Talk:Alan Dershowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeAlan Dershowitz was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 29, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Virginia Giuffre Accusations[edit]

Nowhere in the article does it mention the seriousness of what Alan Dershowitz has been accused of. He has, in fact, been accused of multiple salutatory rapes - rape of children - and participation in the sex trafficking of children. The lack of a clear, factual summary of these accusations not only brings the rest of the factual assertions contained in the article into question, it undercuts the entire Wikipedia project.

1) There is no mention of the accusations made in the opening summary paragraph. By any measure, this is an important and definitive biographical fact. There needs to be a mention of this fact in the opening summary paragraph.

2) Under the DISPUTES heading - "Giuffre stated in September 2019 that she continues to stand by her claims of misconduct by Dershowitz." "Child rape" or "statutory rape" or "sex with a child" here has replaced here by the incredibly inappropriate euphemism "misconduct".

These accusations of child rape have been made under oath. The accuser has been found credible by local and federal law-enforcement, the federal courts, Palm Beach county courts and vetted by serious journalists and elite, establishment attorneys. To reduce these accusations of a witness, whose credibility has been established over and over again by a multiplicity of authorities, to "Disputes" about "misconduct" inappropriately obscures indisputable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:67F:EC24:C454:21DE:9137:EDAF (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an admitted prostitute making uncorroborated accusations right? Accusation is just and accusation and until there is some sort of trial and conviction, then excessive weight would be WP:UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion is simply wrong. Children are not and cannot be "prostitutes" under federal and local law. This is indisputibly a trafficked child whose trafficking extended, without a break, into her early adulthood. Further, her accusations against Alan Dershowitz have been corroborated by Maria Farmer:

https://account.miamiherald.com/paywall/registration?resume=229277874

Her accusations against Jeffery Epstein are not only corroborated, they are beyond dispute at this point:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Giuffre-unseal.pdf

Again, the argument is that the article does not accurately reflect the nature nor the seriousness of the accusations. The article uses inaccurate and inappropriate euphemisms to mischaracterize said accusations and downplay their credibility and the credibility of a witness who has been deemed very credible in her testimony against Jeffery Epstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:67F:EC24:CC17:E2A2:4D64:72A3 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont know how reason could be offended, but I see you are passionate about the subject. I cant read the paywall source you put up. Allegations in a court document are just that. This is a WP:BLP and the bar to put up content that says the article subject is a child molester because an underage prostitute says she was molested, is not sufficiently met. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You set up a straw man. The argument is that the accusations should be correctly characterized as "child rape" not as "misconduct". Alan Dershowitz has not been accused of "misconduct", he has been accused of "child rape". Period. The opening paragraph should also make note of these accusations. To your irrelevant aside about "court documents" - depositions are under oath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:67F:EC24:CC17:E2A2:4D64:72A3 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be WP:UNDUE, if a large number of major press cover this and it becomes a scandal then it might be due. Right now it isn't despite your WP:SOAP. Please sign your comments using the WP:FOURTILDES. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The original poster has a point that sexual misconduct is an imprecise term for what are prolonged, very public accusations of a more serious degree. Misconduct relates more to business and professional transgressions, and as the OP points out, this is far more complicated due to the age of the accuser and the dozens of other public accusations swirling around the broader Epstein sex trafficking scandal. As the FBI arrested two of the other people Giuffre has accused, it is a matter of considerable national and international attention. It will remain in focus for some time, especially in light of Maxwell's pending court date. The immediate question for the short term is, what is the most accurate term for what Dershowitz has been accused of? This is Wikipedia so we go by reliable sources. What are the majority of WP:RSP using to describe it? sexual abuse? rape? trafficking? Research required. King Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, we need to see the sources. The OP only listed a court filing of allegations and a paywall source. I think we need more than that, if this case continues to swirl more sources will certainly come up. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Original poster: several of the links you shared are not currently usable per wikipedia guidelines. Court documents, as I understand the guidelines, can be included at times as an External link (at the bottom of the article) but not used as a citation to support a claim stated in Wikipedia's voice. For claims refuted by a living subject, it is important that these come from items in GREEN on the list of reliable source (these are determined by a consensus majority of editors) found here: WP:RSP. The Daily Mail is not usable. Dershowitz and Giuffre have been suing each other for some time now so there are certainly more credible articles addressing the accusations. The language used, particularly when it comes to the accusations against this subject (Dershowitz) is not very precise. I can dig for the more specific terminology in the article's existing sources (and hunt for additional sources) at some point in the near future but have responsibilities IRL to attend to today. Thank you for bringing up your concerns at the talk page and I hope you will consider creating an account for continued editing. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In an effort to gain an overview of some of the more prominent RS coverage of this topic & time frame (2015 - present), this list was compiled w/ specific language in bold by source: (the terminology "sexual misconduct" was an outlier, with rare occasional use)

  • January 6, 2015 Business Insider/Reuters "a woman who has accused him of sexually abusing her when she was underage"
  • January 7, 2015. BBC "Dershowitz was recently linked to the under-age sex scandal involving convicted financier Jeffrey Epstein" "was recently identified as participating in the sex ring by one of the women engaged in a lawsuit against the US government"
  • January 7, 2015 BBC "Documents filed in a Florida court last week allege that Ms Roberts was sexually trafficked by Epstein, who forced her to make herself available for sex to "politically connected and financially powerful people"."
  • July 10, 2019 CBS News caption "claims she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz as part of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking operation."
  • September 24, 2019, Palm Beach Post "a teenage victim of a Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring." "forced her to have sex with Dershowitz a half-dozen times in Florida, New York, New Mexico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. She says Dershowitz also witnessed Epstein abusing other girls."
  • December 13, 2019, Jerusalem Post, "accused of having had sex on seven occasions with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an underage girl, at exotic locations, including the Caribbean island compound and New Mexico ranch owned by financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."
  • January 24, 2020 Associated Press They "feared Dershowitz’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the surrounding legal drama would be a distraction"
  • January 2020, Los Angeles Times, lawyer's "high-profile career has been marred by his association with a now-dead pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein”
  • January 27, 2020 ABC New York Giuffre says "Epstein flew her around the world and pressured her into having sex with numerous older men, including Andrew, two senior U.S. politicians, a noted academic, wealthy financiers and the attorney Alan Dershowitz"
  • May 27, 2020 Wall Street Journal Netflix's Filthy Rich: "lawyer Alan Dershowitz, daring alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre (who appears throughout) to make a public accusation. "I challenge Virginia Roberts," the Harvard Law professor says to the director, Lisa Bryant, "to come on your show, look in the camera and say the following words: 'I accuse Alan Dershowitz of having had sex with me on six or seven occasions.' She has never been willing to accuse me in public. So please, accuse me on this show. I challenge you." Giuffre: "I was with Alan Dershowitz multiple times, at least six that I can remember. I was trafficked to Alan Dershowitz. From Epstein."
  • June 23, 2020, Miami Herald, “ a woman who claims she was forced to have sex with the flamboyant Harvard professor when she was a teen."
  • June 23, 2020, Law and Crime “Dershowitz, in turn, sued Giuffre for defamation over allegations that the Harvard Law School professor emeritus sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions as part of Epstein’s global elite pedophile sex trafficking operation.“ “ One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has accused Dershowitz of abusing her.“
  • June 25, 2020, Times of Israel "disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Dershowitz and had her have sex with him"
  • July 3, 2020, Deadline, lawyer spent most of the essay "assailing Netflix for its recent multi-part documentary, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, in which one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers says Dershowitz abused her multiple times while she was under Epstein’s control.”
  • July 31, 2020. Law and Crime “court files contain several references to Giuffre’s claims that she was sex trafficked to Dershowitz by Epstein.”
  • July 31, 2020, Law and Crime "Giuffre has alleged that she was furnished to Dershowitz for sex."

It is by no means complete but does provide clarity that the allegations have been covered by a range of reliable sources (not just a tabloid or two) during the preceding 5 yr. period. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Good work, very detailed. Seems some coverage of this in the article merits inclusion. Somewhat an unusual situation where the accused is not charged, and likely never will be charged due to statute of limitations. So we have to be careful how we portray it after all here, as we are not a court to convict him. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: "Good work?" This is the same allegations, recycled in various publications over several years, and which this IP has presented in some portions taken out of context without clearly indicating it's an unproven allegation. I would take this user to BLPN if they weren't a drive-by IP. Unproven allegations of a sensationalist and salacious nature deserve the greatest possible care on Wikipedia, and there has been a clear disregard at this article for this fundamental principle. I'll be watching this more closely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I was referring to Cedar777 responses. He added a lot of information above, and I would not consider him an IP, he is a logged in user. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: The list was compiled in order to understand the language used by a range of reliable sources when publishing content about the subject. It is useful asses the scope and detailed language when considering a matter where editors have strong opinions. The sources covering this matter are neither tabloids nor are they limited to one particular publisher. They include BBC, CBS, NBC, Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, the Jerusalem Post, Law and Crime, and the Times of Israel - publications held in high regard for reporting on relevant news. The original poster of this thread was correct in pointing out that "sexual misconduct" was not the terminology used. Cedar777 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: BLP guidelines for public figures differ from those of low profile individuals. From the policy page for WP:BLP we have this advice regarding public figures WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

Dershowitz is not a low profile figure afforded additional protections under BLP guidelines. Plenty of credible third-party secondary sources have covered Giuffre's allegations over several years. It belongs in the article with a mention in the lede. Even Dershowitz's most recent book covers the topic in response, along with a number of recent news articles in 2019 and 2020 taking on the matter of his involvement with Epstein directly. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Cedar777 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Aditional sources:

September 1, 2019 The Syndey Morning Herald Jeffrey Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz says he is a #MeToo victim
July 5, 2020 Alaska Public Media Some object after Alaska Bar Association hires Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney, to speak at convention
August 10, 2020 Courthouse News Ex-Victoria’s Secret CEO Contradicts Alan Dershowitz in Epstein Fight

More recent sources for 1st sentence of Lede[edit]

The lede is meant to be a summary of the article. The first sentence seems to be overly reliant on outdated sources from 1989, 1994, & 2007. It could do with an update, to include at least one secondary source from the last 10 years. (The article itself also seems overly reliant on the subject's own publications for information, and should be improved by more content from secondary sources for balance.)

The third paragraph of the lede is a running list of Dershowitz's books with little context as to what unifies his interests, how they have been received by the public/academic community/culture at large. Prose from secondary sources could do a better job to contextualized things here, especially for those completely unfamiliar with the subject or his works, as there are way too many books to mention in the lede. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose his basis for notability has evolved over time. I first heard about him with OJ Simpson, but he has represented other controversial figures over time. More recently after he was in the video about Epstein, there seems to be renewed interest in this article. I suppose the lede could be more currently summarized as you suggest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the part about him being accused since 2014 in the Epstein case for WP:UNDUE weight reasons. I think if this is really noteworthy enough, it needs to be discussed here at talk. Two sources from 2020 anchoring text stating he was accused since 2014 is not correct. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a really bad decision, and you're reverting an edit that I made on purpose. This article looks seriously whitewashed. This guy has been famous - outside of legal circles - twice in his life: once for defending OJ, the other for being credibly accused of rape of a child as part of the Jeffrey Epstein case. There's currently a major Netflix documentary about it. The fact that the heading section contains a list of his books which are never mentioned again, but _doesn't_ mention his rape of a child is absolutely absurd, and to me looks like blatant article whitewashing. Miserlou (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, I really wish people would stop using UNDUE like that just to get their way. This is a well-cited accusation, much much more widely cited than some of the other things in the header already, like the uncited, whitewashy claim that he is a "prominent voice on the Arab–Israeli conflict". I really wish people would read what WPUNDUE says and not using it for deletionist purposes, especially to whitewash the page of an accused rapist. Miserlou (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article has been famous for decades and we have now one sexual accuser that is tied to a lawsuit the accuser filed against Epstein. Guiffre's (as the architect of of the anti-Epstein crusade) comments & allegations will be measured under WP:DUE whether you like it or not. There is no conviction here and limited press coverage, therefore this pushing to insert with excessive weight into the lede is misguided and against policy. Be advised ofWP:RGW here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
How can you possibly say that there's "limited press coverage"? That's simply a provable lie - it's been covered by every single newspaper of note in the US, which his books haven't. To quote a previous poster:

In an effort to gain an overview of some of the more prominent RS coverage of this topic & time frame (2015 - present), this list was compiled w/ specific language in bold by source: (the terminology "sexual misconduct" was an outlier, with rare occasional use)

  • January 6, 2015 Business Insider/Reuters "a woman who has accused him of sexually abusing her when she was underage"
  • January 7, 2015. BBC "Dershowitz was recently linked to the under-age sex scandal involving convicted financier Jeffrey Epstein" "was recently identified as participating in the sex ring by one of the women engaged in a lawsuit against the US government"
  • January 7, 2015 BBC "Documents filed in a Florida court last week allege that Ms Roberts was sexually trafficked by Epstein, who forced her to make herself available for sex to "politically connected and financially powerful people"."
  • July 10, 2019 CBS News caption "claims she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz as part of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking operation."
  • September 24, 2019, Palm Beach Post "a teenage victim of a Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring." "forced her to have sex with Dershowitz a half-dozen times in Florida, New York, New Mexico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. She says Dershowitz also witnessed Epstein abusing other girls."
  • December 13, 2019, Jerusalem Post, "accused of having had sex on seven occasions with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an underage girl, at exotic locations, including the Caribbean island compound and New Mexico ranch owned by financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein."
  • January 24, 2020 Associated Press They "feared Dershowitz’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the surrounding legal drama would be a distraction"
  • January 2020, Los Angeles Times, lawyer's "high-profile career has been marred by his association with a now-dead pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein”
  • January 27, 2020 ABC New York Giuffre says "Epstein flew her around the world and pressured her into having sex with numerous older men, including Andrew, two senior U.S. politicians, a noted academic, wealthy financiers and the attorney Alan Dershowitz"
  • May 27, 2020 Wall Street Journal Netflix's Filthy Rich: "lawyer Alan Dershowitz, daring alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre (who appears throughout) to make a public accusation. "I challenge Virginia Roberts," the Harvard Law professor says to the director, Lisa Bryant, "to come on your show, look in the camera and say the following words: 'I accuse Alan Dershowitz of having had sex with me on six or seven occasions.' She has never been willing to accuse me in public. So please, accuse me on this show. I challenge you." Giuffre: "I was with Alan Dershowitz multiple times, at least six that I can remember. I was trafficked to Alan Dershowitz. From Epstein."
  • June 23, 2020, Miami Herald, “ a woman who claims she was forced to have sex with the flamboyant Harvard professor when she was a teen."
  • June 23, 2020, Law and Crime “Dershowitz, in turn, sued Giuffre for defamation over allegations that the Harvard Law School professor emeritus sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions as part of Epstein’s global elite pedophile sex trafficking operation.“ “ One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has accused Dershowitz of abusing her.“
  • June 25, 2020, Times of Israel "disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Dershowitz and had her have sex with him"
  • July 3, 2020, Deadline, lawyer spent most of the essay "assailing Netflix for its recent multi-part documentary, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, in which one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers says Dershowitz abused her multiple times while she was under Epstein’s control.”
  • July 31, 2020. Law and Crime “court files contain several references to Giuffre’s claims that she was sex trafficked to Dershowitz by Epstein.”
  • July 31, 2020, Law and Crime "Giuffre has alleged that she was furnished to Dershowitz for sex."
What's your motivation here? Does anybody else want to chime in here? Miserlou (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Miserlou: Please see my reply in the thread for Giuffre above. While I agree that caution is important when addressing contentious issues, concerns over BLP violations differ depending on whether the subject is a public figure or a low profile individual. Please also kindly refrain from reposting the sources for consideration that are compiled in lists still accessible above but feel free to add new sources that I have missed. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Miselou: Our motivation is treating unproven allegations, in this case a single one, that is the subject of a current defamation case, with due weight and not embracing sensationalism. These are a bunch of local or small outlets recycling a single years-old allegation that is both disputed by the subject and the focus of ongoing litigation.
@Cedar777: I suggest you stop spamming this talk page with quotes from semi-reliable and second-tier sources to support your point. Your point was made in the earlier thread. It is now disruptive. This brings nothing to the discussion and does nothing to further the argument that you are so aggressively pushing, that these are weighty or otherwise significant for a subject with a 60-year career and involvement in countless controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: If you pay closer attension to the revision history, you will observe that I did not "spam" the page as the repeat was added by another editor. Cedar777 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC and the Los Angeles Times are "semi-reliable and second-tier sources"? The intro contains a list of his notable clients, since he himself is notable I've included his self-defense as well, along with a New York Times citation of the facts. Miserlou (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cedar777: If that wasn't you, then my mistake. I thought it was initially unnecssary, but it is doubly unnecessary to repeat it, so I ask Miserlou: Why are you copy-pasting information already on the page? Do you understand that this is annoying and disruptive, in addition to making the discussion more difficult to follow?
You are mixing in a bunch of second-tier sources with reliable sources that are several years old. We should be screening out the former, and the latter are dated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I support moving the list of books to the article and out of the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It’s certainly warranted to say something along the lines of “Dershowitz is the author of a range of books that include non fiction content relating to his legal cases, autobiographical works, and fictional novels.” Perhaps also pointing to 2-3 of the most well known ones.
It makes sense to consider the most recent book “Guilt by Accusation”, the return of Epstein to the public consciousness along with Dershowitz’s role, and Giuffre’s allegations as related content for a sentence late in the lede. Kind Regards,
Cedar777 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Occupied IRL at the moment but will follow up w/ additional comments. Cedar777 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Miserlou: you keep readding this content about the article subject representing himself to the WP:LEDE. We have been discussing the lede here and an attempt to cleanup, and you are adding this trivial detail (why does it matter he represented himself, dont lawyers do that all the time?) to the lede? It also appears your edits might violate WP:DS in place. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not keep readding it, you keep removing it. It's not trivial, it's critical and factual. Your edits make the sentence less accurate. She is not making a statement, or a public claim; she has filed a lawsuit, with supporting evidence, which is still ongoing. Two others have already been imprisoned because of legal actions related to these claims, so they are absolutely not unsubstantiated claims as was previously suggested here. Similarly, the header sections of others which have been similarly accused by her - Prince Andrew and Jean-Luc Brunel - both include proper descriptions of the events.
The reason it makes sense to include the fact that he is representing himself in this case is because it is included in a paragraph which is specifically about his high-profile clients, which includes both Epstein and himself. Either way, it doesn't explain why your edits keep changing the fact that there is a lawsuit - with supporting evidence - into the deliberately less serious "claim".
I will also note to others reading this that the user who is making these edits has only made changes which either remove or soften the criminal accusations against Dershowitz, and the user has also left a weird and vaguely threatening comment about Israel on my talk page for some reason. Miserlou (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Jeffrey Epstein be added as a category?[edit]

Prince Andrew had the Category Jeffrey Epstein added to him due to the fact that the allegations have blighted his public image. The same can be applied to Dershowitz due to allegations of him being involved. He also was a prominent attorney on Epstein's behalf; if OJ Simpson murder case is a category, shouldn't Jeffrey Epstein too? Sergei zavorotko (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Epstein is already in a category among the subject's clients from 2006 - 2008. Unlike the other clients, Epstein has come back around as an enduring issue for the subject, particulary after Epstein was indicted for sex trafficking in 2019. Perhaps a place to briefly address this (with inline citations) is in the section for Epstein the client, or under the later sex trafficking allegations section. Cedar777 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump/Impeachment[edit]

It needs to be mentioned that he expressly stated Trump could not be impeached if he (Trump) believed "that his conduct as president" was "in the best interests of the people". This was clearly, legally incorrect. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this page locked when it clearly contains bullshit statement that Trump incited violence. Wikipedia has become a mouthpeace of marxists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:5870:513A:AF8C:23DE:A102 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That Trump was not largely responsible for the Capitol Hill riots is not a widely held view. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial political views[edit]

The first sentence states that Dershowitz is known for "controversial political views" but the source does not support this assertion. The source describes him as "controversial" but does not state his political views as the reason of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudelia (talkcontribs) 02:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021[edit]

The lede states he is known for "controversial political views" but the source only says he is "controversial", making no reference to his political views as the source of the controversy. Thus, this part should be removed. 107.77.226.135 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLUE. When it comes to people known for their political views, "controversial figure" means "controversial political views". You have plenty of more sources corroborating the claim further down in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
He's a lawyer known for his legal views. Some of his legal views are controversial. Also, the Epstein stuff and other events are a source of controversy. It makes no sense to assume the source is referencing his political views as controversial. If there are indeed sources to support the claim, cite those instead.