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 may be 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
February 1, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 29, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Where is he licensed to practice law?[edit]

I really don't know. I'm sure he could get an ad hoc license to practice anywhere but where does he have a permanent licensure? Ought to be included in the profile of a prominent lawyer. (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We had an RFC about this, and Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) is aware of that because he started the RFC, which had a 9-4 include vote count, and the arguments against were just assertions of UNDUE. Trying to backdoor that consensus now is tendentious editing, and if the material is not restored I may be reporting that behavior of editing against an explicit consensus in a page subject to discretionary sanctions. User:Jtbobwaysf, kindly self-revert, and if youd like to establish a new consensus you can try doing that. And by the way, Menetrez is a California Supreme Court associate justice. nableezy - 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, sorry. I didnt' remember that. I'll revert it. Someone also left a similar message on my talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. nableezy - 18:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re The just removed Menetrez Dershowitz material on the grounds of CP being deprecated. The Menetrez side of that is in fact in the epilogue of Finkelstein book and has also been separately published at if some one wants to put that back in. Shame about Dershowitz response that only appeared in CP afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's worse than that, since the editor removed an RS used elsewhere on the paqe, not even stopping to consider the contradiction of his scuttling any reference to Menetrez who had the obscene chutzpah to summarize his chapter in Beyond Chutzpah for the general reader that could access it easily at CP. I've restored it and the CP refs. Like several other cases, this jihadi like rampage causes absurd collateral damage to the encyclopedia because the erasing editor simply (a) evidently knows nothing of the topics where he slashes and burns and (b) doesn't examine the pages themselves, hence elides here what the page elsewhere endorses as a valid source. It is indiscriminate removalism without any exercise in discrimination of the kind required here.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He removed a book published by University of California Press and material that has an explicit affirmative consensus for in an RFC. Just wow. nableezy - 19:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Bobfrombrockley's edit is likewise obscene, the material is in a book published by University of California Press, and that book is cited. Remove CP and this is still due, and still covered widely, and still has a consensus in a freaking RFC. The only link in this entire article is an ABOUTSELF response by Dershowitz. You want to remove his response? Seems silly but go ahead. Removing what is in the UofC published book is both against basic common sense as well as an RFC on this specific material. nableezy - 19:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did Bob remove something? Or just query it? Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added that what is in a UofC book was an article in CounterPunch. nableezy - 19:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, an apology. When I made my edit, I had no idea this had already been the subject of an RfC which had already decided this was DUE, despite the absence of secondary coverage. I would not have asked the question again in my edit summary. However, since the RfC, the source has been deprecated, and my actual edit simply notes the publication, as at the very least in a BLP an opinion in a deprecated sources should be fully attributed, I would've thought. Nableezy, I resent your description of my edit as "obscene". You might consider it wrong, but there is no reason to direct abusive comments at me, so I would appreciate you withdrawing that. It is in fact true that the article was published in CounterPunch, and that Dershowitz's response to it was published in the same place. (This is obvious from the opening sentence of the Dershowitz article currently cited: Frank Menetrez, in “The Case Against Alan Dershowitz” on the CounterPunch website, absurdly repeats the politically motivated and false charge that I committed plagiarism by quoting Mark Twain and citing to the original Mark Twain book The Innocents Abroad, when, as he falsely claims, I found that quote in Joan Peters’ 1984 book From Time Immemorial. The CounterPunch article was presumably then re-published as an appendix to Finkelstein's book? (I don't have access to that book so can't myself verify this, but that's what other editors seem to be saying.) I would still question whether this is DUE (Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.) but I have no interest in re-litigating the previous RfC. Nonetheless, I don't think a deprecated source should be used in a BLP without clear attribution, and I don't see why that's controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bob, you wrote Menetrez wrote an article in CP, which is true, but he also expanded on that article and published it in Finkelstein's book. That is what is cited. The piece cited is a. not the CP article, being much longer and more in depth, and b. not in CounterPunch. But sure, withdrew "obscene". What Menetrez is cited for is not in CP, and your edit claiming that it is a CP article is wrong and so far inexplicable. If you dont see what wrong with attributing to CounterPunch what is not published in CounterPunch then I dont know how to respond to that really. nableezy - 19:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clear up a possible confusion there was a CP article of 2007, Dershowitz v. Finkelstein: Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?
That formed part of the epilogue in Beyond Chutzpah.
Then there was another CP article, in 2008, The Case Against Alan Dershowitz drawn from the epilogue in Beyond Chutzpah.
That's how we get the before and after, if you see what I mean.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for striking through Nableezy and thank you for the timeline clarification Selfstudier. It all makes more sense now. I don't think it was "inexplicable" that I got the timeline slightly wrong, as the relevant section of the Finkelstein book we cited is not online and the extracted quote doesn't clarify the timeline, the Dershowitz piece we cite is clearly responding to a CounterPunch article not a book chapter, and the secondary source does not seem to mention the disagreement at all as far as I can see), so I don't know why you would want to continue personalising this. Anyway, I think what would be sensible would be to clarify this in our text. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bob, what you wrote was Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez wrote an article in CounterPunch in support of Finkelstein's charges. The source cited is Frank J. Menetrez (2008). "Dershowitz & Finkelstein — who's right and who's wrong?". In Norman Finkelstein (ed.). Beyond Chutzpah. University of California Press. pp. 363–394. Is that an article in CounterPunch? And the relevant section is in fact online, maybe not linked, but certainly online. Here. nableezy - 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Nableezy. I couldn't see the epilogue - which is in the second (2008) edition and not the original (2005) edition - on Google books when I looked for some reason. I see the note on the first page says "Parts of this essay were originally published by CounterPunch online (April 30, 2007)". But I see now (thanks to the clarification by SelfStudier) that that isn't the article we are referring to when we say "Menetrez wrote an article", which is “The Case Against Alan Dershowitz”, 26 February 2008. The Dershowitz piece we cite is replying to “The Case Against Alan Dershowitz”, not to the piece that became the epilogue. However, the 2008 article in turn says "This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press." It's tangled, but it's now clear to me that I was in fact right when I changed "Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez wrote an article in support of Finkelstein's charges" to "Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez wrote an article in CounterPunch in support of Finkelstein's charges", and changed "Dershowitz wrote an article replying to Menetrez" to "Dershowitz wrote an article in CounterPunch replying to Menetrez". For the first, I think it would be better to say "Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez wrote an article in CounterPunch in support of Finkelstein's charges, later expanded as an epilogue in the paperback edition of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah. For the second, the current wording "Dershowitz's response, together with Menetrez's reply, was published by CounterPunch" is an improvement on my version, as is the newer explication of the exchange. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless we are citing the CP article at the beginning of this, and there is no reason to, I dont think anything needs to be attributed to CP. Yes Menetrez wrote an article on CP. He also wrote an essay in Finkelstein's book. That is what we are citing. So no, writing in the article that Menetrez wrote an article in CP and citing the longer piece in Beyong Chutzpah is not right. nableezy - 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is amazing that somebody is removing the subject's response to the charges of plagiarism as a BLP issue. David Gerard, are you aware that this is written by the subject of the article? Do you really want Dershowitz's response here not included? nableezy - 20:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RFC was fatally defective: it was malformed, not properly listed where it could be generally responded to (avoiding the danger of invalid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS), that it was a bad RFC was noted during the RFC, was not properly concluded, and RFCs aren't decided on vote count. And it presumed that being in Counterpunch was sufficient to make the incident noteworthy. As Counterpunch is a deprecated source, that obviously doesn't hold - especially in a BLP. I concur with Bobfrombrockley that the entire incident is extremely questionable, and I consider it obviously shouldn't go in. You may disagree, of course, but can you do so without using deprecated sources to support your case?

(And without abusive edit summaries, of course - blustering like that suggests you don't think you have a case, and is probably not a good editing mode.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't agree with Bob that 'entire incident is extremely questionable.' Bob hasn't made an argument. He stated an opinion in an edit summary. And, once again, your language is incomprehensible. What on earth does 'entire incident is extremely questionable' mean? Could you clarify if you are referring to the incident of Dershowitz's clash with Finkelstein' as 'questionable'. That is what 'entire' suggests. Or do you mean the 'entire' material regarding Menetrez's third party analysis of the dispute, not an 'incident' in any accepted understanding of that term, is 'questionable'? In either case, your opinion is neither here nor there unless you can ground it in the appropriate textual analysis of the sources regarding either of the two possible 'incidents'. So, make an argument here, rather than bluster about thinking others 'don't have a case'. So far you haven't a case. You (a) have a policy, (b) you misrecognized a book and denied it was RS though the page uses it elsewhere several times (c) and therefore are not paying attention.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC was properly listed, it was on the talk page of this article and had an RFC tag. The Menetrez material is both in an unquestionable source (pay attention to what you are removing please), and b. widely covered in other sources. The dispute over whether Dershowitz plagiarized has its own article. the idea that the "incident is extremely questionable" is absurd. What are you talking about? The only CP thing cited here is Dershowitz responding to the widely covered charges against him. nableezy - 22:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes, good of you to bring up not a vote. See the RFC arguments against inclusion. All four of them. And then pretend that there is not a clear consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 22:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a policy we should include the responses by BLP subjects to all criticisms of them that are included in our articles? I tend to go with Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. If this is DUE, are there not reliable, independent, secondary sources which we can source this from? (It doesn't seem to actually be in the Michael Abraham source we cite, but if it is that would be the sort of thing I'd look for.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides basic common sense that ones response to serious charges of academic fraud be permitted? Idk, Id say WP:BLPPUBLIC which says If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance. covers it fairly well. nableezy - 19:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pointed out that the Mandy Rice-David applies essay (which, as an essay, nobody is obliged to give any weight to) contradicts the WP:BLPPUBLIC part of the WP:BLP policy, which pertains to public figures, on the talkpage of that essay.     ←   ZScarpia   00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. So it looks like if we include the allegation then we should include the response, but presumably also note attribute fully as I did in my edit -- i.e. something like "Dershowitz responded in CounterPunch" -- no? BLPPUBLIC then begs the question of DUEness (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. This is the question addressed below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And as far as no secondary coverage, that is simply false. Menetrez's analysis has secondary coverage, as discussed in the RFC. Yall might not like he initially published it in a verboten source, but serious sources took his analysis seriously, and it absolutely has weight to be covered here. And Dershowitz's response has to be included, just on basic decency grounds of including a living person's response to serious allegations against them. nableezy - 00:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Menetrez' full article as cited was published by a university press, which ends that part of the argument. Menetrez charged that Dershowitz behaved in a manner not befitting a senior academic. Therefore, the BLP rules require us to cite Dershowitz' defence. They trump deprecation (which doesn't force deletion anyway). The RfC wasn't properly closed but was otherwise fine. In any case it was not about Menetrez' full article but his shorter CP article which we no longer cite. Zerotalk 01:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dershowitz wrote an article replying to Menetrez, characterizing the charges as politically motivated by Dershowitz's support for Israe.

I read that as a tad inept. Support for Israel doesn't motivate a charge: hostility to support for Israel does. I've adjusted. By the way, the Dershowitz CounterPunch article is an exchange. Dershowitz's defence was followed by Menetrez's response, ergo dual authorship.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dershowitz sues Virginia Giuffre[edit]

In the third episode of Vicky Ward's documentary Chasing Ghislaine, Dershowitz says, "I want Virginia Giuffre to go to jail for perjury" and that Giuffre has "victimized many people by her perjury".

Not everything is available for free as text. The above is found at Discovery+.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information was initially added to an unsuitable section. There was already an entire section in Dershowitz's article titled Sex trafficking allegations that mentions Giuffre, Boies, and the lawsuits that have been exchanged between these parties. I've moved the content to the section that addresses the allegations and further clarified that the section covers Sex trafficking allegations and related lawsuits.
14Jenna7Caesura, please keep in mind that unsourced and impropperly sourced material is at risk of being removed. Most of the existing content in the section has been sourced from print publishers that are considered to be solidly reliable sources per WP:RSP.
At the absolute minimum there needs to be an inline citation for Ward's film, the episode, date of release, url, and time at which the statement is made. This page describes the policies for Wikipedia:Citing sources, in particular, section 3.1.6 covers how to cite Film, television, or video recordings. Not everything that gets said by a subject in an interview or a documentary is WP:DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Better to sumarize the facts and response of Giuffre, Dershowitz, and Boies (who sued who when and why) rather than quoting them each directly, repeatedly. Cedar777 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022[edit]

Add Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy (2017, ISBN 978-1974617890) to list of works. User136596 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the infobox image[edit]

The current image of Alan Dershowitz is unsettling and informal in nature. I think it might be better to use an image such as AlanDershowitz2.jpg rather than the current one. GuardianH (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

148 × 148 pixels -- What is this, an infobox for ants?
Memes aside, many of our BLP photos can seem a bit wacky because they have to conform to WP's Image use policy, which among other things details copyright and other legal rights. It appears from the Commons description that the image you linked has an unrestricted license, which is fantastic, but then there's the quality issue (indicated previously) which is discussed in general in MOS:IMAGES. The guideline for biography article images is just to not use anything clearly disparaging (and I don't think the term "disparaging light" is synonymous with "unflattering lighting conditions"). Also consensus on other BLP pages seems to favor "current" images when given the choice (as opposed to photos in which they were obviously much younger). But if you do have a suggestion for a usable image you think is better and also of suitable resolution, then you should boldly make a replacement. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks for responding. Sorry about the image haha, I only took a cursory glance. I brought up the issue mainly because I don't want to be jumpscared every time I enter the page! GuardianH (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]