Talk:Alan Dershowitz
|
|
Left-wing views? C'mon. The guy's a lukewarm liberal at most.
The page has been temporarily protected so the text below which 195.92.168.175 is removing can be discussed rather than reverted. Please see also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Angela 03:19, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Finkelstein is a figure of some controversy himself, having been accused of Holocaust Denial, Revisionism and, in some cases, anti-semitism.Dershowitz has been a reknowned supporter of civil rights and outspoken critic of bigotry, especially anti-semitism. In 1983 the Anti-Defamation League awarded Mr. Dershowitz the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award for his "compassionate eloquent leadership and persistent advocacy in the struggle for civil and human rights." Nobel Laureate Elie Weisel, who presented the award, was quoted as saying, "If there had been a few people like Alan Dershowitz during the 1930s and 1940s, the history of European Jewry might have been different."</blockquote>
Thankyou Angela. User: 195.92.168.172, would you please explain your arguments against these paragraphs instead of constantly calling them propoganda? I am anxious to hear your opinion User: 195.92.168.172.
-Leumi
Leumi suffers from irredeemable bias, as her user contributions show. In this article she tries to attribute to Mr Dershowitz, a well known plagiarist and fraudster, values of sainthood.
User 195.92.168.172, to start off, I am male. So let's get that straight right off the bat. However moving on to more substantive issues, your accusations that Mr. Dershowitz is a plagiarist and fraudster are not held by the majority of the academic community. Mr. Dershowitz is a well-known and respected public figure who you attempt to mercilessly slander. Your narrow and biased agenda, shown throughout your user contributions, sheds light on your lack of ability to speak in the type of neutral tones required in order to work on Wikipedia. I suggest you work to attain some measure of even-handedness before you go about making accusations of "irredeemable bias".
-Leumi
I think Leumi protests too much.Here's some of the plagiarisms of Mr Dershowitz, to be placed in the article when it becomes unprotected. AD represents Alan Dershowitz (in his book 'The Case for Israel'), and JP represents Joan Peters (in her earlier book 'From Time Immemorial')
JP: Report followed depressing report, as the economist-historian Professor Fred Gottheil pointed out: […] "wretched desolation and neglect"; "almost abandoned now"; "unoccupied"; "uninhabited"; "thinly populated." (p. 160)AD: Other historians, demographers, and travelers described the Arab population as "decreasing," and the land as "thinly populated," "unoccupied," "uninhabited," and "almost abandoned now." (pp. 26-7)
JP: [I]n the Jewish settlement Rishon l'Tsion (founded in 1882), by the year 1889 the "forty Jewish families" settled there had attracted "more than four hundred Arab families," most of them "Bedouin and Egyptian." They had come to "surround the moshava" (settlement) in a "now-thriving village" that, before the founding of Rishon l'Tsion, had been Sarafand - "a forsaken ruin." The report from Rishon pointed out that many other Arab villages had sprouted in the same fashion. (pp. 252-3)
AD: A study of the Jewish settlement of Rishon L'Tzion, first established in 1882, showed that the 40 Jewish families that settled there had attracted "more than 400 Arab families," many of which were Bedouin and Egyptian. These families moved into areas around the Jewish settlement and formed a new Arab village on the site of "a forsaken ruin." The report observed a similar pattern with regard to other settlements and villages. (p. 27)
JP: One historian deduced that of 141,000 settled Muslims living in all of Palestine (all areas) in 1882, "at least 25% of those 141,000…were newcomers or descendants of those who arrived after 1831 (Egyptian conquest)." (pp. 196-7)
AD: According to one historian, "at least 25% of [the Muslims who lived in all of Palestine in 1882] were newcomers or descendants of those who arrived after [the Egyptian conquest of 1831]." (p. 28)
JP: Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition […] finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" - whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" - that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely . . . on the ethnology of Palestine." In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."… "There are […] Persians […] Kurds…German `Templar' colonies […], a large Algerian element […] Sudanese, […] the Samaritan sect." (pp. 156-7)
AD: The 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica described the population of Palestine as comprising widely differing "ethnological" groups speaking "no less than fifty languages." It was daunting therefore to "write concisely" about "the ethnology of Palestine," especially following the influx of population from Egypt "which still persists in the villages." In addition to Arabs and Jews, the other ethnic groups in Palestine at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century included Kurds, German Templars, Persians, Sudanese, Algerians, Samaritans, Tatars, Georgians, and many people of mixed ethnicities. (p. 26)
Perhaps the allegations of plagiarism should be discussed in a separate article on The Case for Israel? There is far more to the story of Alan Dershowitz than this one incident. Also the paragraphs should be reordered: the plagiarism flap is the most recent piece of news on Dershowitz, but he has done other noteworthy things, which the article should make clear. --Mirv 20:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Number one, it is redundant to place all of this into the article, as I'm sure the links section would be much more economical. Number two, might I point out that all of these points are respected historical facts that any scholar may quote in their works, and their is sufficient difference between the versions to dispell notions of plagiarism. Finkelstein is merely attempting to discredit Dershowitz's work, and being unable to do so on scholarly grounds has resorted to personal attacks. However, all of this regardless, your language is not nuetral by any means, which is the essential point in Wikipedia. The accusations are dealt with in the current version, and there is no reason to make the article biased.
-Leumi(Will add response to Mirv momentarily, inclined to look favorably on the idea, will elaborate)
I think that is an excellent idea, however I don't think it should be called The Case for Israel as the book is worth much more than the accusations against it. We should take the current info in the Dershowitz article on the matter, move it to a new article entitled Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair and make a link to it from the Dershowitz page, so we can focus on other aspects of Dershowitz. What do you think?
-Leumi
- I agree. Write up the argument between Dershowitz and Finkelstein/Cockburn in a separate page and link to it both from Alan M. Dershowitz and The Case for Israel (when the latter is written). --Mirv 21:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Er, but title it something like Allegations of plagiarism against Alan M. Dershowitz -- Finkelstein started the accusations, but others have since picked them up. --Mirv 21:07, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure that's necessary. After all, the accusations all basically use the same "evidence" provided by Finkelstein, don't they? One could say it is mainly an argument between Dershowitz and his supporters and Finkelstein and those that support him. How about...Plagiarism accusations by Norman Finkelstein? I don't believe Mr. Finkelstein has made any other allegations of that sort, so it still works. Before I write it up, what do you think?
- Maybe Dershowitz-Finkelstein plagiarism affair? Or Plagiarism accusations against Alan Dershowitz by Norman Finkelstein, or Plagiarism accusations by Norman Finkelstein against Alan Dershowitz (though the latter two are unwieldy and ugly). Perhaps Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair is best after all. --Mirv 22:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah. Dershowitz-Finkelstein plagiarism affair would be good, but like the other two it's a bit too wordy. If you agree, I'm going to go with Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair
Okay, I've created the article, and I'll work some more on it later. I think that we can open the page from protection now, as we've reached a compromise we can all hopefully accept. I want to remove the details of the Plagiarism matter and replace it with a shorter sentence linking to the new article, to avoid redundancy, as the new article is largely based on what was in here about it. All in favor of re-opening article for edit and ending reverting wars?
-Leumi
'Language neutral' advocate Leumi has named themselves after Irgun, the Israeli 'freedom fighters'.
- Actually, if you took the time to research you would know that Leumi is the Hebrew word for National (i.e: First National Bank, National Sovereignty etc.) While the Irgun Z'vai Leumi has this word in their name, it is only because their name translates into National Military Organization. Take some time to verify your claims and stop resorting to name calling when you cannot prove your points in legitimate debate.
-Leumi
Last edit on Irgun was by Leumi, despite claiming he was actually named after National Bank. rather than Irgun Tsvai-Leumi
I did not say I was named after the national bank, I said I was named after the word National! I used the national bank, and national sovereignty as an example. I am no more named after the Irgun than a person whose name is "Republican is named after the IRA! Furthermore, why is it your tactic to resort to personal attacks rather than substantive debate?
-Leumi
The page is unprotected now. Angela 00:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- removed personal attack*
May I suggest the compromise I just added. It's often only necessary to report all the facts to get NPOV. i.e. we record that fact of Dershowitz commendation for human rights, and his (much disputed) statements on torture. DJ Clayworth 20:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Your compromise works very well, I think.--MIRV 20:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I agree. Leumi 22:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello again to our anonymous friend! Please don't revert a compromise edit that everyone else has already agreed to be reasonable without discussing it beforehand. What DJ Clayworth wrote was not weaselry; it was an accurate and neutral description of fact. --MIRV 00:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I changed the article, expanding the section about Dershowitz's controversial views about torture. I felt that: 1. The original text did not explain what Dershowitz's actual view was (he is not advocating torture per se, but saying that it will happen and that it is better that it happens under judicial review than "under the radar", and hence open to abuse); and 2. the text basically says "Dershowitz has been criticised for advocating torture. He says 'what about the ticking timebomb terrorist'. We say that is immoral". I think this is POV against Dershowitz. Hence in teh spirit (I thought) of NPOV I changed it (you can read my amendment in history). It has since been changed back, with a commenbt such as "this is not a forum, it is an encyclopaedia". I disagree that my edit was invalid. Am i alone?
-Batmanand
Left-wing?
Is this guy left-wing? Sure doesn't sound left-wing. Chamaeleon 04:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There needs to be something to support the "left-wing" claim, otherwise it is POV/original research. This guy is a rightist who smears people on the left as racists, and is in favour of torture. I think we need to hear examples of quite a few progressive opinions coming out of his mouth before we can call him left-wing, or even a moderate centrist. Let's hear them. The article should say neither left not right until this is clarified. If the matter is still not clear, then we should resort to attribution (i.e. published source X says Dershowitz is left-wing, publish source Y says he is right-wing). Chamaeleon 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See Supreme Injustice, Sexual McCarthyism, etc. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've read reviews of those, and they seem to be simply partisan pro-Democrat, anti-Republican attacks. That doesn't quite put him on the Left.
- In contrast, his views on torture and Israel are far right. Chamaeleon 05:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- His views on torture aren't "far right." His position has been misrepresented. Neutralitytalk 02:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Having read what he said, I'd say that he is in favour of states being able to use torture, which is something condemned by civilised people. Talk of ticking timebombs does not excuse this, as states will always say there are such threats. A part of his argument is that torture will occur anyway, but we do not apply such a reasoning to murder, electoral fraud, etc. You are either for torture or against it. He is for it, and this position has been condemned not only by the far left but also by mainstream groups such as Amnesty International.[1] (http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html) Dershowitz's view is right-wing.
- Dershowitz supports Zionism. This is approximately like supporting the British empire at the height of the Raj, or China during its occupation of Tibet. Hardly a progressive opinion.
- We would be perfectly justified in stating that he is right-wing. However, since there is for some bizarre reason disagreement on this issue, we cannot state anything categorically either way. NPOV policy requires us therefore to attribute views instead of stating our own. If you want the left-right-ness of his politics mentioned in the article, then quote someone lower down in the article, and be sure to give both opinions. The introduction must remain neutral. Chamaeleon 11:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
JillandJack's changes should be reverted
I regard JillandJack's category change to be inappropriate. As I stated on the talk page for the Lynne Stewart article, JillandJack is apparently a user whose previous account was banned. This user is apparently moving to have the "Radical lawyers" category removed. Rather than letting the category status depend on that outcome, the user has chosen to empty out several articles in violation of the request on the deletion proposal flag.
- I disagree. Whether or not Jillandjack is a good or a bad wikipedian, Dershowitz is not a "radical" lawyer. He holds one of the, if not THE, top law chair in the world. He is not radical in his views of law; that is the mark of a radical lawyer. Argue as much as you like about whether or not his views on Israel are "radical", but he is NOT a radical lawyer.
- batmanand
- He is not a radical lawyer. Chamaeleon 09:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Other controversial positions include Dershowitz's comments expressing his disregard for the human rights claims of Palestinian refugees, and Dershowitz's accusations that faculty members at Columbia University encourage terrorism." Who wants to rewrite this?
I restored the quote
His 2nd amendment quote can often be found on the Internet but without even a source attribution. I tracked down and verified the quote. The section was more than just a quote; it provided info the Internet needs. Lotsofissues 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)