Talk:Alan Dershowitz/Archive 6

RfC on Menetrez response
This is WP:DUE/UNDUE:

In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue".

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * UNDUE and Remove because obscure lawyer op-ed published in Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources dubious source. Not suitable for WP:BLP. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * UNDUE and Remove This clearly opinion by nobody and it used to PUSH a one-sided POV here. --Shrike (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is actually a BLP violation. Calling someone nobody is a violation of BLP. See WP:BLPTALK.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * UNDUE and Remove  - a non-notable opinion (ie: not covered by anyone but the author and a fringe source), from a non notable individual. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   17:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * UNDUE and Remove Not neutral. ~ HAL  333  21:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * HAL333, that is not a policy-based argument. Non-neutral sources and biased content are expressly allowed by several policies, and are often seen as the best content because they actually contribute something. We just attribute them. We don't even bother with comments that say nothing. Such comments are never the subject of disputes and rarely used. -- 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Four identical votes within three hours. Hmmmm. Zerotalk 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a mild observation from a qualified person which is needed to counter the opinion of Derek Bok. It isn't acceptable to have only opinion other than Dershowitz and Finkelstein. Also, when this RfC is over I will change the citation to a publication of the University of California Press so all arguments based on the nature of CounterPunch are irrelevant. Zerotalk 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this a notable opinion that has been cited in reliable sources. It has also been published by the University of California. I can't see any legit reason for removing this.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a neutral RfC see discussion below.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a paragraph dedicated to Menetrez's opinion included in the main article — Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, it's included in Norman Finkelstein's article, in the epilogue of Finkelstein's book, it's been cited as a reference in this book, and mentioned in a book review in The Guardian. Menetrez has the qualifications to opine on the matter, his statements are attributed to him, and I don't see a BLP issue with his opinion either. Since the section in this article is supposed to summarize the contents of the main article, it's not undue to include a single sentence here in this article, since it is basically the crux of his argument. And for the record, I didn't find the RfC to be non-neutral and I understood what was being asked. Isaidnoway (talk)  12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important and notable analysis of the affair. It has been cited by several reputable publications, including Current Affairs, the Huffington Post, Aftenposten, and New Politics. Significantly, it has been described as a "decisive analysis" by the Professor of Jurisprudence Brian Leiter, who is described in our article on him as "one of the most influential legal philosophers of our time", and is thus clearly not a "nobody". Menetrez's view is thus clearly notable, and should be included. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep whether or not the RFC is non-neutral.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per RolandR, we have coverage of Menetrez's comments in multiple RS sources. One sentence on Menetrez's position, supported by better refs than Counterpunch, is not undue, nor is it a BLP issue.Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove - seems not really BLP stuff, odd details given undue prominence here and not clear about meaning.  If we’re not able to state a clear event this caused, then it seems a hypothetical arguing rather than anything important in his life.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per RolandR, and as much as I know/assume, he (RonaldR) has mentioned helpful items for it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Include with reference to secondary source material covering it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - this RFC question conveniently claims that this is simply from CounterPunch when in the section above it is noted that a longer version of this essay appears in a book published by the University of California Press. Change the citation to Finkelstein's book and the objection on the quality of the publisher vanishes. On the merits, it is indeed unacceptable to include only a position against Finkelstein here by a third party. Lest we forget, Finkelstein is likewise a living person BLP applies to him as well. With the citation to Finkelstein's book, this material satisfies RS and DUE and should be retained.  nableezy  - 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Counterpunch is the periodical that the Menetrez op-ed was originally published in. It was perfectly appropriate to present the link, not "convenient" or in bad faith as you seem to suggest. The response by Dershowitz was published in the same allegation. If you can provide a link where a reliable secondary source republished the piece in full, which you suggest exists, then RS may be satisfied, but not until then. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What about that this material also appears in a book published by the University of California Press do you not get? Here is your link. A link already provided in this RFC by another comment oh by the way.  nableezy  - 03:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it can be briefly mentioned with a citation to the Current Affairs article. It doesn't mean much that Finkelstein republished it word-for-word in his book. The original citation to Counterpunch can be included with the secondary source material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please only write things you know to be true. The book version came first and the Counterpunch article is a short version "drawn from" it (as it says) of a bit less than half the length. Zerotalk 03:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the disclaimer said it was drawn from a forthcoming book. This would seem to suggest the article came first. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The request for comment question seems vague and unneutral. Is there anyone who can fix this mess.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The RfC starts by violating WP:RfC rules, so this all lacks validity. -- Valjean (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Which rule specifically? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Writing a RfC guidelines. You can find lots of information of how to write a RfC here. Your request for comment starts with "This is WP:DUE/UNDUE:". It's not clear and not a question. The correct wording would be "Should we remove this...".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is a RfC that can make editors misunderstand the arguments. I think we should close it.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are saying I should add a question mark? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you should make a straightforward question. Even if your RfC was a question, the answers (e.g Due or undue) are not the outcome that we need, the outcomes that we need are "exclude or include". You narrowed the debate by your RfC. The question should be straightforward like this "Should we include this?" Or "should we remove this?".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The question should not be leading, but neutral. -- Valjean (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The debate is if it is due or undue. Both specificity & concision are required. Move your comments above from the survey section to the discussion section.  Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, your "question"(still it's not a question) is not straightforward or especific question. It's a leading question. The answers are not the outcome that we all need. The question should be straightforward like "should we include" or "should we exclude". The arguments should be in the votes not in the question.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The RfC should not be about specific text either, but about the information to be included or excluded. I object to "Los Angeles attorney", which devalues him if he is actually a judge (true?), and "written for CounterPunch", which is not what his article actually says. A suitable question would be "Should the opinion of Frank Menetrez regarding the charge of plagiarism that Finkelstein made against Dershowitz be included?". Zerotalk 08:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Non-neutral RFC; and from where does this idea come that "opinions" are not allowed, they absolutely are if they are from someone qualified to give them. and a full profile can be found in here The UCP cite is given at the Case for Israel article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Selfstudier If you think you can clarify ... WP:RFC says go edit the bottom of the question space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Complaints about the RfC miss the issue: the content is not compliant with policy. WP:BLP requires hiqh-quality sources for all information included in BLPs. Counterpunch and Frank Melentrez are neither. Further, opinion pieces are only as reliable as the author for assertions of fact, and there is no reliability established for this author. Attempts to add this material back into the article with its current sourcing will be reported to BLPN. Frank Menetrez is an attorney and now state-level judge, but someone's occupation does not immediately establish them as a reliable source for criticisms. The piece contains allegations of plagiarism against Dershowitz, and is therefore subject to the highest level of BLP scrutiny. This does not pass muster. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you are making up policy. "Reliable source for criticisms" is a concept that does not exist as a property of the person making the criticism but only as a property of the source reporting the criticism. A book published by the University of California Press meets that requirement beyond question. The fact that Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure is also unquestionable. The only relevant question here is one of weight; since Menetrez is professionally qualified to judge plagiarism and his opinion is reported in multiple places, there is no reason to not report it here. Zerotalk 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasoning you asserted, Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure, is illogical on Wikipedia. Anyone who meets the notability guidelines to have a page is a public figure to some degree. BLP, which centers onsourcing standards, applies equally to all, regardless of fame or notoriety. Second, what I said about criticisms is completely consistent with WP:BLP, but it's actually much broader than that.
 * "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * This applies to all material. So if the Menetrez piece is attributable to a reliable source, then inclusion might be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)
 * "Public figure" is a legal concept, not a measure of how well someone is known. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. For background on why the BLP rules are different for public figures, see public figure. Zerotalk 04:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Yes, BLP applies to everyone (except editors here), but BLP does make a difference between private and public figures, which is also a reflection of U.S. law, where public figures are afforded much less protection against libel. We must be careful with everyone we write about, but be even stricter with people who aren't very well-known, unlike very public figures. There is a higher bar for them. So the baseline applies to all, but the inclusion criteria are different. Public figures do have less protection, both here and "out there." -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't differ, you agreed. Probably I wasn't clear enough. Zerotalk 04:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh! Then I misunderstood your first sentence: "The reasoning you asserted, "Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure", is illogical on Wikipedia."
 * You didn't misunderstand it, but I didn't write it. Wikieditor19920 wrote it but didn't sign. I added an "unsigned" template. I only wrote the two sentences immediately before my signature. Zerotalk 04:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Those unsigned comments are devils. Thanks for the clarification. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand the difference between PUBLICFIGURE and NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it is true that "Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules", in the sense that the rules for PUBLICFIGUREs are less stringent than for NOTPUBLICFIGUREs. Our policy, just like real life laws, affords them less protection. NOTE: We still maintain high sourcing standards for all BLPs. -- Valjean (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * However, Counterpunch is not a reliable source, and that was the citation when you restored it to the page. Furthermore, you restored the material while it was and is subject to an ongoing RfC. The sourcing violates WP:BLP standards, and you restoring it while it's under an active request for comment violates WP:BURDEN. None of this is made up policy, and I would like to see our admins setting a better example. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Menetrez was present on the page when this RfC was started, and you removed him. So don't lecture me about setting examples. Zerotalk 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting is not supported by policy. Where someone is not a prominent person, there is no bar, we simply do our best not to name them at all. We have a policy on how to treat well-known public figures. It's called WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and it does not in any way suggest that sourcing requirements are lower for prominent persons. Instead, it requires that any information published in reliable source  should be included. Key word reliable sources. This is not a forum to debate defamation law, it is to discuss WP policy, and policy does not suggest that we can be less than scrupulous about sources with prominent individuals.


 * BLP implies exactly the opposite—material likely to be challenged requires the highest quality sources. Controversial material on high-profile individuals' pages is among the content most likely to be challenged, and therefore we should always be careful with the sources used. And while I now agree that the Menetrez material should be included, with the citation the UC Press and Dersh response, I do not believe that continuing an edit war over the material was productive. Per WP:BURDEN, the material should be left out until the discussion is resolved, not repeatedly restored. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I suggested any lowering of sourcing requirements? Not at all. I just point out that BLP does make a difference. I know PUBLICFIGURE very well, as some of my wording is in that policy, and I use it often. That PUBLICFIGURE even exists shows there is a different standard for how we treat private and public persons, which just happens to parallel legal realities, but the sourcing must still be good. If there were no difference, BLP wouldn't describe them separately.
 * See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE for why we are even more careful with "not public figures", and part of the reasoning is legal realities: "in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." By contrast, public figures in the United States do not enjoy much protection from defamatory statements. They can rarely win a libel suit. -- Valjean (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand where you are coming from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

typo
Elon Deshowitz => Elon Dershowitz


 * Fixed it. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the response by Dershowitz to the public accusations by Virginia Roberts ?
Alan Dershowitz has been known for years as a close friend and lawyer of Jeffrey Epstein. Dershowitz has been accused recently, here's a quote "I was trafficked to Alan Dershowitz from Epstein,' she (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) said, adding - Epstein 'forced me to have sex' with his attorney along with a number of other men." "'I was with Alan Dershowitz multiple times. At least six that I can remember,' she said directly to the camera". We cannot be sure yet if it was indeed Epstein who "forced" Giuffre on Dershowitz or whether Dershowitz was the main force. However, Giuffre's daring public accusation puts not only Dershowitz but anyone connected with Dershowitz in a position to react. רסטיניאק (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wall Street Journal covered the exchange in this article about the Netflix series Filthy Rich, but there was no discussion of a response or reaction from Dershowitz, yet. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This does not exactly relate to this section, but seemed like the best fit. The sexual assault allegations by Virginia Roberts in my opinion and understanding of the Epstein case should be more prominent on this page. Perhaps after the line in the intro about being on the legal team for Jeffrey Epstein, there should be a line that reads "It has also been alleged that Alan Dershowitz was one of several prominent figures to have participated in sexual activities with a minor, Virginia Roberts, one of Jeffrey Epstein's sex traffic victims." I would also move to relabel 5.2 "Virginia Roberts Giuffre and related lawsuits" to "Sexual Assault allegations and related lawsuits". It is important that the prominence of the sexual assault allegations against Alan Dershowitz be apparent and visible on this page. I feel as if the sexual assault allegations are hidden and dismissed on this page. As Wikipedia has such a large impact on public portrayal this allegation should not be written out and hidden. Leaning blade (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Renaming is an option as is a separate section for Sexual misconduct/assault allegations (and related lawsuits). The other two subjects in the Disputes section are of a different quality (academic and policy disputes) whereas Giuffre and the related lawsuits between Dershowitz and Boies firm would benefit from their own section. Instead of 5.2, why not move it out and rename as 6.0?  With Maxwell in jail and scheduled for trial next July, Dershowitz and Giuffre will continue to be covered by RS.  Meanwhile, there is this response from Dershowitz in Deadline. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dershowitz wrote an entire book as a response and it's available for free as a Kindle book. After reading it I'm inclined to believe that Guiffre was pressured to lie, and it seems inappropriate (by WP:BLP) to "make it prominent" in this article that someone somewhere falsely accused him. There's apparently a lot of other things he's more famous for, albeit not in all communities. I'm not implying my current opinion should be a swaying factor here, but some people aren't familiar with the details of the accusation nor with who this guy even is so there's this opposite opinion of "I heard he's a [redacted] and that's evil and everyone should know it". If anyone knows of any rebuttal/debunking articles of the claims Dershowitz makes in his book about this case (Guilt by Accusation), please let me know. And if there's nothing debunkable there then he's not even guilty (of that particular thing) which would make it doubly inappropriate to make it "apparent and visible". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The publication of Guilt by Accusation in November 2019 preceded Giuffre's statement in the Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich documentary released May 2020. The OP appears to be asking specifically about Dershowitz's response to Giuffre's direct challenge into the camera in the documentary (he has publicly challenged her to do this but since it actually happened, he has not said a whole lot).  The book is certainly relevant to the section (wherever it appears in the article), it's just a bit outdated regarding her public accusations towards him in the film.  Cedar777 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Virginia Giuffre Accusations
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)
 * "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 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)
 * 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)

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

Should Jeffrey Epstein be added as a category?
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)

More recent sources for 1st sentence of Lede
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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Supreme Court
Here Dershowitz says that he was on President Jimmy Carter's shortlist for a Supreme Court nomination, but there were no court vacancies during Carter's tenure. . Obviously is notable to include. Is this video of Dershowitz saying himself that he was on the list not credible? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So if Dershowitz says it, it must be true? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A preface such as "Dershowitz purports" prior to stating "he was on President Jimmy Carter's shortlist for a Supreme Court nomination, but there were no court vacancies during Carter's tenure" would make the claim better. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the proposed sentence is about Dershowitz "purporting" something, then it's not "notable" for inclusion. This isn't hard -- let's stick with WP:SECONDARY sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversial political views
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 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"...and for controversial political views" should be removed. The clause represents a subjective view held by the author, not a fact. Its presence on the page—particularly in the first sentence—serves to distort readers' entire view of Professor Dershowitz and his career, leading them to view his beliefs and endeavors as being on the fringe of mainstream society. In fact, Professor Dershowitz is one of America's leading legal scholars and defense attorneys, and is widely respected for his expertise, scholarship and objective view of the constitution. He taught at Harvard University for nearly 50 years, educating law students that have become leaders in society across the political spectrum. And he has successfully defended individuals facing all kinds of charges, including Presidents Clinton and Trump during their impeachment trials. These accomplishments serve to demonstrate that Professor Dershowitz is a fixture in mainstream intellectual discourse, and not a "controversial" figurehead that all reasonable people would view as such. --Gwnyc (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
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. Im The IP  (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.


 * "...and for controversial political views" should be removed. The clause represents a subjective view held by the author, not a fact. Its presence on the page—particularly in the first sentence—serves to distort readers' entire view of Professor Dershowitz and his career at the outset of the article, leading them to view his beliefs and endeavors as being on the fringe of mainstream society. In fact, Professor Dershowitz is one of America's leading legal scholars and defense attorneys, and is widely respected for his expertise, scholarship and unbiased interpretation of the constitution. He taught at Harvard University for nearly 50 years, educating law students that have become leaders in society across the political spectrum. And he has successfully defended individuals facing all kinds of charges, including Presidents Clinton and Trump during their impeachment trials. Defense attorneys often represent people accused of unsavory actions; nevertheless their defense is a vital component of America's justice system, and that a lawyer provides such a defense does mean that they espouse controversial views. Professor Dershowitz's accomplishments serve to demonstrate that he is a fixture in mainstream intellectual discourse, and not a "controversial" figurehead that all reasonable people would view as such Should the editors insist that this language remain, please highlight examples in this Talk section for further review.--Gwnyc (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Borough Park or Boro Park?
In the article we find two different spellings for the Brooklyn neighborhood where Dershowitz grew up: "Borough Park" and "Boro Park". There does not seem to be any valid reason for this discrepancy. (It appears that even the synagogue mentioned in the article as "Young Israel of Boro Park" actually uses the fuller spelling.) According to the US GNIS listings, the correct spelling is "Borough Park".

944466|Borough Park|Populated Place|NY |36|Kings|047|403802N|0735949W |40.633993|-73.9968059|||||20|66         |Brooklyn|01/23/1980|10/22/2007 Toddcs (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * --> Borough Park, Brooklyn
 * "Borough Park (also spelled Boro Park)"
 * 69.113.166.178 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for change -- intro
"Dershowitz claimed that Donald Trump's encouragement of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was "constitutionally protected" speech, and said it would be his "honor and privilege" to defend Trump in a trial.[12] Trump is reportedly considering him for his defense team.[3]"

This seems a little out of date -- is Trump still considering him? Is this still opening-paragraph material?

Is it worth including that Virginia Roberts accused him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre#Virginia_Giuffre_v._Alan_Dershowitz_(2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:293B:5015:8802:A6A3:2259:57BB (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
It's clearly very partisan to say he's known for controversial political views, he's strongly supported by conservatives and is viewed as their biggest fan. It screams partisanship to me to not acknowledge this. Batsquatch (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump/Impeachment
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)

If we are going to mention this, then we should also mention that Dershowitz did not actually say that. What he said was that an electoral benefit derived from an action cannot be a "quid pro quo" that justifies impeachment. His exact words were: "And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.180.50.62 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 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)

Donald Trump "encouraged" the storming of the Capitol? Would the person who wrote that care to back that assertion up with facts and citations from reliable sources? LewisChessman (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021
Remove "As of November 2020, no such lawsuit has been filed." Kevinishere15 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is he licensed to practice law?
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. 173.217.195.26 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Menetrez
We had an RFC about this, and 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you.  nableezy  - 18:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520933453-011/html 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * And '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 counterpunch.org 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)
 * Did Bob remove something? Or just query it? Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added that what is in a UofC book was an article in CounterPunch.  nableezy  - 19:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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., 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for striking through and thank you for the timeline clarification . 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)
 * 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 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)
 * Thank you . 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 ) 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)
 * 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)

It is amazing that somebody is removing the subject's response to the charges of plagiarism as a BLP issue. , 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)

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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * "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)

Dershowitz sues Virginia Giuffre
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)


 * 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.
 * , 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 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022
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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)