Talk:Richard Goldstone

Zionism and Goldstone

This material, or some variation thereof, has been deleted from the article a number of times now: According to his daughter Nicole, Goldstone "is a Zionist and loves Israel."

Would those who have a problem with its inclusion, please articulate here before deleting again? It seems to be a reasonable piece of information, reliably sourced and relevant to his bio. Or am I mistaken? Tiamut^talk 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Shimon Peres" (why list this award? because the context is that this peace prize winning person is against Goldstone's findings, OBVIOUS P-O-V, using a superficial award

While it's true, that Shimon Peres was awarded this thing, so was Yasser Arafat and so was Henry Kissinger.

Plenty of people have one this award, and it only has superficial credibility. Clearly, because when people think Arafat they do not immediately think 'peace'. Similar to Peres.

So the ONLY reason, someone could have interjected the 'title' of Nobel Peace Prize blah blah is for POV purposes. Unless we're going to list credentials for every single political figure in every single article now?

So before we talk about, gee I dunno, Hitler. Let's say Hitler, the winner of the German Iron Cross for Valor or w/e, killed 6 million Jews.

The insertion of this title is to lend credibility to what Peres goes on to say, and what the author of the edit quoted him saying.

List his title. That's it. This is not about Peres, it's not HIS page. It's for Goldstone.

Pathetic what some Zionists will do to save face here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NSix (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 September 2009

Another really good source on Goldstone's history

A feature length profile in The Foward. Will add it early next week:

http://www.forward.com/articles/114165/

--John Bahrain (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone Report, mandate, boycott

The problem is that the report simply does not support the earlier and current text.

The report says "The Mission interpreted the mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of its concerns regarding the violations of international law." the "[Gaza Strip]" interpolated after "region" in the footnote is not in the report, and it is not clear at all that it is correct, that "region" is not meant to include Israel too. Indeed the rest of the report supports the latter reading.

The following sentence "For this reason, the Israeli Government boycotted the mission." is not supported by "The Mission repeatedly sought to obtain the cooperation of the Government of Israel. After numerous attempts had failed, the Mission sought and obtained the assistance of the Government of Egypt to enable it to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing." I mentioned that Goldstone earlier wouldn't accept the appointment without the widened mandate, but I don't see this in the report itself, I read it elsewhere - (It should be in the article and sourced.) So I will remove the text again. Hope this explanation suffices. Regards, John Z (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, JohnZ, it does not suffice. Since you insist on not reading the report, here are two more quotes :

• The title of the report starts with "HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES".
• From the introduction: 1. On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

Since everyone knows that Gaza is Jew-free since 2005, the original mandate was therefore limited to Palestinians. After your first two deletions, the third version of my text was: As stated in his report, the original mandate of the mission was to investigate violence to civilians but only on to Gaza Palestinian, not Israeli civilians.

Go ahead, tell me again what is wrong with this sentence. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The report itself doesn't support the notion of an 'original mandate' that subsequently changed. The report says 11. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel. Other sources can and should be used to support information about the change in mandate prior to Goldstone accepting his role. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

..and the mandate was reiterated yesterday at the HRC meeting. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As Sean notes, there is nothing in the report about the mandate changing; I just mentioned that I read elsewhere that before the mission existed, Goldstone insisted on the mission examining violations by both sides - I didn't give a cite for that. Since as a matter of fact, once it did exist, the mission did examine and condemn Palestinian violations, and the report has chapters on them, reading the report or its title, or "in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza" to mean that "the original mandate was therefore limited to Palestinians" is not only OR, but pretty clearly wrong. "Any actions by all parties" in the section Sean quotes is unambiguous. There just is nothing in the report that supports "the original mandate of the mission was to investigate violence to civilians but only on to Gaza Palestinian, not Israeli civilians." There's discussion of these and other points at Talk:Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations#Goldstone_section.2C_moved_here_for_comment too.John Z (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My post at Talk:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations#Goldstone section, moved here for comment may clarify the issue. --Jonund (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you guys think Golstone kept the original title limiting the scope to Palestinian territories, added that (1) the mandate from the President of the UNHCR was to investigate violations in Gaza (actually, A/HRC/S-9/2 limits the investigation to violations (...) by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people), then contradicted these two facts with (11) investigation of all parties? I think he wanted everyone to know that there was a disagreement between the UNHCR and him over the mandate of the mission. There are other sources stating this, and this is what my sentence said. As John Dugard explained in 2006, this UNHCR policy is not new.

If you do not like what I wrote, be bold and write your own sentence, but this important element of the report -- arguably the most important -- must be clearly explained in the article. Leaving it out amounts to NPOV. You may also want to read WP:preserve. Emmanuelm (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, when I read your edit summary "Sean, you may want to remove my "mini-CVs". Actually, you should as they are blatantly racist and judgmental" it was almost as if you were implying that making changes like 'The Guardian' to 'Dan Kosky, the communications director of Israel based NGO Monitor' as I did here so that readers actually knew who was speaking was somehow blatantly racist and judgmental. Then I thought about it and realised that that would be such a monumentally fucking stupid thought and profoundly offensive, baseless implication that I must have misinterpreted it. Something to say to me, confused about the difference between newspapers, non-neutral commentators, countries and racism feel free to use my talk page rather than edit summaries. Also, be sure to read about the discretionary sanctions that cover Israel-Palestine related issues. I've put a link in the talk header. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I did this to open your eyes to your own bias. You chose to get angry, uncivil and to threaten me. You also chose to leave my text unchanged; do you approve of it? Since I, in fact, do not want that text to remain, I will fix it myself. If you feel you must report me to the Wikipedia police, please do so. I will humbly defend myself by saying I was only imitating you.

To everyone else, I find interesting that no one else removed my judgmental "mini CVs". Did you not realize they were inappropriate? Do you see bias only from the other side? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of mandate by Goldstone himself

This section covers the same issue as the section above but, because it has turned away from the main point, I thought it would be useful to start afresh.

In an interview in the JPost on July 16th, Goldstone says

"It is for that reason that I initially found the terms of the Human Rights Council resolution to have been an inappropriate basis for launching a fact finding mission into Operation Cast Lead, and at first I was not prepared to accept the invitation to head the mission". "It was essential," he continued, to expand the mandate to include "the sustained rocket attack on civilians in southern Israel, as well as other facts (...) He set this expansion of the mandate as a condition for chairing the mission, he told the Post. "I indicated to the then-president of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria, that I could not agree to take on the mission unless alleged war crimes and human rights violations on all sides were subject to the investigation."(...) Israel has refused to cooperate with the mission, saying it is "congenitally biased," because the founding resolution does not mention Hamas and puts the blame on Israel even while charging the mission with investigating those crimes. But Goldstone believes Israel is ignoring the fact that his mandate has since changed. [2]

Hoping not to be mistaken, I assume that he talks about changing/expanding the mandate in the Jan 12 2009 UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1 which :

• Limits the investigation to 14. violations (...) by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip' but, before the investigation event starts, already
• 1. Strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which has resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.

I think that this very brave and groundbreaking decision by Goldstone to confront the built-in bias of the UNHRC is an important aspect of the report. In the context of the long and unique relationship between Israel and the UNCHR/UNHRC, I would argue that it is the most important aspect. Yet, it remains absent from this article. Why? Emmanuelm (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hey, look who agrees with me!

When the UN Human Rights Council asked Goldstone to chair the mission with the mandate to investigate Israel's crime during its onslaught on Gaza last December 2008, Goldstone, as a good Zionist, refused the offer unless the mandate is modified to include "crimes on all sides"; a clear pre-biased assumption that Palestinians had also committed war crimes rather than defending themselves. Global Arab Network

According to the mandate, the investigation should focus on Palestinian victims of the three-week war between Israel and Hamas earlier this year. But Goldstone, a Jewish former judge of the South African constitutional court, said his team would investigate "all violations of international humanitarian law" before, during and after the conflict that ended Jan. 18. Huffington Post

"I am confident that the mission will be in a position to assess in an independent and impartial manner all human rights and humanitarian law violations committed in the context of the conflict which took place between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 and provide much needed clarity about the legality of the thousands of deaths and injuries and the widespread destruction that occurred", Ambassador Uhomoibhi stated. Today's appointment comes following the adoption of a resolution by the Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its Special Session on 9 and 12 January convened to address "the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip".UNHRC press release, 3 April 2009

I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups. Richard Goldstone, NY Times Sept 17 2009

There is more but I've had enough. Have you? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted a new paragraph to that effect. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone's Standing w/ S. African Jews

Removed both POV assertions regarding Goldstone's position and popularity w/ his fellow South African Jews. The statement of his high standing was unsupported. The Jeruslem Post article asserting his loss of popularity was essentially an opinion piece. It cited no numbers, only mentioning phone calls and other anecdotal 'evidence.' Here's a link to the JPost article.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1254393078544

Tapered (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you did well, especially since that was in the "personal" section.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a strange way of dismissing the source. JP is a respected newspaper with high journalistic quality. Its news editor, Amir Mizroch, who wrote the article, was raised in South Africa and is very well versed in the situation there. The article is a fact-oriented feature article, not an opinion piece. JP has no need to cite another authority beyond itself regarding Goldstone's standing, nor specifying numbers when it tells us that Goldstone's standing has plummeted drastically - although it did give numbers, quoting Mr. Krengel, a very senior man in the SA Jewish community. To allege that phone calls are suspect and talk about "anectodal 'evidence'" calls the editor's knowledge in question.

As I said in an edit summary, the paragraph[3] is strictly fact - describing an opinion. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. JP is perfectly competent to guarantee that the opinion is representative of SA Jewry (which the soft-spoken, liberal Mr. Krengel's statements bear out). --Jonund (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reread my entry. Never used the word 'suspect.' Attributing it to me is apparatchik technique. Public opinion is measured by 'polls,' at least since Gallup in 1936. 'Anecdotal'--how else can you describe the JP's 'sample.' The article was an opinion piece with news content. BTW, I don't doubt that Goldstone's polling numbers would be down. You'll also notice that I deleted the previous, ostensibly positive standing of Goldstone, as unsubstantiated. It was not deleted because it had been worded to set up the new lower numbers. That could have been altered with a few words, not a deletion. Tapered (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be among those who'd dispute your evaluation of the Jerusalem Post, though they do some actual journalism. But to use the paper's standing, whatever it may be, to allow inclusion of anecdote and opinion as fact doesn't wash. Tapered (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you used the word 'suspect', I said you implied that using phone calls is suspect, since you mentioned it as an argument against the credibility of the article. Accusing me of "apparatchik technique" doesn't look like a constructive attitude. Requiring that a shift in opinion can be registered reliably only with polls is, in fact, a silly idea, and it increases my suspicion that you're not well up in journalism. Your insinuations against JP indicate that there is a political motive that has got the better of you.

Maybe other editors want to give their view of the credibility of the JP information. --Jonund (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are no sources that claim otherwise. So at the least this source can support Goldstone is disputed among South African Jewery.--Gilisa (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Heritage/surname

Where in Europe did his ancestors come from and was his family's name original "Goldstein"? Badagnani (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

connection to NGOs

courtesy of Monitor. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Questionable material in section on Goldstone report

The highlighted content here is of questionable relevance, and also questionable credibility:

On April 3, 2009, Goldstone was named as the head of the mission. He responded to the announcement that he was "shocked, as a Jew", to be invited to head the mission. Goldstone wrote that he accepted the mandate for the mission "because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm." Before accepting the lead of the committee, judge Goldstone was a member of Human Rights Watch, but resigned in 2009 supposedly after a conflict of interest was alleged by Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor.

The content would belong in a section on Goldstone's relationship with Human Rights Watch, not in this section. Also, the sources present no evidence that Goldstone's resignation had anything to do with the report. I am deleting the material until:

1. a good reason is given as to why this belongs in the Gaza inquiry section.

2. a source is provided that shows that Goldstone's resignation was related to the inquiry. Pexise (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

in the 1st source cited, prof. Steinberg of NGO Monitor, says that "Most recently, during the Gaza war, the U.N. Human Rights Council appointed HRW board member Richard Goldstone to head the inquisition. This highlighted the symbiotic relationship between powerful political NGOs and the anti-Western and anti-Israel regimes that control the relevant U.N. frameworks. And as a U.S.-based NGO with many Jewish donors, HRW was a welcome ally in Israel-bashing. (Goldstone resigned from HRW, and his name was quickly removed from the website, after NGO Monitor highlighted the conflict of interest.)". He adds in Haaretz that "Although Goldstone resigned, his statements have strongly echoed and defended HRW's bias, particularly over Gaza,...Goldstone's strong identification with Human Rights Watch forms the political foundation for his biased inquiry."

Now you wouldn't deny that HRW issued during recent 6 months 3 reports strongly critical of the IDF conduct in the Gaza war, would you? A member of the organization, that already accused Israel of war crimes, is appointed to head the inquiry. Do you need stronger reason?

There's nothing dubious in Haaretz. Prof. Steinberg and NGO Monitor are very much disliked being the advocates of Israel, but the notability of this org. is well-established. The mere fact that you (or anyone else) don't like them is not enough reason to just delete what they say. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

you have answered neither of my questions. I repeat:

2. a source is provided that shows that Goldstone's resignation was related to the inquiry.

No such source has been provided, only a hypothesis which is clearly original research. Please provide a source. Pexise (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Pexise, you misunderstand the meaning of the OR policy. As said above, this RS source provides opinion of notable organization that mentions both Goldstone's resignation and its relevance to the inquiry. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

→I'll say it again - the phrase below shows that prof. Steinberg of NGO Monitor thinks that Goldstone's resignation was related to the inquiry: "U.N. Human Rights Council appointed HRW board member Richard Goldstone to head the inquisition...Goldstone resigned from HRW, and his name was quickly removed from the website, after NGO Monitor highlighted the conflict of interest". The sentence in the entry is attributed to Monitor. So whom do you charge with OR? Steinberg? This is not what OR in the wikipedia's sense means. If you have any source that disproves Steinberg's words (that Goldstone resigned after Steinberg highlighted the conflict of interest) - you are welcome. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think this is questionable material. Wikipedia should deal with facts, here we have included a piece of speculation by the head of a pressure group, linking the resignation from HRW to the Gaza investigation. He is not stating a fact that they are linked, he is "supposing". I think that provides dubious grounds for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what other editors think about this. Pexise (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1. "he is "supposing" - this is why the sentence is carefully formulated and well attributed.
2. "Wikipedia should deal with facts" - it is a solid fact that this is what prof. Steinberg thinks and says, even though many dislike him and his org. for whatever reasons there are, and taking into consideration that Monitor follows the events related to Gaza War closely, his opinion is notable, however it may be seen controversial by others. It is as well possible to insert opinion of HRW that applauded the selection of Goldstone to head the mission.
3. "I would be interested to hear what other editors think about this" - this is of course your prerogative to ask and seek opinions of others. You are more than welcome. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be interested to hear what other editors think about this. Pexise (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, go ahead, just don't reinterpret written material of the sources in the way it was not meant to be. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pexise here that the evidence backing of the piece of fact here is too slim to support a mention in an encyclopedia. The assertion by Prof Steinberg seems reasonable enough, but I think we should have more sources to back his impression of his own (and his organization's) influence on others. pertn (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, Pertn, is noted. However, Melanie Phillips mentioned this in her column in Spectator: "But Goldstone himself was actually a member of the HRW board, only resigning from it after his inquiry began". Then she provides link to the Monitor bulletin that uses the words "conflict of interest". If the journalist (not objective but still acclaimed) writing in RS thinks it is fine, there's no basis to argue otherwise. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is a) notable and b) verifiably true (for our purposes) it will be easily verifiable via multiple RS. If it isn't easily verifiable via multiple RS it's either non-notable or not verifiably true. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips does not say that Goldstone resigned because of a conflict of interest. Furthermore, as you point out, she refers to the same source as the one (questionable) source we already have. I suggest removing the material until RS can be found which back up the claim. Pexise (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have Haaretz and Spectator, making Steinberg's words a)notable and b)verifiably true (i.e. that this is what Steinberg said). Melanie Phillips wrote that "But Goldstone himself was actually a member of the HRW board, only resigning from it after his inquiry began" and we don't know whether this particular sentence is a result of her genuine journalist work or a copy-paste from Monitor's site. She redirects to Monitor when citing additional info, not this particular sentence. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Melanie Phillips's article doesn't mention Steinberg at all, neither does she mention "conflict of interest". The fact that Steinberg says he thinks RG resigned because of conflict of interest is not notable. Three editors agree that a more reliable source is needed to back this up. Pexise (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Know what? I'll make a step in your direction, and remove "conflict of interest".
Per WP:NOR, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
I like your edit style, though - delete first, discuss later. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I resent the implication of that comment - I started this section on the talk page three weeks ago and it has been discussed by various editors since then. I moved to delete the sentence following a Request for Comment and a third editor agreeing with both myself and Sean.hoyland that the material doesn't belong there - hardly a cavalier attitude to editing. Pexise (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article must comply with WP:BLP where the threshold for inclusion is truth. When in doubt, delete first, discuss later is the right approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

→At least, Sean, in a single sentence you provided a valid argument. However, in this particulr case this is apparently truth. Let's look at the mission page on the UNHRC site. In the "Mission Members" section, there is a link to doc file with mission's bios. It says: "Justice Richard J. Goldstone is a director of the International Center for Transitional Justice, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Economic and Social Rights...". Would it be more appropriate to say that "according to UNHRC's mission page, Goldstone is a member of HRW"? The same HRW that pushed hard to convince the world that Israel and Hamas cooperate with the mission (see e.g. 1, 2, 3) and embrace the report (see e.g. here). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As said before, Goldstone's resignation is not stated as a fact, but well-attributed to Steinberg and his words are sourced to Haaretz which I think is enough. However, since WP:BLP was invoked, why don't you report the dispute to WP:BLP/N? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that unless we are confident that it is a fact that we don't need to attribute it shouldn't be in the article. It seems to be easy to establish that Goldstone was a long term member of the Human Rights Watch board. It doesn't seem to be so easy to establish that he resigned from it only after the inquiry began. A statement from Goldstone or HRW would be ideal. They must have said something. Why don't I report the dispute to WP:BLP/N ? Because I'm not trying to include potentially non-factual information in a BLP. Suitability for inclusion has to be established by the editors wishing to include information. The default is to not include it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This kind of thing doesn't help given the mismatch with this. I assume HRW forgot to update/remove it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All right then, I placed a question on the noticeboard. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but one of my original points appears to have been lost in this discussion. As well as questioning the credibility of the material, I also questioned it's relevance in the section on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. There is nothing which connects the material on HRW to the fact finding mission. Pexise (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, except several dozens of statements from HRW to support the mission and endorse its findings, and maybe 30 or so quotes from HRW in the report itself. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Right, so what is it doing in that section? Where is your reliable source connecting Goldstone's membership of the HRW board to the report? Why is it notable, why is it included in this section? Pexise (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

→I placed a question on the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Statistical inference

Material in this article currently says

"Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish community plummeted following his report on Israel's January 2009 campaign in the Gaza Strip, which provoked disgust at what was called a "betrayal," as he was considered to have made himself implicated in UNHRC's perceived lack of balance, instead of correcting it"

I have unsuccessfully attempted to remove it.

This is a statement about the views of the entire Jewish community in South Africa, a community of around 72,200 people according to 'The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute'. The statement is derived from one JPost article and is apparently based on an unknown number of telephone interviews using an unspecified method to select the sample group. The word "betrayal" has been plucked out of one of these telephone interviews and elevated to represent the response of ~72,000 individual human beings. It's beyond ridiculous. The word "plummeted" has been used to describe a change in standing based on statistical results which aren't actually presented in the article. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. A single JPost article based on an unknown sample size using an unspecified method to select the sample group cannot be considered a reliable source for the views of an entire community. If this source is going to be used to represent the views of tens of thousands of people then I suggest that it is changed to something like "JPost reported that Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish community plummeted following his report on Israel's January 2009 campaign in the Gaza Strip. The assessment was based on a unknown number of telephone interviews". What would be much better would be if those who wish to include material describing the state of mind on an entire community of individuals in SA make the effort to find sensible sources for this information suitable for an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time, Sean, that you're trying to held a virtual debate with JPost - which just to remind you still dubbed RS here (inform me if there were changes to that). This RS says that: "If during Operation Cast Lead a small minority of South Africa's Jews signed a petition of "not in my name," then the vast majority of the community is now saying "not in my name" to Goldstone."

How did a reporter from JPost (one called AMIR MIZROCH) obtain his material, how many people he asked, what sources he studied - is non of our business. If you have any source that disproves claims in the article, you are welcome. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, where to start ? Your response and approach to this issue is unhelpful and inconsistent with the objectives of Wikipedia. Ensuring that information complies with WP:V is our business as is clearly distinguishing between facts and attributed opinions/interpretations. The reliability of an RS is "in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." JPost or any other source being an RS doesn't give them an automatic WP:V compliance pass for every possible context and every conceivable statement in the universe. A JPost journalist carrying out a telephone poll which leads him to make the statistical inference that millions of Americans have been abducted by aliens does not make that piece of information a fact that Wikipedia can present as an unattributed fact simply because JPost is an RS. If the article is going to make unattributed statements of fact about the opinions of ~70,000 people then this one source is not enough. If you think it is then you do not understand the issue or you are choosing to not understand the issue. Either way I see that as your problem rather than Wikipedia's. If editors would like to include unattributed statements of fact about the views of an entire community of individuals then clearly they must ensure that the information itself is actually reliable. If editors can't be bothered to do that then the information should be removed or changed to something like "JPost reported that Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish community plummeted following his report on Israel's January 2009 campaign in the Gaza Strip. The assessment was based on a unknown number of telephone interviews" so that the information is presented as this one source's interpretation and so that the reader is made aware of how the assessment was made. I see that the information in the article has been changed but it still looks more tabloid-like than encyclopedic. I tend to agree with Pexise below. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the statement as it stands, in one of the opening paragraphs of the article:

According to an article in the Jerusalem Post based on an un-attributed interview, Goldstone's standing in the South African Zionist Jewish community plummeted following his report on Israel's January 2009 campaign in the Gaza Strip. Prominent Zionists expressed disgust at what they called a "betrayal," as he was considered to have made himself implicated in Human Rights Council's "onslaught" on Israel, instead of correcting HRC's "wrongs".

I would question the relevance of the inclusion of this material unless another RS can be provided to back this up. Otherwise it would seem to represent a WP:FRINGE view. Pexise (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are almost always a terrible idea, and this one is a vacuous WP:SOAPBOX

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, there are plenty of articles with criticism sections. They are actually a good thing on WP to give balance. Back it goes. Shlomke (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sholmke, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for retaining it. I agree with LLL. Criticism sections are a bad idea in general. This one triply so, given that there is already criticism of the UN fact-finding mission in that section and its just an extended soapbox in the form of a long quote by a marginally notable group. I took it out again. Tiamut^talk 13:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If "criticism sections" aren't a good odea, perhaps the information can be formatted differently. But the removal of validly sourced information, especially info that places the article more in like with WP:NPOV, is by far a worse idea.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the material put into an inappropriate "Criticism" section (see WP:CRIT for germane advice). The content itself is of doubtful utility, but if we do choose to use any of it, it should be incorporated in a meaningful way into the overall article narrative, not stuck on as a "yo-mamma-so-ugly appendage":

The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) called the presentation of a human rights award to Goldstone a "travesty". NCYI President Shlomo Z. Mostofsky said:

“ Recognizing Judge Richard Goldstone as a defender of human rights is an immoral mockery of the efforts of many who truly champion human rights absent a hidden agenda. By labeling Israel acts of self-defense as human rights violations, Judge Goldstone displayed a clear inability to discern between a country struggling to protect itself from unprovoked acts of violence and the aggressive acts of a terrorist organization ”

LotLE×talk 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting the sourced content is not the step toward "incorporating it in a meaningful way."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest a way to incporate this material that addresses the concerns raised regarding its marginal notability, soapboxy flavour, and the inappropriate formatting under which it was first included. Simply protesting its removal isn't going to move its inclusion forward either. Tiamut^talk 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see how the material above could have any value anywhere in the article. It amounts to, basically, "an unimportant fringe group published a hyperbolic and predictable rant against the bio subject." We've already included much more relevant information of criticism of Goldstone's UN report on Gaza, and this adds absolutely nothing to that. LotLE×talk 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful link to WP:CRIT. If the article has a section titled "Awards and honors" without it being incorporated into the overall article narrative, then so can a critique section. Or even better, have both awards and criticism in one section titled something like "reception" per WP:CRIT. The organization is actually a very big branch of Judaism, not frindge at all. Shlomke (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The organization National Council of Young Israel is not a branch of Judaism. The Council is a small, right-wing advocacy group within American-specific Orthodox Judaism. They are welcome to their opinions, but it is difficult to imagine members of that group having any opinion other than the one quoted above. The fact the reaction is completely rote diminishes its significance somewhat; of far greater relevance is the fact that the opinion of the group is simply not, even remotely, biographically relevant to Goldstone, who is--after all--the actual subject of this biography.

The sophistical point about Awards being somehow analogous to criticism is too obscure to make any real sense of, and I won't try. I would observe that, while there is no actual parallel with criticism, it is also not biographically significant if Goldstone receives an award from a group that is not otherwise important to his reception. So if my neighborhood association (in an American city where Goldstone will probably never visit) votes Goldstone "Our Favorite Judge", it falls vastly below the threshhold of biographical significance. LotLE×talk 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To respond your points: 1) The National Council of Young Israel is I believe the parent body so to speak of, and the organization that speaks for, Young Israel type Jews - Which is what I meant by calling it a "branch of Judaism". I am not aware of them being an advocacy group. Perhaps you can source your statement for that. Your personal feelings on their opinions and what you imagine them advocating obviously does not count here. What matters is that they are a notable organization by WP standards (while your neighborhood association probably is not), and therefore their opinion is notable on Wikipedia too. This is in addition to the fact that they've been cited by a noteworthy newspaper, The Jewish Press.

2) You haven't stated why their opinion is not relevant to Goldstone himself. While there has been much criticism of the Goldstone report which has been covered in that article, this criticism is specifically about giving an award to Goldstone himself and rightly relevant to an article about him and the awards he's received.

3)The point is that there should be balance in the article with a NPOV. I don't see why the criticism should be incorporated into the rest of the article and not in it's own section, specially if there is a section dedicated to his praise. Shlomke (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) No Wikipedia biography should have a "Praise" section. If Shlomke does not understand the rather obvious and stunning difference between that and an "Awards" section, s/he needs to read policy and guidelines for a while to figure out what an encyclopedia is. I think it is more likely that s/he is simply being disingenuous, and therefore there is little point in discussing the rhetoric. Not all biographies need and "Awards" section, even of people who have won them. But receiving an award from a prominent organization central to the person's area of interest/scholarship/achievement/etc is likely to be in itself a notable life event of that person. Having some random person or group either insult or compliment a biographic figure is unlikely, in itself, to have any particular biographical relevance. Especially a group like NCYI that has no particular connection to anything of interest or activity to Goldstone (quite likely, they are far more closely relevant to Shlomke's life, but that's special pleading and WP:SOAPBOX). LotLE×talk 09:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, don't make this personal and keep to the subject. Awards and Honors sounds very much like praise, but it makes no difference. I think you get my point. There is no reason to keep out valid criticism by a notable Jewish organization. There need not be a personal connection to him. Shlomke (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. If this "criticism" is at all important a reliable secondary source would have reported on it. As WP:BLP says, you need to provide reliable third-party sources that make note of this "criticism". Not just using a primary source. nableezy - 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And this info has in fact been reported by a secondary source as stated above. Shlomke (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the reference you used was incomplete, I had to look for what they wrote about this. The only thing I could find was this piece. Not exactly a "reliable third-party source". This reads like a polemic editorial, not something that should be used in a BLP. nableezy - 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, It not that piece (I was aware of that one). It's on page thirty two of the printed edition under the title "NCYI Calls Award a "Travesty"". I was not able to find it online - they don't post everything online. Shlomke (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, that explains a bit. Could you at least quote the relevant portion of the printed paper (and the byline)? nableezy - 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Press piece is an exact copy of what you see on the NCYI website from the other ref, except the title. There is no byline. Shlomke (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) There is a common misunderstanding among those who try to stick in ugly "Criticism" sections in article. This point is not special to Shlomke (nor to Goldstone, etc), though s/he is a clear example. To wit: these critics often suppose that a given source is in iteself "notable" and should therefore be included in an article (it is interesting that no "Praise" is ever "inherently notable" this way). This thinking is dead wrong, however. A critical (or complimentary) organization is only notable, in Wikipedia terms, if their comments somehow impact the life or the reception of the biographical figure we are writing about. No matter how true or insightful a given criticism (or praise) might be, it doesn't automatically belong in an article because the source is so great. Dramatically overstating the point (only very slightly), if Serena Williams or Stephen Hawking--both in themselves extremely notable people in areas completely unrelated to Goldstone's work and reputation--decide to express some criticism or praise of Goldstone, there is no reason those comments by highly notable people have any place in this article. The NCYI is barely more closely related to Goldstone's area (i.e. they both, in some sense, have advocated something about Israeli policy, that's about as close as it comes though), but the organization is far, far less inherently notable than the sports figure or scientist I mention. LotLE×talk 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Shlomke, two points: First, this example of criticism towards Goldstone was dispersed throughout the entry and I fully agree with those who said that there's no need in another section devoted solely to criticism. Second, as a person who dedicated lately much of his time to Goldstone matters, in my opinion this quote does not pass the threshold for the inclusion - said by group not notable enough and has low encyclopedic value. That said, I guess more reactions following Goldstone's recent awarding could be found in more sources and is worth searching. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the picture of the "goldstone scarf"......

..if not to imply that his partiality? I know I am supposed to assume good faith, but it is hard for me to assume otherwise than that this picture is clearly inserted with POV intent. ("Look, the palestinians love his report so much thay make a scarf with a flag and his name on!! The report has got to be biased!"). Am I wrong? pertn (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)