something like: "The Wikimedia Foundation has been informed that revision A of the article B may be libelous. Please only restore information from that revision here after it has been discussed and verified on the discussion page. Once the check is completed, the main article can be replaced with the newly edited version."

The wiki process can then take its course. By letting the rewrite take place on a subpage of the main article, we make it clear to the complainant that we take their concerns seriously. Visitors from Google will no longer be directly presented with the offending revision. In fact, it will only be in the version history.

There may be cases where it is advisable to immediately delete an offending revision because it is obviously libelous. To be able to deal with such cases, it may be advisable to create a formal "libel team" that can perform steps 2-4, or take more drastic action if necessary. This could be done by means of a mailing list.

The approach of "Jimbo blanks article, and admins rewrite it" is simply not scalable and too prone to be abused by anyone who doesn't like their bio in Wikipedia. There needs to be a wiki process to deal with these complaints.--Eloquence* 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

   Then you might as well do away with Wikipedia completely. Firebug 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Did you read any of this? We can't contribute to this article. Only admins can. - Xed 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure you can. Just post your suggestions here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not sufficient. Dershowitz has been banned as a vandal. Wikipedia should not be dictated to by vandals. - Xed 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We have no evidence that Dershowitz has edited this article himself or instructed others to edit it on his behalf. For all I know, the anons from harvard.edu could have been one or more students, colleagues, etc., and the potential motives are even more diverse, ranging from an intention to portray Dershowitz in a good light to trying to discredit him and paint him as a hypocrite (as in, "first amendment lawyer tries to censor free speech"). It's this kind of unfounded allegations that's highly problematic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I find suspicoius the timing of FakeName's "notice" to Jtdirl and the "strong complaint" received by Jimbo. It is IMO reasonable to assume that FakeName and Jimbo's complainant are the same person, and since Jimbo obviously took the complaint seriously, it is reasonable to assume that the complainant is either Dershowitz or someone acting on his behalf. TacoDeposit 17:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't know A.D. personally, but I'm rather skeptical that he's concerned with patrolling his wikipedia page. Second, FakeName is _not_ a vandal. The Wikipedia Vandalism policy explicitly exempts "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered" from being vandalism. FakeName, it seems, cut and paste Dersh's bio from his own home page. Clearly that wasn't the right thing to do, but it isn't a wholly unreasonable course of action. User:Jtdirl's accusation of vandalism and subsequent banning of FakeName strikes me as inappropriate, and I think he or she should be unblocked.

The bio that FakeName posted was no more biased than the horrendously anti-Dersh article it replaced. It's amazing how similar the situation on his page was to the Seigenthaler page. Seigenthaler's page said only that 'it was thought he was involved in the Kennedy assassinations'. AD's page devoted considerable space to baseless accusations of plagiarism (and seems to be headed in this direction again). And just like Seigenthaler's page, efforts to correct or remove the false accusation were met with slander and vandalism.

Finkelstein's accusations are _nothings_ on Dershowitz record, but they're a cornerstone of Finkelstein's career. That's where they belong. On his page. For those who don't know, Norman Finkelstein noted that Dershowitz cited a few excerpts to their primary source rather than a [source]. At most the Finkelstein accusation should have a link on the Dershowitz page.

It strikes me as unconscionable that this page could go for 3 days unnoticed while someone _constantly_ inserted fabricated allegations of rape, references to Nazis, etc (which I reported as severe vandalism twice). But someone posts a favorable (and accurate) bio a few times and is summarily banned.

The Chomsky debate, however, is a legitimate and worthwhile topic. In the interest of symmetry, I think it should go on it's own page.

Here's a quotation I submit for inclusion:

"I think you're referring to Reversal of Fortune, the movie about the Von Bulow case, which I think was a very accurate portrayal of the legal issues in that case, and its complexity. Of course, no one ever likes the way they are personally portrayed, though I can't complain because Ron Silver is a lot better looking than I am, though I am a better basketball player."

-AD [[2]] Jonshea 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The plagiarism accusations don't deserve the space they had in the old article, but are not in any way comparable to the Siegenthaler nonsense. Finkelstein did in fact make these accusations so they are not just unsourced POV, they were made by a prominent academic figure. Also, I think the criticism section absolutely must mention Dershowitz's recent (post-9/11) positions on torture. [3] He has publically expressed and defended these opinions in numerous forums and they are among the most controversial views he has ever put forth. Firebug 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Sources

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

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

The debate with Norman Finkelstein

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

I'm inclined to say {{sofixit}}. But since the page is currently protected, I have to say {{soproposeanadditiononthetalkpage}}. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz himself (or some vandal from Harvard) removed the Finkelstein stuff [4]. It can be put back as it was. - Xed 10:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't think that's correct. Plagiarism occurs when the author's source is not cited. If Dershowtiz cited the primary sources when in fact he got his information from Peters then that is plagiarism. According to Avi Shlaim (the Oxford academic) in last week's Times Higher Education Supplement, the plagiarism charge is proven: 'Shlaim believes the plagiarism charge "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court." --Ian Pitchford 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) “To cite a source from a secondary source (“quoted in . . .”) is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and the secondary source must be listed.” - from the chicago manual of style 17.274 - on the website after searching the Q&A for "original source" (2) "Plagiarism is a form of academic malpractice. It refers to the use of another's information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." - from the wikipedia entry, emphasis added Cttck 15:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this confuses things unnecessarily. The source one uses should be cited otherwise it's a kind of fraud. By coincidence I have just added a quotation from the Journal of Palestine Studies to the article on Fatah here. I cited the author, Baumgarten, because that's the source I used. If I had cited the primary source, the Fatah publication Filastinuna that would have implied not only that I speak Arabic (I don't), but that I have carried out archival research on documents in that language (I haven't), i.e., I would be implying that I have skills and experience that I don't have. Not surprsingly, students have their examination results overturned and occasionally get thrown out of university for plagiarism, that is, for passing off the work of others as their own. --Ian Pitchford 15:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

right, but what you think confuses things and may be a certain type of fraud is not necessarily "plagiarism." You've got a definition, and Dersh's practices violate that definition. But according to the definition of plagiarism of the mainstream academy, this practice is not plagiarism. See freedman's analysis in dersh's response. http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Letters/accusationresponse.html . My point in raising this is that this is a serious charge and repeating it, even as someone else's opinion is misleading unless the full context is shown. Cttck 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz has claimed that he examined all the original sources, hence did not need to cite Peters as the source of the sources. While there may be a point that someone got sloppy along the way in the cite-checking, overall I'd say that seems to be pretty penny-ante stuff over which to be charging plagiarism. Seth Finkelstein 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume Finkelstein would say that it's not a case of poor cite checking, but of lifting false claims from a disreputable volume that was written, according to Yehoshua Porath, "as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them". Finkelstein's point is that the claims detailed couldn't have come from the original sources as those sources don't contain them - they are from Peters. However, the plagiarism charge is a small part of Finkelstein's critique of Dershowitz's standards; hence it only appears in Appendix I of Beyond Chutzpah, pp. 229-254. The more general point Finkelstein's is making is that "his violations of elementary academic standards accordingly warrant exposure. In addition, they illustrate the complete lack of quality control when it comes to discourse on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Dershowitz can appropriate from a hoax with impunity due to an environment that tolerates such derelictions so long as the conclusions are politically correct". --Ian Pitchford 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If Norman Finkelstein wants to say Alan Dershowitz relies on poor sources, welcome to another day in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the claim is plagiarism, I'd say that's a different kind of charge, and which there should be far more backing here before it is considered even arguable. Being on the same side, very broadly speaking, is hardly being a plagiarist (and necessarily would entail some common sources). Dershowitz clearly acknowledges Peters, but that shouldn't be an implied guilt by association in a hoax. Cribbing some common cites can be a bit embarrassing, certainly, but hardly an indictment in itself. Seth Finkelstein 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are talking about a different claim, i.e., "If Norman Finkelstein wants to say Alan Dershowitz relies on poor sources". The point Finkelstein is making is that Dershowitz plagiarized a poor source (i.e., he didn't acknowledge Peters as in the rather easy to follow example of Peters' use of turnspeak) and that the subsequent acclaim for the book is an indictment of standards on this issue. In any case we can certainly quote Avi Shlaim that the plaigiarism charge "is proved in a manner that would stand up in court." --Ian Pitchford 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to start quoting other people's opinion on this issue, the I submit James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences:

"I do not understand [Finkelstein’s] charge of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz. There is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources (Mark Twain, Palestine Royal Commission, etc.) [Finkelstein’s] complaint is that instead he should have cited them to the secondary source, in which Dershowitz may have come upon them. But as The Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes:

With all reuse of others’ materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This not only bolsters the claims of fair use, it also helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism.

This is precisely what Dershowitz did. Moreover, many of the sources quoted both by Dershowitz and Peters are commonly quoted in discussions of this period of Palestinian history. Nor can it be said that Dershowitz used Peters’ ideas without attribution. He cites Peters seven times in the early chapter of his book, while making clear that he does not necessarily accept her conclusions. This is simply not plagiarism, under any reasonable definition of that word."

Jonshea 00:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Torture

Dershowitz's controversial position on torture has been the subject of a great deal of discussion. It should at least be mentioned in the article. Here [5] is a mainstream reference for Dershowitz's expressed views on this matter. Firebug 06:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonshea 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Other sources

Other sources for information: [6] and [7] — 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: [8]. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on Wikipedia

Do we know who made this legally worded threat? If this is what prompted the article rewrite, it is somewhat frightening. [9] Tfine80 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Erik wrote:

The approach of "Jimbo blanks article, and admins rewrite it" is simply not scalable and too prone to be abused by anyone who doesn't like their bio in Wikipedia. There needs to be a wiki process to deal with these complaints.--Eloquence* 10:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I agree with this. It's an experiment to see what will happen. We should be more experimental, I feel that we've become far too "rule bound" around here. One element of a wiki process can very much be a temporary timeout in which only trusted users are allowed to rebuild an article. There's nothing fundamentally unwiki about that, any more than temporary page protection, etc. Anyway, this is first and foremost an effort to write a high quality encyclopedia, not a wide open wiki.--Jimbo Wales 16:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• User:140.247.219.49
• User:140.247.238.185
• User:140.247.201.190
• User:FakeName

The IP numbers come from Harvard University - probably Dershowitz or his assistant Mitch Webber. A member of Wikipedia has identified "FakeName" as the same person as whoever the IPs are. FakeName has been banned, see his talk page [10]

"FakeName" makes a legal threat here: [11]

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

• [12] (Lengthy addition of all awards he has received and how wonderful he is)

• [13] (removed info on conflict with finkelstein)

Other edits from the Harvard vandal include complete or partial blanking of the article [14] [15]

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

The address 140.247.201.190 reverse-resolves to the hostname "roam201-190.student.harvard.edu". I believe the "student.harvard.edu" part of the hostname indicates that editor is unlikely to be Alan Dershowitz himself. Though by now it's likely someone has told him about the article. -Seth Finkelstein 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but 140.247.219.31 resolves directly to Dershowitz. Anyone who has received an email from Dershowitz in the past will be able to tell you that. 140.247.219.31 is responsible for the two blankings above. [16] [17]- Xed 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

It is equally probable that it was an eager research assistant of his or another Harvard fan of Dershowitz's. They might have then complained to Dershowitz, leading to him sending the letter. However, if Dershowitz himself made the legal threat posted on a user's talk page, I think this is very, very serious and a chilling sign for Wikipedia. Looking at the old version, it is not defamation that is the problem, but what Wikipedia users considered the most notable aspects of his biography. While Wikipedia is sometimes idiosyncratic, this has cultural origins and should not be a reason to exclude these elements. In fact, they are what make Wikipedia unique and valued. I hope they will be returned in a NPOV manner. Tfine80 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I concede that it might be Mitch Webber, his assistant. But the effect is the same. A legal threat in typical Dershowitz language posted on Wikipedia, followed by a real legal threat to Jimbo via email " this could not conceivably be coincidence. Jimbo should reveal the email which resulted in this strange state of affairs. And he should check if the IP in the email is the same as the anons. - Xed 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to check ips, we are not talking about vandalism here but a complaint. Fred Bauder 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about vandalism. FakeName has been banned as a vandal. - Xed 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There's probably no connection, but this faintly reminds me of RGluckman, see also Talk:Harvard University, who kept removing the Harvard Veritas shield from the Harvard article and kept implying without ever stating that was connected with Harvard, e.g "Please contact the Office of General Counsel, Harvard University, if you wish to apply for permission to use the Harvard logo. If you already have explicit consent from the Counsel, please state this in your article." BTW I find it believe Alan Dershowitz would be reluctant to use his own name. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

He is entitled to complain, but not to vandalise the article and then make legal threats when he doesn't get his way. In case you missed the links I provided above, he removed everything critical of himself. - Xed 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He is a new editor and not familiar with our rules. He put in information, most of it apparently well-founded, which sets forth a positive point of view. This can be worked out. Fred Bauder 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

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

The only reason this talk page is longer than the article is because of the misguided decision to blank, and then protect, the article. Mark Sweep says: "Just propose changes on the talk page." Well, I've asked twice that Dershowitz's advocacy of legalizing torture in certain specific situations, and the resulting controversy, be included (and I cited two mainstream media sources, one of which was an interview with Dershowitz) but that hasn't happened. Firebug 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Write up a proposed, neutral addition, thoroughly sourced, and I see no reason not to add it. The key part, though, is for it to be neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 21:50

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

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

Proposed addition

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

(Begin addition)

Dershowitz's views on torture

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz has advocated the issuance of warrants allowing terrorism suspects to be tortured if there is an "absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it". Under Dershowitz's proposal, the government would be forbidden to prosecute the torture subject based upon information revealed under this interrogation method [18]. Dershowitz has suggested that the torture might take the form of a "sterilized needle underneath the nail", and that the torture would have to be non-lethal. He contends that torture would be used in a "ticking bomb" case whether or not the law permitted it, and that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave it up to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. "If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice" [19].

These views have been severely criticized by many other civil libertarians. Harvey Silverglate argues that the necessity defense would already protect police officers in the hypothetical ticking-bomb case, and that "our legal system is perfectly capable of dealing with the exceptional hard case without enshrining the notion that it is okay to torture a fellow human being" [20]. Amnesty International argues that Dershowitz's ticking-bomb hypothetical is unrealistic because "the authorities know that a bomb has been planted somewhere; know it is about to go off; know that the suspect in their custody has the information they need to stop it; know that the suspect will yield that information accurately in a matter of minutes if subjected to torture; and know that there is no other way to obtain it." It also argues that employing authorized torture would erode America's ability to stand up for human rights abroad [21]. The Center for Constitutional Rights, debating Dershowitz on CNN, argued that Dershowitz's proposal would create a "very slippery slope" and that torture would "happen under more than those exceptional circumstances. It's going to start becoming the regular, rather than the unusual" [22].

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

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

No problem. I hope this covers both sides adequately, with extensive use of primary sources. Firebug 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't very neutral. I've replaced some of the POV wording, but there still needs to be a few sentences summmarizing Dershowitz's reply to critics. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:26

What's unneutral about it? It gives a detailed explanation of Dershowitz's views and his justifications for them, and a detailed explanation of his critics' views. Firebug 23:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's getting more neutral, but you shouldn't use words like "contends, argues, points out". Always use "states". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:48

The only reason I didn't use "states" in every single instance is that it makes for very dull prose. Isn't there a way to maintain neutrality without using the same word every time someone makes a claim? Firebug 23:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some possibilities: state, say, declare, describe, enumerate, explain, express, speak, tell, voice. All more neutral than the words you were using. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 00:01

OK, fair enough. I just wanted to avoid the bad writing technique of repeating the same words and phrases over and over. Firebug 00:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian, what are you talking about? Argue is a perfectly neutral term, indeed the page you link to specifically suggests using it in exactly the context in which Firebug used it! I prefer the term argue to contend, but they both seem perfectly valid to me, and mean something rather different from any of the synonyms you suggest. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the current language misrepresents Silvergate's point.

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

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

A few thoughts

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

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

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

Of course we shouldn't allow him to decide what we can and can't say, but the contents must be verifiable from reliable sources, with more sources necessary in more controversial sections, and be neutral in nature. The previous version of this article was not neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-8 23:50

I wholeheartedly agree with Everyking here. We need a stable version like what you are describing, though I'd say it should be editable to trusted editors. I think not having changes immediately hit the public view would offer less encouragement to vandals. Sorry for the meta conversation, but where would be the best place to discuss such a thing and to get it going? - Taxman ^Talk 14:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already something Tim Starling is working on implementing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:34

Excellent. Do you have a link to any ongoing discussion? - Taxman ^Talk 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted revisions

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

• They were not deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:00
  • Right now, the article history only goes back to the time that Jimbo blanked the page. This nonsense needs to stop, or else Wikipedia will soon degenerate into nothing but an "amen corner" for anyone willing to issue a legal threat. We need to stand up to these people. Firebug 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We are an encyclopedia first, a community second, and a message board never. Write neutral, well-sourced, verifiable content, and you won't have this problem. Norman Borlaug liked his article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:08
    • Also, to clarify, the edits were not deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 01:12
      • Not just Borlaug: Ward Cunningham (or someone claiming to be him) has thanked us for the attention to detail in getting his article right. JamesMLane 05:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• They were not deleted. Please remember to assume good faith. Jkelly 02:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just checked the history, and there's nothing older than Jimbo's version. Can the people claiming "they were not deleted" please provide a link to the not-deleted versions? Mirror Vax 07:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, all the old edits are in the history of Alan_Dershowitz/old. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So they were, in fact, deleted from this article. Incidentally, the so-called "old" version, isn't - it's a version heavily edited by Brian0918, post-Jimbo. This is the actual pre-Jimbo version: [23]. Mirror Vax 08:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • They were moved to a separate article. They were not deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:36
          • There were deleted from this article. If you deny that, you're a liar. Mirror Vax 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
            • There is a big difference between deleting and moving, which you are misunderstanding. If you are misunderstanding deliberately, please stop it. The Land 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • If you can clear up my misunderstandings, I would be delighted. Why was the history deleted from this page? The only reason that comes to mind is to prevent people from seeing it. If you can prevent people from obtaining information by "moving" it where it's unlikely to be found, as well as "deleting" it, I don't see any big difference. Same objective, different tactic. Mirror Vax 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • If you know your way around Wikipedia, the edits are there. It is only a few clicks further away. If you're a casual user you are unlikely to find them. The Land 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I gotta agree with Mirror here -- arguing whether they were "deleted" is a semantic point, but there was a move carried out that seems to me to have no other point but to hide the previous revisions away from general inspection. Looking at the history, one has no indication of the hundreds of other edits that took place. But the main problem is that I don't see the point of this -- if these edits place us at legal risk, they should be really deleted. If they don't, they should be in the history of the article. What was the motivation for moving the history out? The Dragon 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • For larger articles, such as George W. Bush, which has 25,000 edits, it is inconceivable to delete/undelete (plus, according to brion, such a thing would kill the database). Plus, people would riot in the streets if their collective edit counts suddenly dropped by 25,000. So, I suggested to User:Danny to instead make it a habit, for now, to just move out older histories to a /old page. He agreed with this. It will probably happen with other articles. This is just the first time it has happened, to my knowledge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 20:33
                • Without commenting on its appropriateness for this particular situation, fragmenting history in this manner is not something we should be making a "habit" of. --Michael Snow 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Thank you. Before, I was in some doubt. Now it is absolutely clear that you are a rogue admin with bad motives. Otherwise why make up such a crazy story? The truth must be horrible if you resort to such a transparent fiction. Mirror Vax 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • This is the most absurd explanation I've heard for a while. Many, many articles have a longer edit history. Something fishy here. - Xed 21:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • There are exactly 255 pre-Jimbo deleted/moved edits. Brian0918 doesn't have much respect for our intelligence, does he? Mirror Vax 21:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Mirror Vax, instead of engaging in personal attacks, why don't you offer some constructive suggestions on improving the article? --Michael Snow 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't like to question your good faith and I don't really want to associate myself with Mirror's comments above, but there does seem to be something weird about this -- again, either the edits put us at legal risk or they don't. If they do, Alan_Dershowitz/old should be deleted pronto, and I see absolutely no reason why deleting a single article will put enormous strain on the servers. The fact that it wouldn't work on the GWB page is irrelevant here. If the edits don't put us at legal risk, on the other hand, then there was simply no reason to remove them from the history. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, I'm pretty sure that they would be "deleted" (please note that deleted edits are not removed from the database—admins can still view them easily), and my main concern was with complaints about people's edit counts dropping, not necessarily just here, but when this practice of deletion becomes more frequent. I suggested this as a temporary alternative until the situation was sorted out, and Danny was fine with it. If he or Jimbo say otherwise, then of course the edits should be recombined into the history, but they (Jimbo and Danny) are in a much better position (information-wise) to make such a determination. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 21:44
                  • Could you (or anyone) explain who "Danny" is and where does he fit in the Wikipedia chain of command? Mirror Vax 10:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Never mind, I found it. From User:Danny: "I now live in St. Petersburg, Florida, and work fulltime for the Wikimedia Foundation, helping Jimbo out where I can." I couldn't find any record of a conversation between Brian and Danny, however. Mirror Vax 10:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
                      • Danny gave a bizarre answer to a question on my talk page, which contradicts BRIANs explanation. These kind of conversations are generally held in secret now. - Xed 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Quotes

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

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

• I largely agree with the above. I suggest moving the whole section to Wikiquote. Jkelly 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just used the quotations listed in Encarta and Bartleby Quotations. I figured that the ones people didn't want could be removed, or moved to a separate page on Wikiquote. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 04:32

• Ha, I moved most of the quotes to Wikiquote before I saw these comments here. It might be better to move all of them - these sections are rarely a good thing. Rd232 ^talk 09:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection?

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

• As long as anyone can submit suggestions on the talk page, I don't think there's any need to rush. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 19:23
  • And I have to maintain my disagreement with this. Administrators are not supposed to act in a content control role. Firebug 22:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest changing "Selected books" to "Select bibliography", and using Template:Main for the cross-reference to the sub-article. Jkelly 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Done! Thanks for the suggestions. Any others? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 20:47
  • Actually, on second thought given the nature of the current attention, perhaps you're right that we aren't ready for unprotection yet. --Michael Snow 21:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Are we allowed to edit this page? I'd like to make a couple of copy-editing tweaks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, per Jimbo's experiment, administrators may edit this page while it's protected. --Michael Snow 21:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Michael. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Dershowitz legal threat

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

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

More suggestions

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

The word "leading"

There used to be the word "leading" in the first sentence...see the edit I made here: [24]. Is there a source for this? Once we get this, we can add it back I think. --HappyCamper 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[25], [26]... probably quite a few more. Jkelly 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Pre-eminent? premier? principal? prominent? well-known? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 02:29

How about "veteran"? This word has the connotation of experience and wisdom, which might be what we are after here? --HappyCamper 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School is by definition a leading law scholar in America. It isn't POV; it's just a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think "leading" isn't POV. But, I am open to other suggestions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 13:10

I'm going to put it back in the meantime, because the first sentence as it stands is a little mealy-mouthed. Happy Camper asked for a source for the word "leading": the source is Harvard law school, which awarded him a chair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Leading" is borderline puffery. I would suggest "prominent". Mirror Vax 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO 'prominent' does not do justice to his position; he basically holds the number one university law chair in the world. I think leading is fine. Batmanand 19:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Noam Chomsky

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

No, that's not how it works. First I NPOV the article, then you can tweak it. Stop being presumptuous. I am the only editor to have neutralised the lie about Dershowitz being a consistent defender of freedom of speech. Nobody who was willing to leave the article as it was can even begin to lecture me about balance or neutrality. — Chameleon 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about Dershowitz or Chomsky. I just care about keeping the article neutral. If information is inadvertently left out, let us know. Instead, rather than neutralizing it, you skewed it over to the other side. Phrases like "bitterly attack" are never appropriate for Wikipedia (unless it's part of a quote). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 00:10

The expression is neither positive nor negative. Stop whining about it. If you think another phrase is better, you can put it in, but your "never appropriate" stuff, with over-use of bold and italics, is just a smokescreen to cover your support for the other version. What is truly never appropriate is untruthful material. If you would like to have a crusade against the expression "bitterly attack", then follow this link (and this one) to purge Wikipedia of it. It is not inappropriate to make an uncontroversial description of a text. If you read the article in question, you'll see that it is a long and hysterical ad hominem attack on Chomsky. "Bitterly attacked" is a description that Dershowitz might well agree with, and I have not seen it described as inaccurate either in any published source or on this talk page. It is therefore fairly uncontroversial. You can edit it to something better (this is a wiki), but you can't whine on about it as you are. The project is not improved by sterilising our prose to "...stated... stated... stated...".

Read: Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Or don't. Your choice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 03:22

Already read it. The string "bitter" does not occur in it. I see you have not changed any of the 800+ articles to which I referred you which freely speak of bitter attacks, debates and conflicts. Note also that I don't mind another word being used. — Chameleon 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Google, there are only 37 non-talk non-user hits for the phrase. I'll fix those. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 13:06

Interstingly, a large number of these occurrences came from the 1911 Britannica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 13:32

If we are to discuss bad edits, let's look at this. In my version, "suspending judgement on the politics" clearly referred to Chomsky not reaching a conclusion as to whether Faurisson was a "fanatic pro-Nazi" or not. By deleting some context, your version allowed the reader to guess that it might refer to Chomsky not reaching a conclusion as to whether Faurisson's alleged nazism and racism was good or bad. I appreciate that clipping things down to soundbites makes the text more "readable", but it can also make it less accurate. Inaccurate sentences are a far graver problem that ones that include phrasing that cabal members declare verboten. — Chameleon 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Clients

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

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

" From The Best Defense, p. 392-93

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

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

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

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

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

The following site (from the external links section) contains a longish list of clients, including Penthouse: [27]. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Misleading description of Chomsky controversy?

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

My next encounter with Chomsky revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson who denied that the Holocaust took place, that Hitler’s gas chambers existed, that the diary of Anne Frank was authentic, and that there were death camps in Nazi occupied Europe. He claimed that the “massive lie” about genocide was a deliberate concoction initiated by “American Zionists” “and that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. Chomsky described these and other conclusions as “findings” and said that they were based on “extensive historical research.” He also wrote that “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” He said he saw “no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work,” including his claim that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. He wrote an introduction to one of Faurisson’s book which was used to market his anti-Semitic lies. [28]

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

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

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

• Thanks for clearing that up. I know nothing about Chomsky or Dershowitz, but that was my feeling when I read that statement as well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 04:08

Note, however, that some mention of the apparent antagonism between Dershowitz and Chomsky may be warranted, provided that it is accurate. Also, Brian, please do not mark your edits as "minor" unless they are trivial fixes to grammar, spelling, links, etc. —Steven G. Johnson 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole issue is more complex that could easily be summed up in so few words. If you want to understand it, you have to go to Faurisson affair. It is inaccurate to say that defending freedom of speech for objectionable people is "flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial" in Dershowitz's opinion. Such a defence is fine by Dershowitz if done by himself or people he agrees with. But when done by his arch-enemy Chomsky, it is indeed an opportunity to make allegations of "flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial".

Note that only Brian0918's version [29] said "Dershowitz stated that such a defense was akin to [...]". My version [30] simply gave the two things that Chomsky said (that even scumbags' rights ought to be protected, and that it wasn't fully clear that Faurisson was pro-Nazi), and then gave Dershowitz's reaction to them.

Since Dershowitz himself declared that his problem with the Faurisson affair "revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson", I took him at his word and linked to the text of that "introduction" (in reality, an article that Chomsky wrote which ended up being used as a preface).

It is true however, that the following quotations are not from that text: "extensive historical research", "no anti-Semitic implication" and "no hint of anti-Semitic implications". The first is misattributed to Chomsky; it is a neutral phrase that occurs in the text of a petition signed by Chomsky and 500 others. He agreed enough with the gist of the petition to sign it, but did not write a word of it. The other two quotations are by Chomsky, appearing in a private letter. In an open letter, he expanded on this, pointing out that "[d]enial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-à-vis the victims." He proved this with various examples, such as "if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite."

Neither Dershowitz nor anyone has ever even attempted to refute this cast-iron argument. Instead, this lawyer has used the tried and tested technique of equivocation. That is to say, he reduces Chomsky's crystal-clear argument down to a sound-bite containing the word "implication", which has various definitions:

1. It can refer to the "action of implicating or the state of being implicated"[31]; to implicate is to prove a connection to some wrongdoing. This is in line with Chomsky's talk of denial not sufficing to prove racism.
2. It can refer to the "logical relation between propositions p and q of the form ‘if p then q’; if p is true then q cannot be false"[32]. Again, this is in line with Chomsky's unrefuted argument that there is no such relation between p (Holocaust denial) and q (racism).
3. It can refer to something that is implied, i.e. the "implicit conclusion that can be drawn from something"[33]. We can divide this into two submeanings:

a) If we take "can be drawn" to mean "can and should be drawn", then this is in line with Chomsky's refusal to conclude that Faurisson's guilt was proven.

b) If we take "can be drawn" to mean "might conceivably be suggested", then this makes it look like Chomsky is denying that lots of Holocaust deniers are pro-Nazi. Since lots of Holocaust deniers are pro-Nazi, Chomsky must therefore be lying, or mistaken.

By asserting that Chomsky flirts with neo-Nazism, and juxtaposing this with the "no anti-Semitic implication" soundbite, Dershowitz leads the reader to skip the first three possible meanings of the phrase, and assume that the last one was intended. Since the last one leads to the conclusion that Chomsky is lying or mistaken, Dershowitz makes it look like he has scored some point. (Winning an argument by swapping the definitions on your opponent's words is a combination of the equivocation and straw man logical fallacies.)

If anyone has any difficulty following this, it suffices to apply the logic to another situation. Let's say that instead of being accused of being a Nazi for being a revisionist, someone was accused of being a Nazi for having a shaven head and wearing big boots. Would the person's appearence implicate them (prove a connection)? Of course not. Is there a ‘if p then q’ logical relation such that if the person has that appearence, they cannot be a non-Nazi? Of course not. Can we and should we draw the conclusion that the person is a Nazi? Of course not. Might the person's appearence conceivably suggest they are a Nazi? Yes, of course, the statistical correlation between skinheads and far-right politics might lead us to jump to that conclusion, but we could easily be mistaken. People are innocent until proven guilty.

Noam Chomsky argued (a) that Robert Faurisson was innocent until proven guilty, (b) if it transpired that Faurisson was a "fanatical pro-Nazi", it would be even more important to defend his right to express his crazy views. Alan Dershowitz leapt upon this two-pronged argument and did his best to try to make it sound as though Chomsky agreed with Faurisson. Dershowitz well knows that "Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views [Chomsky] hold[s] and ha[s] frequently expressed in print"[34].

Dershowitz demonstrates that he has no problem allowing Nazis freedom of speech when it suits him. He not only argued that the Nazi Party should be able to march in Illinois, but went further and said that the Nazis had more right to march than Machteret in Israel because the Nazis went through the courts. He also demonstrates that when it suits him, he does not hesitate to vilify defenders of the same freedom. Over the Faurisson affair he attacked one person, Chomsky, for defending Faurisson. He did not say a word against Deborah Lipstadt when she argued that Faurisson and other Holocaust deniers should be denied freedom of speech [35].

Want another example of Dershowitz's selective application of these high principles? On 11 July 2005, the L.A. Times published an article blasting Dershowitz for attempting to get his buddy, the Governor of California, to halt publication of Beyond Chutzpah, a book critical of Dershowitz [36].

Dershowitz therefore has a mixed record on defending freedom of speech. People who have a mixed record don't generally have this mentioned in their Wikipedia article, as it is only notable when they are consistent in some way. I therefore support the status quo: no "freedom of speech" section. Should, however, such a section be reinserted, I insist that there be mention not just of the Nazi Party affair, but also the Faurisson affair and the Beyond Chutzpah affair, so that the reader may see the full picture and come to their own conclusions. — Chameleon 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Oggi

I'm not sure this is accurate. The linked site says "Italian newspaper", but Oggi is:

• a mediocre Italian magazine, not particularly respected
• Italia Oggi, a not very famous Italian newspaper
• America Oggi, an Italian-American newspaper
• Oggi7, an Italian-American magazine. Dershowitz was interviewed by Oggi7 on September 29, 2002 and on March 2, 2003, but only the second interview is available online.

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

I've searched, and the only article I can find is in L'Unità: link. It says, "è forse il più famoso avvocato penalista americano" ("he is perhaps America's most famous criminal lawyer"). I can find other articles online, but not on the websites of reputable papers. I can find references to similar comments however. A human rights lobby [37] says, "l'avvocato progressista più famoso d'America [...] Corriere della Sera, 1 febbraio, 2002, «I terroristi? Torturiamoli» intervista di A. Farkas)" ("America's most famous progressive lawyer [...] Corriere della Sera, 1st Feb 2002, 'Terrorists? Torture them' interviewed by A. Farkas").

This personal website quotes the same interview more exactly: "l'intervistatrice Alessandra Farkas definisce Alan Dershowitz, come 'l'avvocato progressista più famoso d'America, paladino dei diritti civili [...]' " ("the interviewer Alessandra Farkas defines Alan Dershowitz as 'America's most famous progressive lawyer, defender of civil rights [...]' "). I don't know if these indirect quotations are good enough for us. — Chameleon 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Corriere della Sera is the most read Italian newspaper, I think it would be far better than Oggi. L'Unità is a good newspaper too, but it's maybe too linked to the Left-Wing Democrats party. Mushroom 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beyond Chutzpah

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

Do you mean those edits pertaining to torture? They don't seem very extensive or problematic to me, but I may not know enough to judge. Everyking 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Harvard vandal's latest edit - [38]. - Xed 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Harvard vandals

• 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)

For similar reasons, I won't email Webber myself. There are several other people forensically investigating the issue who have greater technical knowledge than I. And I'm happy to leave them to it. Personally, I have enough definitive proof to know that several occasions of vandalism have come directly from the computer that Dershowitz uses to send his emails. To me, that suggests that it's Dershowitz. I think Harvard, or Dershowitz, can afford to give people their own computers. - Xed 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples of vandalism from Harvard vandals

• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]

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

Client list again

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

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

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

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

Chomsky

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

Here's the most recent one I'm aware of: [43]. Though I don't know if that's the debate you're looking for. They have debated numerous times. noosphere 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Merge request

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

There's scarcely any point editing this article. It's been Jimboed.Grace Note 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

New section on "Israeli influence paper" - discussion needed

I just cut the following addition from 24.252.38.144 (talk · contribs):

In March 2006, Dershowitz appeared on the Joe Scarborough show, Scarborough Country to discuss the matter of the recent affair regarding a professor's research paper on Israeli influence in American politics. On the show, Dershowitz made numerous false claims that put him under fire, such as claiming the the research paper lifted material directly from "neo-nazi websites" and "radical islamic websites", claims he has not backed up. Critics also cited numerous unprofessional behavior in the directing of the show, such as the talk show talking over guest speaker David Duke while pausing to give Dershowitz extra time to speak. There were also criticisms that the show seem staged and the lines rehearsed beforehand. [44]

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

For the above to be put in, I think three things need to be identified:

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

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

Penthouse contributor?

[[User:Lokifer] added in edit [45]: "For several years, Dershowitz has written a monthly column in the pages of Penthouse (magazine)." It is unsupported as is and it just doesn't seem to fit with Dershowitz character thus I have moved it here until someone does find a reference for it. --64.230.121.230 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the uniformed anons (those clothed with the laziness to object to facts that are written yet won't bother with a few seconds of internet surfing to prove that the facts exist) attack again. Since this anon wants proof (and instead of looking it up for himself), I will supply more than just this article that says Dershowitz has been a long time contributor to Penthouse. [46] Here's a link to pictures of the Meese Commision on pornography.[47] If you scroll down, you will find Dershowitz described as a columnist for Penthouse. This was in Janurary of 1986. This link uses the Jult 1993 article from the monthly column from Penthouse by Dershowitz as a reference. [48] On this webpage, someone references an article by Dershowitz in the July 1997 issue of Penthouse.[49] 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be fairly conclusive (although it really doesn't seem like Dershowitz; oh well. Rich tapestries and all that). Is there any chance of an offical source from Penthouse itself (like a copy of one of his articles?) that would "seal the deal"? Batmanand | Talk 21:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to get some free porn from me? Well, here's a link to an article he wrote in 2004 for Penthouse.[50] The source shouldn't be questionable to anyone since it comes from his Harvard webpage. I wish I could narrow down the time period for Dershowitz's contribution to the magazine, but I've been unable to establish when he started writing for Penthouse or if he's even still writing (does anyone have a current issue?). I'm guessing that he began writing for Penthouse shortly after he represented the people responisble for Deep Throat in the 1970s, but can't confirm that.Lokifer 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Now we can have an argument about whether or not this is notable enough to be included in the article lol... Batmanand | Talk 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the article. I also think it was fair to question the veracity of this information when it was originally added without support. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate with Finkelstein

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

1. Dropped D's accusation that F's mother was a concentration camp Kapo. This is trivial: it is mentioned neither in Norman Finkelstein nor Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair.

2. Added F's charge that D did not write The Case for Israel.

3. Added F's charge that D ignored human rights group findings.

4. Added D's defense that Harvard exonerated him. I'm shocked this wasn't included.

5. Added D's defense that citing Peters' references is good scholarly practice.

6. Sentence about D's legal threats and their impact.

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

Xed's edits

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

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

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

Since an intervention was previously necessary on this article, everything in it needs to be backed up by a reputable source. Anyone wanting to add to the article is welcome to find such sources, but other people are not obligated to do that work for them. In the meantime, copy-and-paste additions of content that is unsourced, not integrated into the structure of the article, and frequently duplicates content already there, should continue to be removed. I'm not saying the present article is any great shakes, but "contributions" like that don't help the situation either. --Michael Snow 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that edits like "He successfully defended Claus von Bülow in 1984 on a charge of attempting to murder his wife with an injection of insulin, a case dramatized in the film Reversal of Fortune (1990) starring Glenn Close, Jeremy Irons, and Ron Silver as Dershowitz." are pretty uncontroversial, but ones like "Dershowitz worked on the legal defense team of boxer Mike Tyson, who was convicted of rape in 1992. He was also a member of the legal defense team ("Dream Team") for O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted in 1995 of double homicide despite overwhelming evidence pointing towards guilt." (empahsis added) are more controversial. I would advocate a case-by-case basis form of editing for this most divisive of topics. Batmanand | Talk 22:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Xed's edit's may also have copyright problems [51] . This is a good start though for finding actual citations for the claims. --Tbeatty 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Miramax as client?

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

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

Banned from the O'Rielly factor

He was banned from the O'Rielly factor because O'Rielly questions his honesty. 70.124.132.176 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Disqualification of online petition and newspaper by one user

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

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Skywriter 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)