Alan Dershowitz, Plagiarist

[Cain]

Alexander Cockburn on the front page of his website Counter Punch charges Alan Dershowitz plagarized Joan Peters(!) in his most recent screed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html

A Lexis-nexis search has turned up nothing (so far) in the major papers.

I did see Dershowitz's book prominently displayed in a B&N a couple weeks back and decided to flip through (yes, I washed my hands afterwards (I'm kidding- that type of symbolism is down right silly (I should probably jump out of these parentheses))).

Anyway, I will be pleased to see the shrillest apologist for Israel thoroughly discredited (assuming Cockburn's charges are accurate).

I'm not surprised considering this is the work of a self-described "civil libertarian" who believes in issuing torture warrants.

Summers' response will be interesting (again, if Cockburn's correct) given the manner in which he treated Cornel West.

[bangdazap]

Here: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm is the original Finkelstein comparison that started it.

[demon]

Our old friend Finkelstein has been onto this too.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm

He`s put the plagiarisms from Joan Peters in Dershowitz's latest piece of tat right into the arena.

Wonder how Dershowitz would react if he caught one of his students plagiarising like this.

edited to add:
You beat me to it bangdazap ;)

[Cleopatra]

Bold face mine:

Originally posted by Cain
Anyway, I will be pleased to see the shrillest apologist for Israel thoroughly discredited (assuming Cockburn's charges are accurate).



Until Cockburn's charges are proven accurate --as you said--you might want to ask Linda to change the title of your thread because it's misleading.

[Cain]

No Ms. Cleo, that's quite alright. I only included the qualifier to possibly induce others to read the article.

Anyway, Finkelstein apparently confronted Dershowitz with these charges on Amy Goodman's program:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205

The transcript is funny. The video is hilarious!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cain
No Ms. Cleo, that's quite alright. I only included the qualifier to possibly induce others to read the article.


How can you insist that it is alright Cain when you admitted that the allegations haven't been proven yet?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


How can you insist that it is alright Cain when you admitted that the allegations haven't been proven yet?

Well, Finkelstien made the accusations and Dershowitz ducked the issue instead of addressing it. He even used the tried-and-true fraudster tactic of threatening to sue. I know where my $10 000 is going to be laid.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, Finkelstien made the accusations and Dershowitz ducked the issue instead of addressing it. He even used the tried-and-true fraudster tactic of threatening to sue. I know where my $10 000 is going to be laid.

Ok but I don't see how this changes the fact that Cain's title is misleading.

[demon]

That the torture advocate Dershowitz is a plagiarist is dishonest enough (not suprising considering where his sympathies lie), but what gets me is that he thinks it`s worth plagiarising from Joan Peters.
Now that`s hilarious.

[corplinx]

I read the transcript. 3 people I don't care for. The shrill and self-serving yet brilliant Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein who loses some genuinely substantive thoughts (the holocaust industry) in the midst of a cloud of general anti-Israel writing and thought. Noam Chomsky who should probably shut up and teach linguistics.

Its hard to feel sympathy for any of these guys. Dersh and Finkelstein, the only way I will ever watch these guys on TV together is if there is a table of cream pies in the room and 3 bumbling waiters.

[Cain]

Corplinx- Did you read the transcript? It doesn't show. First, Noam Chomsky had nothing to do with the discussion (although you even come close to suggesting that he was present).

Dershowitz scored no points. After Finkelstein's initial allegation, Norman said in passing, "I think I made this available to you..." and Dershowitz quickly interjects to "inform the audience" that this is a "lie" and he's respectfully not generally a "litigious person," but he'll have to defend himself. Heh, I'd love to see Alan take him to court, but everyone knows he won't (this is a Richard Perele strong arm tactic). Instead of fessing up about the origins of the quotes, Dershowitz resorts to crass interruption and unrelated rhetorical questions -- "Is it accurate? Is it accurate??". Of course, that's the wrong question.

I recall in a discussion on memes, Richard Dawkins mentions how he got a title of a very famous journal article slightly wrong for his bibliography in _The Selfish Gene_ (I believe he may have used the word "evolutionary" instead of "biologically"). Edward Wilson's popular book _Sociobiology_, released the year before, contained an identical error. From this single error, Richard Dawkins said that a reasonable person could conclude that he may have just copied the bibliography. Fortunately, a previous lecture in 1974, before the release of Wilson's book, Dawkins had the same mistaken title.

Now, Finkelstein accuses Dershowitz of borrowing (to put it very politely) from Peters without crediting the original source. And Cockburn points out that our favorite dishonest law professor noted that he in now way relied on the Peters book. That's a lie.

In _Chronicles of Dissent_ (1992), Chomsky discusses the reasons for Dershowtiz's "personal Jihad" against him:

He's been on a personal jihad for the last twenty years, ever since I exposed him for lying outright in a vicious personal attack on a leading Israeli civil libertarian. Despite pretenses, he's strongly opposed to civil liberties. Using his position as a Harvard law professor, he referred to what the Israeli courts had determined. But he was just lying flat outright. This was in the Boston Globe (April 29, 1973). I wrote a short letter refuting it (May 17). He then came back (on May 25,) accusing everybody of lying and challenging me to quote from the court records. He never believed I had them, but of course I did. I quoted the court records in response (June 5). He then tried to brazen it out again. It finally ended up with my sending the transcript of the court records to the Globe ombudsman, who didn't know what to do any more with people just taking opposite positions. I translated them for him, and suggested that he pick his own expert to check the translations. The ombudsman finally told Dershowitz they wouldn't publish any more letters of his because he had been caught flat out lying about it.

[Cleopatra]

Did you ask Linda to change the misleading title?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain
Corplinx- Did you read the transcript? It doesn't show. First, Noam Chomsky had nothing to do with the discussion (although you even come close to suggesting that he was present).


Yes I read it. I wasn't concerned with implicating Chomsky so much in my post as I was setting up a good 3 stooges reference.

[Cain]

Did you ask Linda to change the misleading title?

Cleo, no I did not.

Why don't you give the Anti-Defamation League a call. We wouldn't want someone browsing these forums to see the title "Alan Dershowitz, Plagiarist," scratch his chin and exhale, "That's good enough for me," before gleefully clicking on the "Segway Sucks" thread.

I think it's a far more tame title than the others I entertained. For instance, I nearly created a poll: "Biggest attention whore (and fraud): David Blaine or Alan Dershowitz?" Ann Coulter would have been one of the possible choices, but let's be honest, she's no longer big enough to headline.
______________________

Yes I read it. I wasn't concerned with implicating Chomsky so much in my post as I was setting up a good 3 stooges reference.

Oh... :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

Cleo, no I did not.

Why don't you give the Anti-Defamation League a call.


Originally posted by Cain (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870111807)

Maybe you're just trying to be provocative, but I want to remind you that stupidity is not a prerequisite for the role of provocateur. At least that's my helpful suggestion for the day.

[davefoc]

Well, I read thru the transcripts and most of the links I think.

Finkelstein accuses Dershowitz of basing a significant section of his book on the work of Ms. Peters in her book, From Time Immemorial.

This seems to have been proved completely by Finkelstein in his detailed comparison of the Dershowitz and Peters writing.

Finkelstein calls it plagiarism. That seems reasonable, but plagiarism has degrees. A lot of the disputed work is quotes that Dershowitz says are accurate, regardless if they were first published in Ms. Peters book.

So are any of the quotes wrong? I don't know but it seems not. Finkelstein didn't say they were, he just felt that it showed poor scholarship to use the exact quotes in exactly the same way as was done in a book that he says was discredited.

OK, so were the main facts presented by Peters/Dershowitz wrong. Finkelstein say they were since he says he discredited pretty much all of the Peter's book. But all the links neither argue for or against the notion that the facts were wrong.

The Finkelstein focus on the plagiarism angle prevented any discussion of the substantive issues in Dershowitz's book. So at this point I don't know how bad Dershowitz's actions were. He copied, word for word at times, some facts and arguments from Peters. If the facts were right it seems like he is guilty of not acknowledgin the work of Peters well enough in his book. If the facts are wrong then it seems far worse to me. Not only did he use facts and arguments from an author without proper attribution or compensation, but he didn't check those facts or used them anyway knowing them to be false.

[Cain]

Cleo, please give it a rest. The title for my thread came from the article itself. I don't see you complaining about the "Global Warming from +CO2 = FARCE" thread. Could I appease you by adding a question mark? Will that make you happy? Well, I don't want to add a question mark because the facts are already rather clear.

______________________________________

The Finkelstein focus on the plagiarism angle prevented any discussion of the substantive issues in Dershowitz's book. So at this point I don't know how bad Dershowitz's actions were. He copied, word for word at times, some facts and arguments from Peters. If the facts were right it seems like he is guilty of not acknowledgin the work of Peters well enough in his book.

I do not find this "it could be much, much worse" argument very compelling. Finkelstein exposes Dershowitz's work shoddy scholarship. Dershowitz consciously avoids properly crediting Peters (discredited) work because it would deflate the power of his arguments. Therefore he fails to meet the minimum standards of intellectual honesty. That whole "turnspeak" nonsense speaks volumes.

And remember, this is not a business major rearranging words off a website for an ethics term paper due the next day. This is an academic at the most visible and presitigious university in the United States. I hope our public intellectuals are held to higher standards.

[Cleopatra]

Cain dear, I wouldn't even mention it if you weren't among those that criticize such methods in debating...

You are the Pope of criticism here and you should be more careful.

That's all.

Now I see that 15 posts below ( including mine) your opening post you have a verdict that you hesitated to post at first place.

This is not necessarily bad, it's just an observation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Did you ask Linda to change the misleading title?

Cleopatra, if the quotes taken from the counterpunch article are correct, then this is clearly plagiarism. You don't have to have a trial or sue someone to see that.

[Cain]

Cleopatra,

My second post -- that would be the one that came after my first post -- contained a link to a transcript for Amy Goodman's program "Democracy Now", where Finkelstein personally confronted Dershowitz with these charges. Alan's performance on the program -- and it was quite a performance -- removes all doubt. The only circumstances under which I thought Dershowtiz could be vindicated is if Cockburn made it all up (highly unlikely). If you read inbetween the lines on the first post you'll clearly see the words "nee-nur, nee-nur, nee-nur" repeated (look closely). I believed anyone who read the original article could reach only one conclusion: Alan Dershowitz is a piss poor scholar.

I have no idea what you're talking about in "criticizing methods of debate" or "Pope of criticism" and all that other nonsense.

[Cleopatra]

Cain, I hope you don't seriously believe that I'd spend time reading the dialogues of those two idiots...

However, in your opening post your were referring to Cockburn's allegations and not to Goodman's program and the title of the thread was about Cockburn's allegations, therefore is was misleading. Period.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cain, I hope you don't seriously believe that I'd spend time reading the dialogues of those two idiots...

However, in your opening post your were referring to Cockburn's allegations and not to Goodman's program and the title of the thread was about Cockburn's allegations, therefore is was misleading. Period.

I didn't read all of the dialogue, but enough to see who made more sense, and it was definitely Finkelstein. Dershowitz just blustered, dodged and rambled, to try to avoid talking about the points that Finkelstein was making. And no wonder, Finkelstein had him cold on basic questions of accuracy and plagiarism.

[davefoc]

I think Dershowitz is a pompous self serving jerk.

It is because of this opinion that I am skeptical of my view of information that is critical of him, sort of a reverse bias if you will.

I read through the interview, perhaps a little too happily, trying to find more evidence to support my preconceived notions of Dershowitz.

I didn't find that evidence. Yes it seems that Dershowitz lifted some arguments and facts from Peters without proper attribution. Finkelstein does a nice job of providing evidence for this in his comparison of the Dershowitz and Peters writings.

But Finkelsteing doesn't provide much evidence for the plagiarism in the interview, he doesn't answer Dershowitz's contention that merely using the same quotes as somebody else isn't plagiarism and he is the one that keeps the interview derailed before much can be discussed of substance concerning Dershowitz's claims in his book.

The only substantive issue that was discussed, was discussed in such a confused way that it was difficult to follow exactly what Finkelstein's point was. Apparently, if I got it right, an Israeli historian had stated that 2,000 to 3,000 arab palestinians had left their homes at the time of the founding of Israel. Dershowitz, I guess, quoted this guy. Finkelsteing says the actual number is 200,000 to 300,000.

My basic thought here is that the evidence provided in the links doesn't support the notion that Dershowitz's book is substantially wrong. As people may know, I tend to believe that the US has gone too far with its support of Israel and is actually partially responsible for the continued problems because of its Israeli aid which is used to subsidize the disputed settlements and because of its unwillingness to take a stand against the excesses of the Sharon government. I just don't think I found any evidence to support those views here.

[a_unique_person]

If you read the first link, Davefoc, the examples given are pretty compelling, and they aren't just quotes of quotes. However, the fact that the quotes of quotes are so similar is also indicitive. Why does he happen to quote the same things?

[davefoc]

AUP, I agree that the evidence that Dershowitz lifted argument, verbiage and quotes from the Peters book is proven assuming only that the information in the link is true.

The more important issue to me was whether the substance of what he wrote in his book was true. For whatever reason, Finkelstein seemed to avoid discussing that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
AUP, I agree that the evidence that Dershowitz lifted argument, verbiage and quotes from the Peters book is proven assuming only that the information in the link is true.

The more important issue to me was whether the substance of what he wrote in his book was true. For whatever reason, Finkelstein seemed to avoid discussing that.

In the interview, Finkelstein points out two things.

The lifting was done form a book he claimed to have trashed. That is, the book was worthless and full of errors.

The guy has committed a fraud by doing so. That is, he is holds a very prestigous position at a major university, but he publishes a book that is worthless because of the methods used to create it. A person holding the 'chair' he does should be publishing using high, academically respected methods. That is what Finkelstein was arguing. Which is what infuriated Dershowitz, and led to all the bluster and padding in the interview, because he knew he had been found out.

Finkelstein himself has been sacked from his college job, because, he claims, he was too controversial. Not for any academic errors.

[Mycroft]

What do you call that logical fallacy where you attack the messenger but not the message?

Maybe I don’t understand this plagiarizing thing as well as I should, but if two researchers doing similar research quote the same sources, wouldn’t you expect the quotes to be the same? Is there some rule that if one researcher uses a source, that other researchers can’t use that same source?

If Dershowitz plagiarized Peters, shouldn’t it be up to Peters to complain about it? She’s still alive, has anyone found her opinion on the issue?

Isn’t the whole plagiarizing issue a distraction from the actual thesis of Dershowitz’s work? If his thesis is correct, isn’t that the more important issue?

[a_unique_person]

According to Finklestein, he had refuted Peter's book. Then this senior academic at law comes along and plagiarises the book.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Finkelstein himself has been sacked from his college job, because, he claims, he was too controversial. Not for any academic errors.

At least this is what he claims...

What does his mother say about this by the way?

[davefoc]

Mycroft, I kind of agree, but the use of the Peters material without attribution seems egregious.

Did you check this link out?
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm

As I stated above, I think Dershowitz is a pompous self serving jerk. It does surprise me though that he is a plagiarist as well.

Still, we agree that the interesting question is, "regardless of the plagiarism issue were some sections of his book significantly wrong?". I don't know the answer to that but Finkelstein saying that a book that Dershowitz used as a source has been discredited as a fraud doesn't convince me. Was everything in the book wrong. Maybe Dershowitz used the sections that were right.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


At least this is what he claims...

What does his mother say about this by the way?

His mother told me she agrees.

[davefoc]

Here's a link very critical of the Peters book.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2140

The problem is that even if there is a general concensus that the book was a propaganda piece with wrong information it doesn't necessarily follow that the sections which Dershowitz used were necessarily ones that were wrong.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


His mother told me she agrees.

So, you know her!

That explains the quality of your arguments :)

[Cain]

The most widely credited refutation of Peters' book appeared in the NYRB: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

The book initially received postive reviews in the United States (unsurprisingly), but was dismissed in England and Europe as well as Israel. Fast-forward a couple years and intellectuals in the United States have mostly disavowed the book.

Look, I'm sure Finkelstein has no problem answering the substance Dershowitz's specific claims, and I welcome an open debate in this regard. But that's nothing new. It's the same back and forth. Norman's discovery that Dershowitz looted material from Peters' book without properly crediting is a more interesting, novel and important discussion at the moment.

Even when bloggers post links -- and there are NO formal standards for blogging -- they say the URL was discovered via [insert other blogger's name]. If 40 or so of your sources are identical to another author's, then minimum standards of scholarship and intellectual honest requires that you inform your readers. The question is simple: Would a Harvard student be allowed to get away with this? I think not.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
Here's a link very critical of the Peters book.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2140

The problem is that even if there is a general concensus that the book was a propaganda piece with wrong information it doesn't necessarily follow that the sections which Dershowitz used were necessarily ones that were wrong.

From the first link, he is guilty of plagiarism. There is no doubt of that.

Is there anything left of Peter's book. Who wants to go out an buy it and check all the references. Cleopatra?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Still, we agree that the interesting question is, "regardless of the plagiarism issue were some sections of his book significantly wrong?". I don't know the answer to that but Finkelstein saying that a book that Dershowitz used as a source has been discredited as a fraud doesn't convince me. Was everything in the book wrong. Maybe Dershowitz used the sections that were right.

I havn't read the Peters book, but it's on my reading list. My understanding, through readings of various reviews, is that the book has been criticized for sloppy research and format, but that its central thesis has never been refuted.

I agree. Saying that her conclusions were wrong isn't the same as saying that her data is wrong, and saying that some of her data was wrong isn't the same as saying that all her data was wrong. Even if we agree that the Peters book is wrong (and I'm not convinced yet) that doesn't mean another researcher couldn't come later and pick out the good parts and create a whole new and solid thesis from it.

I'll have to add the Dershowitz book to my reading list as well.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
Did you ask Linda to change the misleading title?
Do you answer questions put to you?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Is there anything left of Peter's book. Who wants to go out an buy it and check all the references. Cleopatra?

You must be joking Unique :) Of course you are. You know that I am not interested in fanatic idiots of both sides of this conflict.

[E.J.Armstrong]

To answer my own question to Cleopatra - namely
Do you answer questions put to you?

The answer appears to be 'No. I don't.'

One might ask why she asks other people questions when she won't answer questions herself?

[demon]

Developments in the Finkelstein-Dershowitz debate.

From the Harvard Crimson. Nice to see that it has at least registered on the radar.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349044

Finkelsteins recent reply:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id142.htm

[Cain]

From the second link provided by Demon:

Dershowitz focuses on a lengthy citation from Mark Twain to argue this point. Yet, although Dershowitz reproduces Peters's page references to Twain's book in his own endnote, the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain's book that Dershowitz cites. Furthermore, Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain's book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages. It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source to make this error.

QED

[davefoc]

I didn't see why Finkelstein should have had to buy an ad to run his comparison of Dershowitz's and Peters' writings. It seemed relevant enough to an important issue that the paper should have just run it and allowed Dershowitz some room for a response. It sounds like protecting one of their own is a more important goal to the editors of the Harvard Crimson than promoting serious intellectual debate on important topics.

Right now it looks like Dershowitz is winning the puplic debate. He says he just ran some quotes that appeared in Peters book, he or somebody working for him verified the quotes based on original sources and nobody is saying that the quotes are wrong so what's really going on is that his detractors can't attack him on substance so they are just making up this issue.

The argument has got some flaws but they are subtle and not likely to be appreciated by somebody just listening to the headlines of a public debate.

Part of the reason that Dershowitz is winning the public debate is Finkelstein's approach. The average person doesn't know that Peter's book has been discredited. A lot of pro Israeli people wouldn't believe it anyway. So accusing Dershowitz of basing some of his book on the scholarship of the Peters book is just not going to be seen as such a bad thing by a lot of the public that has an interest in this debate.

If Finkelstein wants to change the public perception of this issue at all, I think he needs to use more of his 15 minutes of fame to focus on the substance of what Dershowitz said and less on the plagiarism angle.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I just started reading Dershowitz's "Contrary to Popular Opinion". As of page 50, it's a pretty good read so far. Mainly very short (page, page and a half) blurbs on various American legal issues. Whether he plagurized or not, he's an entertaining writer.

Charlie (it was OJ's first offense) Monoxide

[demon]

Dershowitz rests his case.

Without having responded to ANY of the specific charges, he concludes: "I will no longer dignify false and empty charges leveled by these serial fabricators. I rest my case."
What a clown. I guess there won't be a public debate at Harvard, then? And forget about the 10 000 dollars.

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article349122.html

[davefoc]

I don't like Dershowitz. One of the things I really don't like about Dershowitz is that he never has a public introspective moment. He uses his skills at argument to relentlessly push forward his agenda without ever pausing to consider the truth in opposing views.

This is a perfect example, and it looks like Finkelstein was an easy mark.

Finkelstein could have calmly pointed out that the source of some of Dershowitz's argument and research was a largely discredited book. He could have talked about the obvious paraphrasing of Peters book. He could have criticized the substance of what Dershowitz was saying.

Instead he chose to blast away with accusations of plagiarism and provided Dershowitz an opportunity to play his stupid game. Now Finkelstein is losing the game. Not because his views are wrong, not because his scholarship is poor, but because he chose to call names and Dershowitz has succeeded in making him look petty and unscholarly. If Finkelstein doesn't figure this out he is going to continue to be unable to persuade anybody that doesn't agree with him already.