This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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'.
-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)
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)
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
Is this guy left-wing? Sure doesn't sound left-wing. Chamaeleon 04:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
- batmanand
"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?
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)
"despite evidence pointing overwhelmingly towards guilt" - this is conjecture, and hardly NPOV. I myself watched much of the trial and don't feel that way. And an article on Dershowitz isn't the place for such a statement. DaveWF 07:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You're right. If it were in the OJ entry, it would stand up to the scrutiny. Removed. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Table AI.1 of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah (pp. 232-242) documents 20 unattributed citations. Please stop altering this number. Sir Paul 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)