Talk:Richard Goldstone

Goldstone and Apartheid

The section on Goldstones work as a judge for the Apartheid regime is largely apologetic and clearly biased. An encyclopedia article should be more balanced and neutral. Perhaps we could agree to improve the quality of this section? --92.225.219.135 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Goldstone was appointed judge by the Apartheid government, surely his tenure as a judge before the end of apartheid deserves its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.3.10 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (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

Not to metion that it was Peres who, in 1975, met PW Botha and offered to sell him nuclear weapons.[1] RolandR (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proliferation of poorly sourced material on Goldstone as judge in South Africa

This article is in danger of becoming seriously unbalanced. A large amount of material has recently been added on Goldstone's record as a judge in South Africa. This is fine in principle, but it seems to be largely sourced from Israeli sources - where are the South African sources? - and from blogs. I'm immediately deleting some of the blog sourced material, following rules under WP:BLP, but I'm concerned that the article is becoming unbalanced and is starting to look like a smear piece. Pexise (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this concern in general, but this edit was faulty, there was an error in the reference only because you had earlier deleted material that contained the full version of the reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing - thanks for pointing that out. However, I stand by the deletion as I deleted the other reference to this source because there is no link to the source - I've also tried searching for the source on Google and can't find it. Pexise (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be linked, there is no such requirement. In this instance the reason you wouldn't find it through a google search is that it was in Hebrew. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the accusations you are restoring would require much more solid sourcing than a reference to an unlinked Israeli newspaper article. If these accusations are true, it should be easy to find more sources to corroborate the accusations. The rules under WP:BLP require us to delete this material until more sources are provided. Pexise (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again I agree with the idea that there has recently been a smear campaign and have no desire to participate in it. But if you want to improve the article instead of merely deleting things, you could search for and add sources yourself -- it won't be hard (and I will also participate, as a matter of NPOV editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for other sources and several carry the accusations, all refering back to the Yediot article. On the other hand, I have found this: [2] . If the contention is that these are false or distorted allegations, we should not be reproducing them in this article. Pexise (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, since they have received a great deal of attention, we present them as allegations and then present Goldstone's response. Once again, it is no doubt a smear campaign -- but a smear campaign against him adds to his notability and there is no reason simply to delete everything. Much better to use the available sources to show how idiots like Dershowitz are embarrassing themselves with this nonsense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To explain a bit more why I am taking this approach: if we go down this path, it will be much harder for editors like Gilisa to come back in and simply reverse all the changes you have made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the allegations have been proven false, nor have Goldstone or his followers denied them. The only retorts usually are things like "Israel 'supported' South African apartheid by having diplomatic relations with them," blah blah blah. Sorry some people don't wanna hear the truthTallicfan20 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting information from reliable sources because editors see it as a "smear campaign" is a gross violation of basis wikipedia ethics. We aren't here to protect Goldstone's image. We cannot engage in a selective-bias by removing critical of controversial aspects of Goldstones' history because individual users believe it is inconsistent with his history as a "respectable" judge. These are the facts: his status as a judge during apartheid South Africa is minimized and sugar-coated, the legitimate criticism from Noam Chomsky, Neal Sher, and Alan Dershowitz has been removed without reason by User:ChrisO, and everything else is being written off as a "smear campaign." If Goldstone is being smeared, find a reliable source and put it in the article. Anything less and this is just another case of editors personalizing an article. In its present form the article is far too reliant on quotations and interviews of Goldstone. Sections "Other activities" and "Awards and honors" reads like a pimp piece and shouldn't take so much space. South Africa section was far better in its original state before ChrisO gutted it. Now its extremely wordy, lots of fluff, almost as if Goldstone himself wrote it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Major BLP concerns: South Africa section rewrite

I've rewritten the South Africa section pretty much from scratch. I have to say, not having read this article before now, that I thought there were some very major problems with it from the point of view of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy (and I'll be raising this on the BLP noticeboard). Goldstone has had a very distinguished career in South Africa. You wouldn't know this from the previous text, which was dominated by accusations apparently being made against him in an Israeli newspaper. Criticism/praise sections are discouraged, as a general rule (see WP:CRITICISM) and WP:BLP says the following:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

The inclusion of arguably defamatory claims from people who appear to be fringe figures simply isn't acceptable; they don't belong in any biographical article. Focusing entirely on claims recently made by one newspaper is a canonical example of recentism and giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. Some of the sourcing was also dreadful (WorldNetDaily is emphatically not a reliable source). I've rewritten the section to give an overview of Goldstone's career in South Africa, working in material from recent reporting without unbalancing the entire article to focus on one allegation to the exclusion of everything else. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is not an unreliable source. I agree some of the sources were off, but deleting entire paragraphs with such a weak rationale is unacceptable. All the info about his status a judge during apartheid, criticism and support by notable figures and academics has been removed by you. These are reliable sources, 2, 3, and yet you removed them. The WND source only supported one sentence in the first paragraph of south africa. That's hardly grounds to remove 4 reliable cited paragraphs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but what has happened here is absolutely unacceptable. You have deleted long sections of perfectly valid and sourced text that is not in any stretch of the imagination a violation of BLP. As a matter of fact, your deletion is a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you may happen to think highly of this man does not prevent us from sharing negative opinions about him in the article. Breein1007 (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The key words are "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". No patience for smear campaigns here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is smearing anyone. ChrisO removed cited paragraphs under dubious rationales. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

With Judge Goldstone, we have the big advantage of having a mass of biographical material covering 20 years or more that goes into considerable detail about his life and work. It was published long before any of the current controversies, so obviously wasn't influenced by special pleading. Several things are clear from it: he had a very high reputation in South Africa; he was known as a strong supporter of human rights; and he played a key role in South Africa's transition to democracy. You wouldn't have known any of this from the previous version of the article, which literally portrayed him as some kind of successor to Mengele. The material in question was not in any way "responsible, conservative or disinterested" and grossly unbalanced the article, focusing on one issue - Goldstone's sentencing record - out of context and to the exclusion of almost everything else about this period in his career. Its division into opposing criticism and support sections - with criticism going first - is a classic sign of bad, biased writing. The excessive attention paid to this one issue is also clearly a distortion of the historical record; in researching his career in South Africa I found no evidence that his conduct as a judge was the subject of controversy or criticism at the time. Note that none of this is about whether sources are "reliable." BLP requires much more than that, as the first section of WP:BLP states (bolding added): biographies "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this ChrisO, the article is in far better shape now. Greenman (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris0, you removed entire paragraphs claiming they were supported by unreliable sources (false) and violated BLP guidelines (false). We have several prominent figures - Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, Neal Sher - who didn't have very nice things to say about the man, and you removed all of them. Why Chris? It seems you came into this article with the mission of gutting anything that was remotely controversial. The South Africa and judicial career reads like a pimp piece, with zero commentary on his most controversial ruling. And also, the new Cassese conversation in the 5th section is completely unnecessary. Emphasizing his Jewishness in such a manner isn't appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the trouble to research Goldstone's career in depth, adding numerous sources which are a fair representation of coverage of Goldstone's career. What have you done? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about you Chris. It's about the article. Let's stop tip-toeing around the reality that 4 whole paragraphs supported by reliable sources were removed unilaterally with a very, very weak rationale. A fair and balanced article does not mean removing controversial topics. Sher, Chomsky and Dershowitz were not slandering Goldstone. Hypothetically, even if they were - it would still need a place in the article. Right now the article is a borderline fluff piece and is very hard to navigate through. Lots of filler and no substance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Let's just review the situation for a moment, shall we? Goldstone has had a long and extremely distinguished career. If you review the sources in detail, it's soon apparent that he had a stellar reputation in South Africa. He was supported and trusted by both sides. Nelson Mandela himself hand-picked Goldstone to sit on the Constitional Court. There is simply no significant controversy and a huge amount of praise in the sources about his role.

As against that, we have a piece published 11 days ago in an Israeli newspaper that makes lurid claims about his past, which contemporary sources do not support, and quotes from fringe figures that compare him to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals - grossly over-the-top and insulting, particularly considering that he's Jewish. You apparently believe that this material is more important than everything that's previously been published about Goldstone. On the contrary, it's classic red flag material - "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." The "Goldstone as Nazi war criminal" line is an extreme fringe view far removed from the established view of his career.

As I've said before, the fact that something appears in reliable sources does not mean that we should include it or give it more weight than it deserves. BLP requires much more than just reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, or Neal Sher "fringe" figures. YOU as an editor clearly see Goldstone as great person. Removing and deleting reliably-cited material because you think it isn't consistent with his "distinguished" career as a judge in apartheid South Africa isn't a persuasive rationale. You have removed entire paragraphs under a false premise. Even if we take into account the 3 sentence Nazi reference, it still has nothing to do with Chomsky's legitimate criticism of Goldstone's opinion of NATO's bombing in Yugoslavia, or the recent attempt to ban him from the United States by DOJ attorneys. Yet, you removed all of that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take Chomsky first. The passage you added is from Chomsky's own self-published personal website. As WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) says, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." I'm quite familiar with Chomsky's writings, and as far as his views on the former Yugoslavia - my own area of expertise - are concerned, he's way out of the mainstream. I'm not particularly familiar with Dershowitz and Sher but it's plain from their own output that they're Chomskys of the neocon right. The views you added are extreme fringe views and plain wrong. It's grossly against the letter and spirit of BLP to insert claims that a public figure is like a Nazi war criminal or a Mengele, and Dershowitz's disregard for truthfulness is plain in his claim that Goldstone sent "dozens" of people to be executed. You seem to be showing a disregard for the truth yourself in your false claim that "DOJ attorneys" (I presume you mean Sher, who isn't a DOJ attorney) have tried to "ban him from the United States". You need to stop adding extremist material like this; you're showing complete disregard for BLP, and I don't think you'll find much sympathy for your position if I have to take this to arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz are notable academics and their commentary is relevant. If Dershowitz and Chomsky have it in for Goldstone and hate him because he is a dirty South African apatheid Jew (hyperbole FYI), so what? Their opinions are relevant. If Goldstone is so perfect then we can naturally include his stance and those who support him (which was included in the original draft). I'm not so concerned about the utter lack of criticism, but rather your continual dismal of relevant, reliably-cited material under bogus claims of fringe. You are behaving as if this article is your property. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I had previously added most of the material from South African sources defending Goldstone, describing the work of the Goldstone commission, etc.--the original section on "Goldstone and apartheid" was a totally one sided smear. I didn't think my edits were truly sufficient to correct it--it ended up being "sources differ as to whether Goldstone was an apartheid hanging judge", which is not really right. I was sorely tempted to at least delete, e.g., the line sourced to WorldNetDaily, but I have very rarely edited on Wikipedia & wanted to err on the side of caution & on making sure the South African sources at least made it in there. I would suggest, as a potential compromise, including references to the Yediot article & ensuing controversy, but doing so relatively briefly and after a more neutral description of Goldstone's role in South Africa. (IMO, the current edits also rely somewhat too heavily on Goldstone's own descriptions of his career--personally, I think his descriptions are reliable, but I also think that contemporaneous newspaper records, statements from other South Africans, etc. carry more weight.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.226.26 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

# of people sentenced to death

Chris, we have a source that states exactly what I wrote - in the headline, no less. This source, incidentally, is the same one which you are using for the figure of 2. You can't just remove a sourced statement just because you don't like what it says, or because you believe it is wrong. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not under any obligation to repeat factual errors. Goldstone himself says that he passed two death sentences as a judge. According to the original tabloid article which has sparked this feeding frenzy, the rest of the "death sentences" were in fact rejections of appeals in cases where death sentences had been imposed by other judges. Appellate judges do not "pass sentences" - they merely confirm or reject the lower court's interpretation of the laws and facts of the case. What's more, Goldstone was only one member of a three-member panel on the appeal court, and the appealed sentences were never carried out since South Africa had already suspended executions (and would later abolish the death penalty). So it's categorically wrong to say that he passed "28 death sentences", since by his own account he did nothing of the sort, and it's categorically misleading to attribute every case to him alone when for 22 of the 28 (assuming that figure's right in the first place) were decided by a three-person panel of which he was a member. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And thank you, by the way, for indirectly drawing my attention to the source. As it's a blog we can't use it - per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I've replaced it with a reliable source that presents the same information. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be accurate, then, to say that he voted to affirm death sentences in 28 appellate cases? It seems a matter of how to summarize the source. Of course reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it ought to be included at all, and that's really a separate discussion to have, but this is not a verifiability issue, it seems. — e. ripley\^talk 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We're especially not under obligation to repeat factual errors when the subject disputes the claims, as he does in the very next reference (same author, Shavit, in the JC). I was in the process of reverting this myself; ChrisO beat me to it. It is safe to say there is no consensus for keeping the edit in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean 26 cases, not 28. The problem is the undue weight it places on the issue. If you look at the historical record, which I've done in some detail, there is almost no controversy at all about Goldstone's sentencing practices. The only controversy I found was a South African judge complaining in 1991 that Goldstone was too liberal and wasn't to be trusted with capital cases as he was a closet abolitionist. The weight placed on it by the Israeli tabloid that reported this is completely at odds with the historical coverage of Goldstone, which tends to use adjectives like "distinguished", "respected", "revered", "acclaimed" and so on to describe Goldstone's record (this 1995 New York Times piece is typical). It's very obvious that this controversy has nothing to do with Goldstone's actual record in South Africa, where he had a tremendously high reputation, and everything to do with present-day politics. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see -- the Jewish Chronicle is certainly reliable, but this is basically a JC columnist's post discussing something published in another venue. It perhaps lends it slightly more credence that a source like the JC would think enough to write about it, but only barely, especially if it's nothing more than someone's blog post summarizing a tabloid. The proper source for the information would actually be Yediot Ahronoth, which probably shouldn't be used as a source for anything controversial. Without better sourcing I'd support keeping it out. — e. ripley\^talk 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much my take too. Thanks for your input. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

we're under no obligation to repeat factual errors, but it seems this is not a case of "factual error", but rather a question of interpretation or description - how to describe the actions of a judge who rejects an appeal of a death sentence. Perhaps we need to rephrase the sentence in question to something like "he sentenced 2 people to death, and rejected the appeal of 28 other death sentences". Momma's Little Helper (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is very much a case of factual error, since the author plainly doesn't know (or doesn't care to mention) the difference between passing a death sentence and rejecting the appeal of a death sentence and ignorantly conflates the two. But the wider point is that this is simply undue weight on a trivial issue. You would need to show that there's something noteworthy or unusual about his actions. Since the law mandated capital punishment in certain cases, judges simply didn't have the discretion to avoid passing such sentences. There's simply no evidence as far as I can see that this was ever an issue until the Israeli tabloid ran its story 11 days ago. I've certainly found no contemporary evidence to suggest that Goldstone's sentencing record was any different from that of any other liberal South African judge. If anything, as the words "liberal judge" might suggest to you, he seems to have had a far better record than the judges who were supportive of apartheid. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any factual error here at all. I read the original article, and unless I missed something, it does not say there were 26 cases of rejecting an appeal, and 2 cases of sentencing - this seems to be a conclusion you arrived at, taking Goldstone's response at face value (Actually, more than that, since even in his response Goldstone does not say that). As to the wider point, Yediot is not a "tabloid", unless you are referring to its physical format - it is Israel's most widely published newspaper. It ran an investigative report, which was picked up by numerous other publications, including the Jewish Chronicle (which you cite), as well as the Jerusalem Post and The Atlantic, so it seems to pass the notability test. You don't seem to be contesting this point - as your own edit mentions he sentenced 2 people to death, the only question is how to treat the sources that say that actual number is at least 28, not 2. I understand that he was upholding the law at the time - that' snot in question, but I think there is something noteworthy about a self-declared abolitionist and anti-Apartheid human rights activist who chooses to serve as a judge under Apartheid rule, applying Apartheid laws. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your basic premise is wrong. Goldstone was a judge who supported human rights, not a human rights activist. To become a judge, he had to swear an oath to uphold the law as it stood. South African law at the time gave judges no discretion to avoid imposing the death penalty in certain cases (in this instance, murders with no mitigating factors). As an appellate judge, he had no remit to overturn death sentences passed by other judges if they'd followed the law correctly in doing so. It would have been noteworthy and unusual if he had, but he didn't, and nor, as far as I'm aware, did any other liberal South African judges. They wouldn't have stayed in their jobs for very long if they had. And as for "choosing to serve as a judge under Apartheid rule", there's a very substantial body of sources - which I've cited in the article - indicating that Goldstone sought to do that to undermine the system from within. There's no doubt that his rulings (particularly on the Group Areas Act) seriously undermined apartheid. It's true that there were moral dilemmas involved - which again I've cited in the article - but the historical record is unanimous that Goldstone's role was a positive one. I've not come across a single source suggesting otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He was not a judge, he was a successful commercial lawyer who later became a judge, and then a human rights activist. I think, and am supported by numerous sources on this, that for a person who presents himself as an abolitionist and human rights advocate, choosing to become a Judge under Apartheid is a rather peculiar choice. Certainly Goldstone and his supporters claim he did this in order to "fight the system from within", but his critics (e.g., Jon Chait and Jeffrey Goldberg) certainly doubt that he "seriously undermined apartheid", and his more extreme critics portray him as an opportunist, 'currying favor with the powers that be'. I don't know where the truth is, but we can't present Goldstone's self-exculpating explanations as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, and exclude his critics' opinions of him. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see it a bit differently. It's clear that there are some recent sources that suggest otherwise. As I've indicated several times, I think this comes in the course of a smear campaign. I think it would be reasonable to include brief coverage of the fact that people like Dershowitz are trying to smear him. I agree entirely that the way this was done by Gilisa was all out of proportion, heavily unbalanced, etc. But I think the recent kerfuffle, properly presented, might bear brief treatment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a smear campaign, I agree - that's precisely why we need to be very careful about how we tackle it. When you refer to "some recent sources that suggest otherwise", it's clear that what's being referred to is an attempt to rewrite the historical record to gain advantage in a modern political dispute unrelated to Goldstone's judicial career in South Africa. I think it would be completely against the spirit and intention of the BLP policy for Wikipedia to be used to promote fringe views of high-profile individuals. In all honesty, I think we would be better off not touching this manufactured controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a fringe view at all - it is a matter of differing points of view. Goldstone & supporters present the "fearless warrior against Aparthied, fighting the system from within" POV, Goldstone's critics present the "opportunist, currying favor with the powers that be" POV. We can't choose sides in this debate, and we don't whitewash unfavorable views of public figures we happen to like. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making your agenda pretty clear. Let's put this simply: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This issue of Goldstone's sentencing record does not appear to have existed before it was raised 11 days ago in an Israeli tabloid newspaper. The vast, overwhelming bulk of the historical record presents a very positive view of his role in South Africa. Views to the contrary appear to have been manufactured out of thin air in response to modern partisan political issues. This isn't a case of some new information which nobody knew before coming to light, since Goldstone's judicial career has been a matter of public record for 20 years. It's a blatant attempt to rewrite, or rather, to falsify history. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks. It is not about me, and I could just as easily say that your edits have made your agenda clear. Again, Yediot is not a tabloid, but rather Israel's largest paper. There are numerous sources, which I have cited, which dispute your one-sided assertion that Goldstone played a positive role in opposing Apartheid as a judge, and we can't state his obviously biased appraisal of himself and his record as neutral fact. Momma's Little Helper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

First, I suggest that you should look at Wikipedia's own article on Yediot, which says: "It is published in tabloid format and style, and emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis"." (That in itself should be a warning sign.) Second, it's not "my analysis". If you bother to do some proper research, which you clearly haven't, then you will find what I found - that coverage of Goldstone's career in South Africa is overwhelmingly positive. Book after book, article after article describes his work in glowing terms. I'm well aware that Israeli and American right-wingers have been busily trying to trash his reputation in response to his report on the Gaza War, but that's pure historical revisionism. If you look at sources that pre-date the Gaza report you will not find any significant criticism of his South African career, period. Claiming otherwise is simply false. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You should know better than to use Wikpedia as a source. I will shortly correct the erroneous info in the article about Yediot. I have done my research, which uncovered many sources you are ignoring, sources which are critical of Goldstone, and his record as an Apartheid judge. The fact that these criticisms came up only recently is not really relevant as to their veracity. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course the recency is relevant to their veracity. The claims wouldn't be being made if it wasn't for Goldstone annoying the pro-Israel right by daring to criticise Israel. As I said, if you look at the historical record, there simply is no criticism there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing a logically untenable position (" the recency is relevant to their veracity"), I suggest your read our article on logical fallacies, and come back when you understand why that statement is laughable. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So? Maybe Goldstone does annoy those who are pro-Israel? Does that change anything? We have reliable sources with legitimate figures who have a relevant opinion of Goldstone. We're aren't citing these opinions as fact, but opinions. Goldstone has yet to name and accuse individuals of smearing him. He had a cordial debate with Dore Gold awhile back and at no point did he dismiss his opponent as "fringe" as you do. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's been some discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard in the past concluding that Yediot shouldn't be used in a BLP to source controversial information, given its bent. It may be useful to revisit the discussion there at this time, and allow other editors familiar with the policy to weigh in. — e. ripley\^talk 23:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion, as I believe that conclusion is quite wrong if you are remembering it correctly. It is a side issue, though, as we are not quoting Yediot here, but tertiary sources (the Jewish Chronicle and the Jerusalem post) who reported on the Yediot story. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid my clipboard has now erased the link, but if you'll go over to WP:RSN and take a look at the posting I just put up down toward the bottom, it should be in there. As to the sourcing, as I said above, in the case of the Jewish Chronicle link, it is nothing more than a columnist's summation of the Yediot story -- it represents no new reporting and as such there's no reason to use it; the Yediot article is the proper source for the information. I haven't seen a Jerusalem Post link though, I must have missed it. In any case, hopefully we'll get some good feedback at RSN. — e. ripley\^talk 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've replied there - I don't think the previous RSN discussion concluded that Yediot should not be used. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please note that I have taken the issue of recent editing conduct on this article to WP:AE#Wikifan12345. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, take a look here for a report on ChrisO's WP:3RR violation. Breein1007 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Which has been rejected, predictably. AN3 is not the appropriate venue for dealing with a BLP problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the appropriate venue for dealing with someone who has made 5 reverts in 24 hours. Breein1007 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware that there is an exception to the 3 revert rule where BLP issues are concerned. Adding self-published and defamatory content is strictly against BLP's rules and spirit, not least because it raises the risk of libel actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am very well aware, thanks. The problem is that this is not a violation of BLP. You are completely censoring valid criticism of Goldstone that has come from reliable sources. Your comments about Yediot Achronot, the biggest newspaper in Israel, being a "tabloid" and therefore inappropriate are complete bullshit. And by your standards here, we would have to delete any negative comments or criticism about anybody on Wikipedia. That's not how it works. Breein1007 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You removed material sourced to Ha'aretz, Yediot and the Jerusalem Post, 3 of the 4 top Israeli newspapers. These are not "self-published" sources by any stretch of the imagination. You would do well to read the caveat to the exception you are citing, before you find yourself blocked.Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussion above or the arbitration enforcement request, which I can see you haven't, the self-published material is that from the personal website of Noam Chomsky. WP:BLPSPS specifically disallows such sources. The defamatory material is the claims by the fringe activists Dershowitz and Sher. WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states that tiny-minority views should not be included at all. The repeated attempts to add that defamatory material have ignored the point that I've equally repeatedly made, that it's a tiny-minority fringe viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming difficult to edit this article after ChrisO has turned it into a battlefield, threatening editors with arbitration for daring to question his reasoning. I find it dubious ChrisO would single me out when all I did was restore the paragraphs. Several users did the same, yet ChrisO failed to lodge an arbcom against them. Personal vendetta much? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I filed a request against you because your conduct has been particularly egregious and, frankly, you have a history of misconduct. But it will hopefully provide an opportunity for the BLP issues to be resolved in a forum where BLP is actually enforced. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, my conduct - deleting entire paragraphs supported by reliable sources, edit-warring, refusing to cooperate in talk, and misleading edit summaries. Oh wait, that's you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest we tone down the rhetoric. The article has been fully protected for 1 week, the AE request has been rejected by myself, the ANEW report was also rejected in favour of protection. If we're done forum shopping, then you should ficus on the centre of the dispute rather than each other. Just because the article is protected doesn't mean that blocks won't be forthcoming for incivility. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked this article for 1 week due to the edit warring and questionable sourcing in a BLP. I'm seriously considering taking further action, but need to familiarise myself with the ArbCom sanctions, which will have to wait til morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary of BLP issues

Thanks for addressing this. I've already discussed at great length here and on the BLP/N the key BLP problems with this article, but for your benefit, here's a summary. The material that Wikifan12345 and his wikifans want to add is as follows (from this diff):

• Self-published commentary from Noam Chomsky. Specifically excluded per WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."

• Inaccurate and defamatory claims from Israeli tabloid newspaper Yediot Aharonot, published on 6 May 2010. Poor source (sensationalist tabloid), rejected by Goldstone himself and wildly inaccurate - he passed two death sentences, not 28. The source claims that Goldstone "sentenced these men to death after they appealed their conviction of murder." However, appellate judges do not pass sentences - they uphold or reject verdicts passed by other judges. We're not under any obligation to repeat factual errors, particularly when they come from populist tabloids. On the reliability of Yediot as a source, it is "very similar to the tabloids popular in Western countries. Its language is basic, often replete with both grammatical and editorial errors. The content is sensational ... Its reports are capsule-like, and the information often condensed and incomplete." - Dan Caspi, Media decentralization: the case of Israel's local newspapers, p. 11. In other words, the equivalent of The Sun or Bild.

• Inaccurate and defamatory claims from Alan Dershowitz, who I gather is a highly controversial activist. He falsely claims that "[Goldstone] allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed". By the time Goldstone was an appeal judge the death penalty had been permanently suspended, later to be abolished. Goldstone himself has made this point. Again, we're under no obligation to repeat factual errors. Promoting Dershowitz's claim that Goldstone – a Jew – is like Josef Mengele is just gratuitous; it's an appalling smear.

• Defamatory claims from Neal Sher, whom I've not heard of before but appears to be another fringe activist. Accusations of "crimes of moral turpitude". Clearly a fringe viewpoint and another nasty smear.

Specific BLP problems with this:

• Undue weight on tiny-minority viewpoints, which should not be included at all (WP:BLP#Criticism and praise);
• Claims of guilt by association (WP:BLP#Criticism and praise);
• Biased and malicious content, viz. the Mengele and "moral turpitude" smears (WP:BLP#Criticism and praise);
• Poor-quality sources; sensationalist tabloid reporting clearly does not meet these requirements, and self-published sources are specifically prohibited from inclusion. ("Be very firm about the use of high quality sources," WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops, WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material)
• Defamation is an issue specifically because the claims being added are demonstrably false, overtly malicious (Mengele and "moral turpitude") and clearly would have the effect of harming the reputation of the article's subject. BLP requires that "material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable." (WP:NPF - although this is under "non-public figures" for some reason, it's true as a general principle).
• Four editors here or on the BLP/N (Breein1007, Momma's Little Helper, No More Mr Nice Guy, Wikifan12345) advocate including this material. Six editors (myself, Greenman, Nomoskedasticity, Off2riorob, Sean.hoyland, Threeafterthree) do not support its inclusion. There is clearly a majority against, and no consensus for inclusion in any case. BLP requires that "when material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." (WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content).

Additional policy problem: the claims about Goldstone are 180 degrees opposite to the mainstream consensus view of him as a champion of human rights and a key figure in the dismantling of apartheid (cf. this NY Times profile from 1995). It's like portraying Nelson Mandela as a bloodthirsty mass murderer and oppressor of white people. This is a red flag: a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; a tabloid newspaper and a couple of fringe activists don't come close.

It should be borne in mind that recent negative commentary about Goldstone in the Israeli media is obviously related to his report on the Gaza War. Older sources are overwhelmingly positive about his career in South Africa; the section Richard Goldstone#Judicial career is a fair representation of what reliable academic sources say about him. Judging by their contributions, the editors seeking to add this material have a substantial history of editing articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is clear that this attempt to rewrite well-documented South African history is simply an extension of the Israeli-Palestinian POV wars, and therefore is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions (though in this instance you may want to look at the provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Special enforcement on biographies of living persons). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others

You have been told multiple times by multiple people that Yediot Achronot is Israel's largest newspaper and a fine reliable source. It is not a tabloid, and you have presented no source that labels it as such or Wikipedia consensus that states that it is a "poor source". By continuing to post comments like this and ignoring people who explain to you that you are wrong, you make it near impossible to WP:AGF. Breein1007 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is a prominent American lawyer and his view is certainly not fringe. Your claim that his comments are "defamatory" are very serious and I suggest you watch yourself when making statements like that. What you are doing here is labeling anyone who criticizes Goldstone as fringe in an attempt to silence and censor any criticism aimed at him. This is unacceptable. Breein1007 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Sher to comment, but again, you yourself are showing that you have decided he is a "fringe activist" simply because he has criticized Goldstone. This is not how Wikipedia works, and as a former admin, you should know much better. Breein1007 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please refrain from characterizing others as "wikifans" - I presume you are referring to me, but I don't know Wikifan12345, have not crossed paths with him before, and am not a fan of his. with regards to your specific points- I agree that the Chomsky quote, being self-published, should be removed. The rest of your comments are not as solid. Yediot is not a sensationalist tabloid, it is Israel's largest circulation mainstream newspaper, and a reliable source. Goldstone may claim the statements made in its investigative report are inaccurate, but that doesn't make them so - it is simply Goldstone's opinion, and we can't state it is fact based on his opinion. the claims you make regarding the number of sentences he passed versus the number of appeals he upheld are nowhere to be found - not even in Goldstone's response- they appear to be your conclusions, which accept Goldstone's rebuttal at face value. i've already suggested a compromise veriosn that addresses the issue of "sentenced" vs. "rejected an appeal" - a compromise hat was supported by another editor. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as Neal Sher goes, he is not a fringe activist. He is trying to bar Goldstone from entering the USA. Sher is the former Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and played a pivotal role deporting Nazi war criminals. This has also been covered by tikun olam. Your assessments are rather reactionary ChrisO. Cherry-picking soundbites from individuals in an attempt to smear their image (and thus make them unreliable) is totally unacceptable. Dershowitz and Sher are not activists but experts in their field of work. Criticism is not synonymous with defamation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO - I entirely support your position here, and originally flagged up these problems in an earlier section. The content that other editors are trying to include is text-book smear material. I also commend the additional material you have added from solid academic sources.
• I would like to add to the list of questionable content a controversial paragraph which seems to have found its way into the article again, in the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2009 Gaza Conflict section - this is the content in question:

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 anger at what community leaders called 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".

• Sources used here include a blog and other sources that don't reflect the content of the paragraph. This paragraph has been the subject of lengthy discussions previously (see, for example: SPA reinserting rejected material), and the editor pushing for its inclusion, Jonund, has never been able to establish consensus for its inclusion, or resolve numerous sourcing problems or questions of BLP violation. I would suggest removal of the paragraph now on the grounds of BLP violation. Pexise (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph should be removed. I removed it myself once (and then Jonund put it back). It is true that two of the sources provided do not support the text; at best the paragraph is thus original research with respect to those sources. The third source is an article originally from the Jerusalem Post, presented here as hosted at another site; I hardly think this is sufficient for including Jonund's text and I support its removal on BLP grounds. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Yedioth Ahronoth article starts "Yedioth Ahronoth investigation reveals man preaching human rights, who authored scathing report against Israel's operation in Gaza, sent at least 28 black defendants to gallows as South African judge under Apartheid regime". Ooops, that means that what follows is an attack intended not as an analysis of the subject, but a smear. As such, and applying WP:REDFLAG, the source is definitely not appropriate for a BLP. Reading Alan Dershowitz indicates that commentary from that source might also have a particular purpose that renders the commentary inappropriate for use here. The issue is pretty simple: we are discussing what Richard Goldstone did over twenty years ago. If it is significant, there will be suitable sources (sources that haven't spoken out in response to a report which the sources are seeking to discredit). Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also support ChrisO's take on BLP. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Looks pretty clearly like a smear campaign with many inaccuracies and as such shouldn't be included. Quantpole (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with ChrisO on this. This paper is not sufficiently high-quality to support such a controversial claim. If other papers pick it up and stand behind it, then reconsider. I should add that I dislike Goldstone exceedingly, but BLP is BLP.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with ChrisO — we shouldn't be adding poorly-sourced political smears into a BLP. *** Crotalus *** 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. The YA is the newspaper of record in Israel. Even if it weren't reliable, the very fact that it's saying what it's saying is notable and should be included into the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Conclusions

Right, it looks like I'm going to have to sort this mess out. The first thing I suggest, because there is disagreement over the reliability of Yediot and I'm not well enough informed myself to determine its reliability, I suggest a trip to WP:RS/N where somebody should present this issue and this issue alone in a neutral manner.

The other thing I will say is that everybody needs to tone it down a little- please comment on the issue at hand and not on other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. Incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks do not help the situation and may well result in blocks, especially if they disrupt the discussions here. You have been warned. On a similar note, this is the only forum for this dispute unless specific issues are referred to content noticeboards (such as RS/N)- forum shopping is not remotely helpful. I will deal with the rest of the issues later, so please be patient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yediot's reliability is being discussed at the moment at RS/N, but it's not a determinative issue in itself. The key problems are twofold. First, the claims it makes are simply false - appellate judges don't pass sentences. If we repeat that, we are introducing information which is simply wrong. We have no obligation to repeat clear factual errors; it's not a POV, it's simply wrong. Second and more fundamentally, it wouldn't matter if the source was God himself. There is no support whatsoever in academic works or contemporary reporting for the view that Goldstone abused human rights as a judge in South Africa, or for the proposition that his sentencing record was in any way controversial of different from other liberal judges. On the contrary, Goldstone's role is universally praised. It's a question of well-documented South African history. Whether or not the claims are reliably sourced, they represent a radical and extreme reinterpretation of South African history by parties who are not South Africans and have obvious present-day political motives. In terms of the historical corpus, it's a radical, novel, tiny-minority revisionist POV. BLP specifically rejects the inclusion of such POVs. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except insofar as at present, Yediot's the sole source for all of the contested information (blog postings from other publications noting the existence of the Yediot article don't really count). So if the consensus is that Yediot isn't adequate to source the claims, then the other questions of whether inserting it would be inappropriate for other reasons (undue weight, etc.) are pretty much made moot, unless some other reliable source presents itself. — e. ripley\^talk 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What about jpost, haaretz. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Both merely refer to Yediot. It's still the sole source for the claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the sources I posted. the jpost article talks about a DOD attorney Neal Sher trying to prevent Goldstone from entering the USA. The Haaretz article is an interview with Goldstone where he explicitly responds to the Yediot article and criticism of his status as a judge during South Africa's apartheid government. Or wait, is that too part of the conspiracy to defame and smear Goldstone? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem -- reading comprehension, please. "sole source for the claims" -- meaning the notion that he sentenced 28 people to death (or whatever the number is). The articles you link to do nothing to establish the veracity of the claims; as ChrisO says they merely refer to Yediot in that regard. I no longer see other editors even attempting here to rebut ChrisO's assertion that Yediot simply got this wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WF, Sheer is not a DoD attorney. He is a former DoJ attorney who is also a former executive director of AIPAC. And nobody takes that little mission of his seriously. nableezy - 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So? Certainly relevant. Former head of one the most powerful bodies in the Department of Justice and now executive directors of an extremely influential political lobby in the United States. I don't like seeing this article's angle being shaped by the bias of editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Him heading the OSI and being a director of a lobby does not mean anything to an encyclopedia article. In fact, it means less than the fact he was disbarred. nableezy - 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please amend

Under "Goldstone Commission", the word quote should be not. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to archiving for this talk page? The pages on Miszabot say there's supposed to be a consensus for it; that seems a bit fussy, why would anyone object... But here we are -- if no one objects soon, I'll set it up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the lead that he was part of the apartheid regime, or appointing during Botha's term

because it is relevantTallicfan20 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though as always context is important. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I put that information in the lead a while ago. Someone who's main objective is to make this a fluff piece must have removed it since it may be taken in some quarters to reflect badly on Goldstone and we can't have any of that in an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on who removed it or why, since that was before I got involved with this article. However, as I said, context is important - in this case, the context is that the apartheid government occasionally appointed "opposition" barristers as judges in order to support its claim of having an independent judiciary. Goldstone already had a record of opposition to apartheid but was urged by anti-apartheid lawyers to accept the elevation to the bench, as he would be more useful as a judge working to undermine the system from within than as an attorney on the outside. He proved the point, of course, when he effectively wrecked the Group Areas Act in 1982. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No Chris, you can comment - it was you who removed it, less than a week ago, with this edit. I understand why you don't want to explain why you did it, though. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing out my forgetfulness! I've explained the problem above, though; it lacked the context needed for understanding the significance of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. As NMMNG wrote below, when writing fluff pieces about our heroes, we always need to editorialize and provide the "context" that explains away any negative info, so that people 'understand[ing] the significance' of their actions. Otherwise they might get the idea he's possibly not a saint. I'm with you 100% on this. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith occasionally? It's not a question of "explaining away" an action. Everything has its proper context. If it's not provided, you run the risk of presenting a misleading view. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like the risk someone might think he was a judge during Apartheid.

It's pretty difficult to assume good faith when you censor well sourced material from the article, even if you say you're going to add "context" later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he was "part of the apartheid regime", and not just a "judge during apartheid"? ChrisO, your changes have been constructive and to the benefit of the article, just carry on as is, and congratulations for continuing to be constructive in spite of the sarcasm, slights and accusations of bad faith from some. Greenman (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He was undoubtedly "part of the Apartheid regime" as the fact he put children in jail for staging anti-Apartheid protests in school amply proves. I'm not naive enough to think that such strong words would be allowed in this article, but the fact he was a judge during Apartheid has been excised from the lead and that's not NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point you are missing is that South Africa had an independent judiciary. It was never a dictatorship with all judges under the thumb of the government; liberal judges like Goldstone were independent agents, not "part of the regime" taking instructions from above. The fact is that all judges who served during the apartheid years had to apply apartheid laws. The difference is that some saw their role as defenders of apartheid, while others - like Goldstone and a few other liberal judges with a record of criticising apartheid - used their positions to soften and undermine it. You might consider it harsh to send children to jail - something that would have been dictated by the apartheid laws and regulations - but less liberal judges might have sentenced them to a whipping instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An independent judiciary enforcing the laws of Apartheid. A regime often includes a set of laws, and those who enforce those laws are part of the regime by definition. I don't know what else you could call jailing people for anti-Apartheid actions or for possessing tapes of ANC leaders other than being part of the regime. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, I didn't expect the lead to just say he was a judge during Apartheid as if summarizing the article. It goes without saying that some positive spin should be put on it so people could get the impression the guy is a saint as early as possible. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you cuold indicate the diff you added, so we could judge your text William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. This wording is apparently too controversial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does state the bare facts, but it lacks the all-important context. Don't worry about it for now; I'm working on a greatly expanded version of the article which restores that information and provides the proper context. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New source

Here's a new source for anyone interested in adding to this article in a constructive manner that encourages freedom of information... and not censoring all negative information that paints someone in a bad light because of personal bias. [3] Breein1007 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to tell us anything new beyond giving us more angry reaction from a fringe commentator. Most of it isn't even about Goldstone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps it would be useful in the article on Dershowitz, for a passage describing how he is losing his grip with reality... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you delete this before you run into BLP trouble. Breein1007 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, your comment may tell more on you as an editor in this article than on Dershowitz as commentor. The article seem to been through purification of any well sourced crticism. Tagging RS and notable commentors as "unreliable" "fictionary" or "fringe" is bad practice.--Gilisa (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you seriously think they're going to let anything from that blasphemous interview into an article about Saint Goldstone? You must be losing your grip on reality, like anyone who says something critical about our beloved hero. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's all focus on discussing actual changes to the article instead of making snide passive-aggressive remarks. — e. ripley\^talk 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? There's a group of editors here that won't allow information critical of Goldstone into this article, even if it's notable, verifiable and NPOV. They won't allow information that might be interpreted as reflecting negatively on Goldstone, like the simple fact that he was a judge during Apartheid. What's there to discuss exactly? All that's left is to hold a mirror to your faces. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article and nothing more, see WP:TALK. Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you (unfortunately) feel there's nothing left to discuss, then presumably there's also no reason to make jabs unrelated to improving the article. I would like to see everyone participating suggest specific changes to the article they'd like to see made after it's unprotected. If anyone isn't here to do that, then perhaps their time might be better spent elsewhere. — e. ripley\^talk 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've said here is related to the improvement of the article. It's a shame you don't get that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dershowtiz fringe?! LOL. He is the one the most relevant commentator on Israel/Palestine politics on the planet. Geez what you are guys smoking. We have an RS that contains legitimate and very explicit criticism of Goldstone - not simply buzzwords and name-calling, and Chris O and the gang just dismiss it all as fringe and refuse to even discuss. The article has it stands is almost entirely written by ChrisO - very selective, focusing on irrelevant topics such as a weird conversation describing Goldston's jewishness and fluffy paragraphs. Is this an encylopedia or Goldstone's self-written biography? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for text that should be added to the article? If so please draft it and present it for discussion. — e. ripley\^talk 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? Anything that doesn't belong in a fluff piece won't make it into this article. I added the uncontroversial fact that he was a judge during Apartheid and that was removed. Don't you find it a bit odd that this fact is not mentioned anywhere? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This article is rife with editorializing, using the encyclopedia's neutral voice to repeat claims he made, and at least in one case, an interpretation of a primary source that doesn't even say what is attributed to it. There are at least a couple of seasoned editors that have commented here and presumably read this article, I find it hard to believe they didn't see these things. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you wait and see the next version of the article when I post it. I've been working on a major expansion and revision of it, which addresses quite a few of the issues that have been raised on this talk page, including your "judge under apartheid" comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change

{{editprotected}}

• Please see my comments earlier regarding a section which does not have consensus for inclusion and potentially violates BLP. Can an administrator remove this section:

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 anger at what community leaders called 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".

Pexise (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is support for removing this sentence from two editors. Could some others comment on this before I action the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this. It absolutely should not be included; it's cited to a Wordpress blog [4], which is a big no-no (WP:BLPSPS specifically prohibits such sources). The wording is hopelessly POV and does not reflect the cited sources. This is unquestionably "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. I see from the edit history that this material was repeatedly added against consensus by User:Jonund [5], who should probably be given a warning for repeatedly breaking BLP's sourcing rules. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Violation BLP. Poorly sourced. Please remove. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Removed. I put the references in a hidden comment in case they're needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ, much appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The editors above have acted on false assumptions. The source is an article which was printed in a leading newspaper, Jerusalem Post. It's no longer available on the JP website, but the reporter has posted it on his own blog, and so the link goes to Forecast highs.

As for the alleged POV wording, the passage merely quotes what SA Jews say, according to the source.

The opposition to the paragraph is represented by editors who dislike the information and ignore arguments. By such behavior, you place yourself outside the consensus seeking community.

I suggest that the passage is reinserted. --Jonund (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. If it makes Goldstone look bad, it won't be in this article. His poor standing in the SA Jewish community was widely publicized when it seemed like he was going to miss his grandson's bar-mitzvah. But who cares about that. What's important is that the lead says he was dubbed "the most trusted man in South Africa" when that's not even a correct quote, not to mention it's from a single source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you confuse my words and Chris O's? I've had nothing to do with the incorrect quote, nor the lead. The paragraph I've edited (the one quoted above) was supported by multiple sources. The JP article, which is the most detailed source, was published before the bar-mitzvah incident. Whether a piece of information makes Goldstone look good or bad should not influence our editing, what is important is whether it's verifiable and relevant. --Jonund (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had lengthy discussions about the paragraph in question and Jonund has never been able to build a consensus in support of its inclusion - in fact several editors are very clearly against it. Furthermore, objections are on the grounds of poor sourcing and BLP violations. ChrisO's new version of the article deals with the bar-mitzvah incident, it should be left at that. Pexise (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have decided to ignore arguments and have their ways regardless of facts. Saying that the party who has rebutted their arguments has not "been able to build a consensus" is pathetic. It doesn't matter if you mobilize a million mules who won't accept unwelcome information - as long as you aren't able to demonstrate any fault with the passage, your dissent is not interesting.

Poor sourcing and BLP violations are certainly no problem. I think it's more honest to say that you just don't like it, than using such pretexts.

ChrisO's biased version has to go anyway. As to his dealing with the bar-mitvah incident, apart from its gross bias, it's inferior to the above passage by focusing on a spectacular aspect rather than the underlying issue. --Jonund (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New version

Over the past week, I've been doing a substantial amount of work to revise this article from scratch in my userspace - see User:ChrisO/Goldstone. The new version of the article is about 50% bigger and has a large number of new sources, primarily academic works, legal journals and contemporary news articles, including a substantial amount of local coverage from sources based in or indigenous to South Africa. I've expanded each of the article's sections, addressing in particular the inadequate coverage of the Goldwater Commission and the UN war crimes tribunals, which are my principal areas of personal interest in this article. I've rewritten the Gaza section from scratch, as I felt the current section wasn't very informative (it doesn't even mention what his findings were). I'll admit that it's not an issue I know a great deal about - it's not my area of expertise or study - but hopefully it works as a basic outline.

I'd appreciate some feedback on this new version before it gets transferred into article space. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the lead. Again it's full of editorializing. Here are a few specific problems:

• The first paragraph again omits the word "Apartheid". Which South African government appointed him? The ANC? Is this not important?
• You are misrepresenting what the NYT article said. The article, which you can find here does not say he was dubbed "the most trusted man in South Africa". It says [emphasis mine] "Mr. Goldstone has made himself perhaps the most trusted man, certainly the most trusted member of the white establishment, in a land of corrosive suspicion. ".
• Editorializing. "He was one of a number of liberal judges who sought to undermine apartheid from within the system", "Goldstone made the Group Areas Act ... virtually unworkable". There are more.

I know you won't like hearing this, but it still reads like a fluff piece. And I only read the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you propose that it be presented instead? — e. ripley\^talk 02:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph deals with the apartheid issue. As I've said repeatedly, it needs to be put in context. You evidently want to say "He was an apartheid judge" or "He was appointed by the apartheid government", which would have the effect of associating Goldstone with apartheid without providing the context of his opposition to it. I've modified the quote that you mentioned. The "editorialising" lines that you quote are merely summarising what reliable sources say, as cited further down in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The above proves the point I was making all along. You "summarize" with an agenda. If you think it looks bad (say the simple fact that it was a Apartheid government that appointed him) you will just not mention it. If you think it looks good, you over emphasize.

This is a fluff piece. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The article states the circumstances of his appointment quite clearly. "South Africa's National Party government occasionally promoted "opposition" barristers to the Supreme Court Bench to demonstrate its claimed commitment to an independent judiciary." While it doesn't say what you claim to prefer "he was part of the apartheid regime", it's much more accurate and less biased. Greenman (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that in the lead? I don't think it is. Does deliberately omitting information that may make someone look bad in the opinion of an editor meet WP:NPOV?

By the way, do you have access to the source from which the information you quoted above is gleaned? After that little trick with the NYT article, I'd like to see an actual quote from the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a little more good faith and a lot less sneering from you would go a long way.

The source is an article by William A Schabas in the American Journal of International Law, to wit: "to make good of its boast of having an independent judiciary, successive apartheid governments elevated some barristers to the High Court Bench notwithstanding any active opposition to government policies on their part". Goldstone was not the only judge to be appointed in such circumstances, as I've made clear in the new version of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said this over and over again. ChrisO totally gutted the original article, which was explicit and easy to read, and replaced virtually all the content with cherry-picked events and self-selected quotations, eliminating controversy and topics of substance. The article could easily be cut in half and still have too much fluff. The section of the Goldstone report, which where most of his current fandome lies in - is minimized and is barely represented in the article. Goldstone's opinion and performance is grossly misrepresented, and there is no discussion about his appointment of biased co-judges nor the endless commentary from major newspapers and figures. Clearly many editors here have an agenda to silence the important stuff because it violates "BLP." What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific proposals for changes to the article Chris has written? If so now is the time to bring them forward. — e. ripley\^talk 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have quickly read both articles (Richard Goldstone and User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and I prefer the ChrisO version, although it does need some toning down (I won't go into detail here, but phrases like "unwelcome attention" are not quite appropriate, and while I think that "sought to undermine" in the lead is correct, again the language is not appropriate here, unless a direct quote). I see from comments above that a number of editors want a stronger emphasis placed on issues raised by critics of what Goldstone has recently written regarding Israel. Some problems with that approach are that it seems very likely (I haven't yet fully researched it) that the picture painted in ChrisO's version is correct: Goldstone really was one of the many people who fought against apartheid within the extemely onerous restrictions of that regime, and to drop in cherry-picked rulings showing that Goldstone was part of some appalling events would be to provide a completely false picture. Further, there are two enormously relevant points about the recent criticisms of Goldstone: they are recent and there has been no time for an analysis by independent sources, and the criticisms are coming from people who have made it clear that they are looking for anything to smear Goldstone in order to distract attention from his report. Such arguments are fine in a blog or an interested media outlet, but they are rejected in an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to insert information about Goldstone's sentencing record, please find a source that does not also comment on the Goldstone Report so we can regard the source as independent. The source would gain credibility if it discussed the general situation applying to the law in South Africa at the time, and the overall role of Goldstone and other members of the legal profession. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What? In other words, any criticism of Goldstone regarding the Goldstone report shall from hence forth be dismissed and considered a violation of WPR? We have blatant reliable sources citing relevant (not fringe) academics saying very explicit, pronounced things about Goldstone. Condemning it as part of some bogus smear campaign is textbook fear-mongering. Many editors aside from myself have been very meticulous about what we see wrong with the article and how it could be improved, and yet no one has responded outside of policy shopping. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to focus on a clear issue. Apart from the occasional wording issues that I claimed, is there a paragraph in User:ChrisO/Goldstone that you believe needs significant change? Is there a paragraph you would suggest be added? Why would such changes be warranted? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1993 NYT article ChrisO was misquoting from talks specifically about Goldstone's critics. Claiming recentism or that he had no critics until he wrote the Gaza report is incorrect. Do you know a lot of public figures who have no critics? Why are you ready to believe Goldstone doesn't? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that he had no critics. He was criticised by another judge for being too liberal on the death penalty. This is in the revised article. He was criticised by some anti-apartheid activists for being too even-handed in apportioning blame for political violence. This is in the revised article. He was criticised by some legal sources for instigating "Rule 71" procedures at the ICTY. This isn't yet in the revised article, because frankly I don't yet understand it and am trying to find out more about it so that I can cover it accurately. He was criticised by the Israeli government and various right-wing Jewish groups for his Gaza report. This is in the revised article. So your claim that criticism is being censored is false. There's actually more criticism in the revised article than in the current version. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, the problem with your approach is that you are viewing everything through the prism of Gaza. Goldstone has been in public life for over 30 years. There's a huge amount of material about his career in academic works, contemporary news articles and legal journals, reflecting the fact that he's been a hugely influential jurist. Johnuniq has put his finger on the problem with the recent criticisms of Goldstone's career in South Africa. I would add that they're not supported by any sources I've come across. There's no indication that Goldstone's work as a judge was ever controversial - quite the opposite, he's been praised throughout his career. I did look for contemporary criticism to include (and included it where I found it) but there isn't much. As for the material on Gaza, you may be forgetting that this is not an article about the Gaza controversy. The kind of detail which you're looking for might be appropriate for United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (with reliable sourcing and not putting undue weight on fringe opinion) but here, all we need is a summary of the controversy, without getting into the fine detail of who said what. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the much-improved new version. In the lead though, the sentence "As a result, the racial segregation of South African towns and cities rapidly broke down" seems overstated. I can't read the original source, but in the detailed section the phrase is "the system of housing segregation began to break down". There was nothing rapid about it to my knowledge. So-called "grey-areas" were relatively rare, although tolerated, right up until the end of apartheid. Greenman (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job, ChrisO. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll revise the section about the Group Areas Act; I've found some statistics about the impact of Goldstone's ruling, which should be more informative than the current rather vague wording. The Group Areas Act article looks like it could also do with an overhaul. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make a couple of comments about the overall direction of editing this article rather than specific comments on ChrisO's proposed version. Basically I think the controversy over Goldstone's involvement in the Gaza report should be covered in the article -- that is, the fact that it has led people to dig into his past and write critical things about it should be discussed, briefly -- but I strenuously object to the notion that the recently published material should be used as major sources for sections on his earlier work as a judge in South Africa. I'm not particularly bothered by the fact that many of those sources are Israeli, I'm bothered by their timing: somehow only after the Gaza report do we get a sustained effort at wholesale revision of his record -- it is clear that a significant number of editors here are not willing to write this article in that mode. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Their timing? LOL. Look, let's not get into WP:OR here, your only obligation as an editor is to verify that the source is reliable exactly to the extent that it doesn't fabricate facts and that it say exactly what it was cited for. No one is that naive to think that news are not about timing..Not only in Israel, but everywhere. Goldstone himself didn't deny the auotncity of his verdicts as cited by the Israeli media when he sent his reply to these newspapers, he only argued that there was nothing wrong with his work as judge in SA. Your obligation as editors is to provide the facts (crticis and defense) and it's not of your concern what would be the political implications as long as the sources are correctly used. Which is not 100% the case now. See my comment in the new section below.--Gilisa (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be naive. We're talking about a right-wing tabloid in Israel, which disagrees with Goldstone's findings on Gaza, attempting to rewrite the history of Goldstone's career 20-30 years previously in South Africa and explicitly linking this to its disapproval of his Gaza report. At least when David Irving attempted to rewrite Hitler's biography he did it on the basis of supposed "new evidence". Goldstone's career has been extensively documented; the tabloid's claims represent a radical revision of established history, which simply isn't supportable. I've already spelled out the problems with this at #Summary of BLP issues above and don't propose to revisit them here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be naive. Does it matter to this encyclopedia if a newspaper is right or left wing? Your bias is showing again. I don't recall consensus at RS/N that Yedioth is not a reliable source, and in fact it is used extensively all over this encyclopedia.

You want to censor information from this article based on your personal opinions. That's called POV and is generally frowned upon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and nearly every editor uninvolved in I/P area agreed that this source should not be used to cite those claims in a BLP. And if there was not a consensus that it is unreliable to use in this context there certainly was not consensus that it is reliable to use. Quoting WP:BLP: To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. nableezy - 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The assertions regarding that Yediot Aharonot is unreliable source at least here (and unless it's kind of fringe newspaper, there is no reason to generalize it as automatically unreliable instead of evaluating it per article), are weak, at best. Yediot article's is very detailed, lean on many identified sources, show photos of the orginal copies of some of Goldstone's verticads and contain no less than Goldstone's detailed comment to the journalists, who bothered to address him before publishing. His comment was delivered written to Yediot Aharonot and attached with the written comments of two past high ranked officials in the SA post apartheid goverment who wrote on Goldstone's behalf-yet, didn't argue with the facts (nor did Goldstone and his assert that of the number of people was attributed to been sentenced to death by him, he directly sentenced to death only two). Greenman argues that this: "South Africa's National Party government occasionally promoted "opposition" barristers to the Supreme Court Bench to demonstrate its claimed commitment to an independent judiciary." is neutral, but this: "he was part of the apartheid regime" is not. While I don't realy argue that Goldstone was part of the "regime" he was evidently part of the judsicial system and his tagging as opposition is only one argument in his defense, with not any concrete evidence given to support the idea he was nominated as a "fig leaf" (regardless how ridiclus it's to have one when you don't allow blacks to share the same beachs with whites..). But here it is cited as a fact, and all other opinnions were removed-because the editor who suggest his own sole made version think, for instance, the Drashowitz is not worth mentioning. Or, another instance, that the fact Goldstone rulled acquittal for police officeres who were convicted in lower court for breaking into white women house without warrant because they suspected she was having sex with man of indian origin, reasoning the acquittal by the suspect of the police officers that a severe crime was taking place-no matter how many good sources were given, no matter how relevant it is, is not relevant for him. The proposed version is POV version, or look like one. In any case, it's not desired.--Gilisa (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, nobody said YA is "automatically unreliable" and we did examine it "per article", and most uninvolved editors agreed that article should not be used to source those statements in a BLP (ie this article). nableezy - 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I believe ChrisO was trying to assert that YA is "automatically unreliable" (among other things). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where? From what he wrote I see that he has said that this piece is unreliable for a BLP. Many others agreed with him. nableezy - 17:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I've not said anywhere that YA is "automatically unreliable". NMMNG isn't helping matters by inventing things I've not said. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I must have got confused by the fact you called it a "poor source", "right-wing tabloid", "sensationalist tabloid", "populist tabloid" and "tabloid" in general at least 10 times, and that's only on this talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did, but that's not the same as saying it's "automatically unreliable". Reliability is a sliding scale. A tabloid newspaper is pretty low on the scale but it's not in the red zone, unlike, say, WorldNetDaily (which someone was trying to use as a source in this article until I removed it). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work ChrisO, your new version is a great improvement, I fully support it to replace the previous article. Pexise (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the assessments of ChrisO's draft

As best I can tell, 9 editors have offered an opinion on whether to adopt ChrisO's draft. Of those, the following support it: Pexise, Johnuniq, Crotalus, Greenman, kittybrewster, myself (and of course ChrisO himself). Those expressing opposition: Wikifan12345, Gilisa, NMMNG. Sure, these things don't actually get "voted" on, but to me this looks awfully like consensus for adoption (within the meaning of consensus at Wikipedia). No doubt this observation will lead to a furious response, but there we are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that assessment as the user says, no doubt some editors will see it differently, why not open a RFC so that we can have a decent discussion about it, your additions almost double the size of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubling the size is a bad thing? Do you have any specific reason why you mass reverted the changes? nableezy - 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with "doubling the size of the article"? If I've been able to find more information, why is that a bad thing? This is lunacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- I can't even tell what he is disputing -- my count? Off2rio, please give a good reason for your revert here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just revert him, please. His "rationale" is nuts. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I reverted him. Apparently he somehow managed to overlook all the discussions we've just had under #New version above. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary Younge in The Guardian

Gary Younge wrote an important article, Israel's complicity in apartheid crimes undermines its attack on Goldstone in The Guardian on 24 May. His assessment is that "if Goldstone was complicit in apartheid's crimes, then Israel was far more so... Goldstone's claim that faced with a "moral dilemma" he thought "it was better to fight from inside than not at all", is inadequate... But his record did not end with apartheid. While he may not have led the drive to a non-racial democracy, he followed it eagerly...he was an archetypical transitional figure... So while his credibility as a human rights advocate might be diminished, it is by no means destroyed... Finally, there is the insidious role that Israel has attempted to play as ideological gatekeeper for acceptable political behaviour among Jews. The attempt to tarnish any criticism of Israel, regardless of its merits, as unjust is untenable; to castigate them as un-Jewish is deplorable." This is a reasonable and balanced judgement, placing Goldstone's behaviour both twenty yerars ago, and today, in a relavent context. When trhe article is unlocked, this should be included. RolandR (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I dislike false moral comparisons. The argument that Younge and others have made is "if Goldstone was bad, Israel was worse", which is really nothing more than a Tu quoque argument based on a false premise, that Goldstone was "complicit in apartheid's crimes". I don't think there's a good case for focusing on one particular op-ed writer's views (why only him?). We already have material in the article from Goldstone's colleagues in the South African Jewish and legal communities which covers the issues raised by Younge. Adding this would merely repeat those sentiments and would not have the same weight as similar commentary from people like Albie Sachs and Arthur Chaskalson. I don't think it would be a productive addition to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO, the article is about Goldstone and so should be the critics or apprasal.--Gilisa (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection of the wrong version

The South African carrer section can't be more biased than it's already. There is no question of relability upon the sources of the previous version, of which I was major contributor. The sources are reliable, thats they are from Israel and not from USA make no difference, the question is of professionalism and the previously cited sources are all considered as reliable. I'm sick of prejudice and automatic discrediting Israeli sources. Goldstone himslef sent his response to the cited media sources. What I can see now is WP:SYN, WP:POV and WPUNDUE-nothing else, sweaping away the key crtisim on Goldstone's work in S.Africa (instant example: Removal of well sourced quoting one of Goldstone's death verdicts in which he specifically wrote "Only death panelty can deter murders" while emphsizing that Goldstone was always oponent to the death panilty-isn't it POV????). I find this protection as it's-wrong, there is a need to lift it and to get into mediation process instead. Also, topic bans should be considered for editors with clear POV and disruptive editing. And no, citing sources in their words is not POV as long as one don't insist to keep several sources with undue weight.--Gilisa (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed this at #Summary of BLP issues above and don't propose to go over old ground again here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And what exacty did you address!? Was Yediot Aharonot fabricating quotation from Goldstone's verdicat that you remove? You have to come over this "old" ground again if you want to get into an agreement here and to have this article unbiased. You called the largest newspaper in Israel a "tabloid" and ranked it as "wildly inaccurate", you argue that Goldstone himslef rejected the arguments made about him by this newspaper, but you didn't read it yourslef because it was written in Hebrew (I did read it). Also, you forgot one detail-Goldstone "reject" (he didn't actually) the journalist invistigation exactly in the same newspaper, exactly in the same article (the media laws in Israel obligate any media source to ask for the person-in-subject comment before publishing) and he commented directly to it (his comment was published with the article itself). So, all of your allegations about this being " wildly inaccurate tabloid" are wildly innaccurate by themselves. Also, Goldstone didn't exactly reject the newpaper claim that he sentenced 28 people to death. He only elaborate that only two were directly sentenced to death by him, he rejected the appeals of 26 other black (again, another thing you removed) people that were sentenced by others. Also, well sourced information about jailing juvinaile black people because of their objection to the aprthide and the harsh reaction of human rights orgnizations to this verdict was removed. You also removed info about the lashings he sentenced on black citizens, again, well sourced one. P.S. Ynet, the online version of Yediot Ahronot is listed within WP online RS list, I guess that same apply to the paper version (YA) but I didn't check, even it's widely used as one in many articles. And BLP is not applying as you suggested against YA article and others and it can't explain your removing of highly notable sourced info. In this light, and it's only small part of it, I totaly reject your version. Thanks--Gilisa (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The best that can be said about the discussion held at the BLP noticeboard about whether Yediot is a reliable source generally, and in specific about using it to source this claim, is that opinions differed. Given that BLP requires a strong, very reliable source for very contentious claims such as this, that the discussion was divided in the least means that it can't be used. It is certainly my opinion at this time. — e. ripley\^talk 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's outrages to treat Yediot Ahronot differently than, say, the Sunday Times. In any case, the article is written in Hebrew, so we need uninvolved Hebrew speaking editor (preferably an admin-just because they are more credtied) to translate the relevant paragraphes and then to take it to uninvolved evaluation, preferably of admins. Otherwise, noticeboards are proned to became flooded by first degree and second and third degree involved editors. The source is not in question, but the relevant article and its sources of information. Also, it must be judged by truely uninvolved editors, preferably admins. --Gilisa (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what the discussion at WP:BLPN was; please familiarize yourself with it by visiting the page. The discussion included uninvolved editors who had sometimes very stark differences of opinions. The source most certainly is in question, particularly for the information it's asserting. — e. ripley\^talk 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would treat the Sunday Times in exactly the same way. It's not just a question of the source being problematic - although it is; a sensationalist tabloid is pretty low on the reliability scale. I've explained at #Summary of BLP issues above why the claims that YA makes are so problematic. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, You have explained nothing, you repeat again and again your baseless mantra according which YA is a sensationalist tabloid-and you support it with what? With that it's Israeli? With the timing? with what exactly, I believe you must give answers here. You removed sourced information without discussion or aduqaute arguments to support it. Don't refer me to your old refuted arguments, again, I totaly reject your POV version. Your removal of sourced information is actually violation of WP guidelines and consist disruptive editing, I hope that someone who have the time will take it to ArbCom.--Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every single uninvolved person agreed that the YA piece should not be used in this BLP. You can try to continue arguing the same point, but you need consensus to put that nonsense back in the article. WP:BLP is clear on this. nableezy - 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you call "nonsense" the fact that even Goldstone himself can't deny. His correction to YA surely has to be mentioned but other the expamples of his activity as SA judge must be mentioned too--LReit (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

One more time, nearly every uninvolved person agreed at that this YA piece should not be used in this BLP. WP:BLP is clear that those wishing to reinsert information removed as a BLP violation must have consensus to do so. If anything, consensus is the other way on this. That piece cant be used in this article. nableezy - 14:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your phrase "nearly every uninvolved person agreed ..." is a good example of WP:V and WP:NPOV violation --LReit (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do you know what WP:V is? Here, verify it. And how does it violate WP:NPOV? You need consensus to return things that have been removed as a BLP violation, you dont have it. nableezy - 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've checked your "verification" reference and found there a discussion and not "neary every person agreed" situation. Marking all the persons having opinions which are different from yours as "involved" is an expresion of you POV--LReit (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, users involved in editing in the I/P area are well known. And I did not say "nearly every person agreed", I said "nearly every uninvolved person agreed". And it is not "an expression of [my] POV" to say that people involved in editing in this area are not "uninvolved". Either way, to restore material removed as a BLP vio you need to have consensus to do so. You dont. Bye. nableezy - 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes?

Asking again, since the prior thread was derailed. Does anyone have specific changes they'd like to make to ChrisO's new version, located here? Don't just poke holes in it, or drop a stinkbomb and throw your hands up, suggest a discrete change. Or better yet, make it yourself. The article is editable at this time. Now is the time to put changes forward. — e. ripley\^talk 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed to large chuncks of relevant and sourced information that was removed with no good reason provided. And as I already mentioned, I don't accept any of the changes made by ChrisO.--Gilisa (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer ChrisO's version to the one currently live, and would support putting it in place as soon as the protection expires. *** Crotalus *** 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be conducive to progress if you explained what you thought was better about his version? Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything? It doesn't cherry pick and give undue weight to critical out-of-context recent criticism for a start. It's more accurate, more detailed - in short a better encyclopedia article. I also support putting it in place as soon as protection expires. Most of the total rejection of the new version consists of sarcastic personal slights on other editors, accusations of "censorship" due to lack of undue weight to these fringe sources, and very little constructive suggestions towards improving the article's quality.Greenman (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Greenman, Wikipedia shouldn't be a democracy, but a place where valid facts and arguments are the main players. It fail from time to time to fulfil this standard of its own, but that's the principle. ChrisO is obviously a POV editor, he repeatedingly calling Yediot Ahronot "sensationalist tabloid", not willing or able to support his basless argument by any valid evidence but repeating it again and again. Some editors made realy outrages statments here about the timing or implying that the newspaper is Israeli and therfore is not a valid source. Disregarding that the newspaper online version (Ynet) is formaly liset in Wikipedia list of online RS, I guess that the paper version is listed the same way. The newspaper published Goldstone official comment which was sent directly to it, but still ChrisO is unwilling to stop his annoying calling of the source a "tabloid". If one make an argument it is up to him to carry the burden of evidence, but both ChrisO and those who support his versio failed to do it. I object any of the changes made in ChrisO version for the simple reason he removed huge chuncks of info (I mentioned many of these in my previous comments I made yesterday on this TP) gave UNDUE weight to one statments over the others and generaly, even there are phrases with which I have no problem, creat a blatant POV version. He also removed Darshowitz's comment on Yediot Ahronot invistigation and excused it with the low credit he have for Darshowitz, which is absolutly no reason to remove a comment of noteable person. The only way to fix it is by rewriting it and refering to sources and arguments were removed withot proper process taking place. There are issues here of violating WP guidelines, sadly I see few editors here who failed to see it, but I believe that this version, if entred, should be an issue to ArbCom. As for Johnuniq arguments, there are many sources which significantly weaken your seconday analsys (which is far from being supported by the policy you cited anyway), and they were removed. So secondary analsys don't realy apply here, at best WP:SYN, and again, it just can't explain why the critics were removed. I hope that somone would put end to this circus.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The most shocking thing for me from Goldstone’s past was the following: “Goldstone approved the whipping of four blacks found guilty of violence, while he acquitted four police officers who had broken into a white woman's house on suspicions that she was conducting sexual relations with a black man – something considered then in South Africa as a serious crime” (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3885999,00.html). Goldstone hasn’t denied this in his answer to Yediot Ahronot, so it has to be supposed as the truth. This fact defines Goldstone as a real opportunist and must be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev Reitblat (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to sit at a keyboard and offer opinions, but it was really hard for South African citizens to actually oppose apartheid. If Goldstone was to be a judge, he really had to act according to the law, however appalling that law was. Independent sources have noted that Goldstone's choice of "fighting within the system" had many positive effects (read the draft article), and Goldstone was able to exploit the SA government's desire to appear to have a free judiciary by finding reasons to oppose the apartheid excesses – but no judge can just say "the law says X but I say Y", so Goldstone had to find arguments justifiable under the apartheid legal system. That's why we rely on secondary analysis (WP:SECONDARY) for articles in general, and BLPs in particular. All participants in the SA apartheid era have faults, and Wikipedia should not decorate BLPs with cherry-picked faults, particularly when chosen by people who have no interest in the history of that period, and who only want to use the faulty logic that because Goldstone participated in a very bad legal system, therefore his report twenty years later must be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was born in Communist Russia so I do understand how difficult opposition to a totalitarian regime. Really honest people in Russia at that period preferred not to be a member of the Communist party and not to be a part of the regime. So the fact that a person was a judge during the Stalin’s regime says me a lot about this person. Not mentioning about Goldstone's activity during apartheid regime is a distortion of his biography Lev Reitblat (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not comparing like with like. South Africa was nothing like the Soviet Union - a totalitarian state where the legal system was subordinate to the Communist government and had no history of judicial independence whatsoever. South Africa had a tradition of democracy and an independent judiciary prior to the National Party taking over in 1948. Its judges were highly regarded. The National Party ran SA as an authoritarian right-wing state but it was never a dictatorship, and the judiciary always retained a degree of independence. Goldstone wouldn't have been made a judge, or have had the freedom to rule against the government, otherwise. (How often did Soviet judges overturn major pieces of Communist legislation?). This is the problem with you people: you simply don't know South Africa's history so you end up making false interpretations of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This only supports what I said. If a person in a country with a tradition of democracy and an independent judiciary has no moral power to be in opposition to apartheid laws, he is surely an opportunist and it’s impossible to hide this fact in his biography. Lev Reitblat (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the problem with you. You think your interpretations belong in an encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that we have here a banch of editors who make OR, SYN and removed well sourced material from the article while they misakenly argue that they act according to WP guidlines. It's total absurd, Johnuniq wrote something like "Well, Goldstone clearly tried to change the system from within but he couldn't say so loudly, and when we do secondary analysis according to WP policy this is the only right conclusion". The problem is that this is truely original research. Heavy and harsh critics was drawn on Goldstone not only now, but also when he was judge in SA, back then one of his rullings (against underage protests) flame out human rights organizations, back then no one refered to Goldstone as someone who try to change the system from within. What we do know, and this is unrefutable is that he was judge in the times of the aprthide regime-we know that there is critic about him and that he is not arguing the facts but their interpetation. While he said that he oppose the death panelty Yediot exposed photocopies of verdicat signed and written by him where he wrote that only death panelty can deter murders. He admited that sometimes he had to judge according to the aprthide laws, he had no other choice actually when confronted was documented evidences. He only reserved that he had no choice but to rule accordingly. There is also one death verdicat of him where he wrote that punishment should reflect public opinion, but his critics indicate that back then only white people support the death panelty while the black public oppose it deeply and for a reason. There are serious violations of WP five pillares in the new version, and again, even if this is the version to appear after the prot\action will removed, there are certainly issues for ArbCom to deal with. --Gilisa (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No one criticized Goldstone's human rights credentials until he spoke out against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. Even after that, the attacks have only been carried by ephemeral media — local, biased newspapers — not by any reputable academic source. We do not and should not repeat the political smears of the moment. That's not how to write an encyclopedia article. There are right-wing nuts in the United States who deny that President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, claiming that his birth certificate was forged, demanding to see the "long form." We also have plenty of fringe commentators calling him a "socialist" or even a Nazi. These allegations have, at times, been discussed by mainstream media, yet we still do not have them in his article, because doing so would violate WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and would constitute undue weight. The same should apply here. We should be using unbiased, academic sources — not newspapers with an axe to grind. *** Crotalus *** 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Dershowitz is not a ruputable academic source? Lev Reitblat (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On matters of US criminal law he is, not on international law or the I/P conflict or South Africa. nableezy - 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Dershowitz entire background is predicated on I/P conflict. He is a notable, reputable academic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Alan Dershowitz? The man is an accomplished attorney and professor in the field of criminal law in the United States. His background is decidedly not predicated on the I/P conflict. He has no educational background in the history of the middle east, international law, or any other relevant field. He is at best a commentator in this area, he is by no means an expert. If this were a page on some subject within US criminal law Dershowitz would be among the best sources to cite. This is not one of those articles. He is a partisan commentator, no different from a thousand others. nableezy - 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has no degree or educational background in the history of the middle east or international law - yet he is cited throughout many I/P articles. If anything, Dershowitz is more reliable than Chomsky because unlike Chomsky he is a lawyer - just like Goldstone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just remind ourselves what you were quoting from Dershowitz - a quote likening Goldstone, a Jewish lawyer who published a controversial report criticising Israel, to Josef Mengele, a fanatical Nazi who murdered and tortured thousands of people. It's an utterly deranged comparison that tells us more about Dershowitz's state of mind than anything about Goldstone. It's the kind of unhinged ranting that might get juvenile activists excited, but in all honesty I think anyone advocating including a gratuitous smear like that in a Wikipedia biography should be banned from ever editing another biographical article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has the irony been lost on anyone that Dershowitz has a lifetime as a Harvard Law professor expert on criminal law, the issue here is war crimes (war crimes being a subject that Dershowitz has written about in, among other writings, his books The best defense, America on trial: inside the legal battles that transformed our nation, Contrary to popular opinion, Rights from wrongs: a secular theory of the origins of rights, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, and The case for peace: how the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved (to name a few), and Goldstone's legal background is in .... corporate law and intellectual property law? It strikes me that Dershowitz is more qualified to speak as to the report that Goldstone was qualified to write it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's slightly more ironic that Dershowitz is simply making things up given that Mengele was never captured and therefore never mounted a defense in which he made statements about just following the law. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed; it's just a juvenile argumentum ad Hitlerum. More substantively, though, Goldstone hasn't worked as a corporate lawyer for 30 years. He spent 4 years investigating political violence in South Africa and over 2 years investigating and prosecuting war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda - a fact that Epeefleche seems to have missed. I'm sure you've heard about the capture and ongoing trial of the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. That was Goldstone's case - he investigated it and brought the indictment. Dershowitz has done nothing remotely comparable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, that's overstating things a bit: he got OJ Simpson acquitted and Norman Finkelstein sacked. A fine career, just fine. Anyway, despite Dershowitz's credentials and eminence, Epeefleche's point must make him wonder: why wasn't Dershowitz chosen instead of Goldstone to lead the Gaza Report? I'm sure he was sitting by the phone, waiting for it to ring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

gain this doesn't negate the fact that Dershowitz is an extremely notable source, and has probably been one of the most vocal commentators on the Goldstone report. The fact that ChrisO continues to dismiss Dershowitz as "fringe" is nothing less than ludicrous. It's time we look at both sides instead of treating this article like an autobiography. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dershowitz's credibility on Palestine/Israel issues was blown nearly forty years ago, after his fabricated denunciation of Palestinian poet Fouzi el-Asmar. The full story can be found in Fouzi's classic 1975 book To Be an Arab in Israel, and is summarised on pages 147-9 of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah. The relevant 1971 correspondence in Commentary is also available online. RolandR (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't hijack this RR. Like I said ChrisO/Nomo, Dershowitz is perfectly notable and he has said many things about Goldstone that doesn't necessarily involve analogies to Nazi Germany, Mengele, whatever. To cling to such hyperbolic statements as evidence of his "fringiness" is quite an unfair, elementary strawman in my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has Dershowitz chosen to comment on Goldstone now? The answer of course is because the latter has written a report which the former wishes to discredit. Dershowitz is not a reliable source regarding South African history or Goldstone's role twenty years ago. These considerations rule out the use of Dershowitz's comments in this BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) I think we're in danger here of missing the most important point: it isn't necessary to go into detail in this article about the pros and cons of Goldstone's Gaza report. Please bear in mind that this is supposed to be a biography of Goldstone's career as a whole. We already have a very long article about the Gaza mission - United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict - which covers it in some depth. For the purposes of this article, all we need is a summary - how Goldstone came to chair the mission, what role he played, what his main conclusions were, the fact that it has divided opinion. We don't need to highlight views pro and con. When I rewrote that section I deliberately avoided going into much detail because it's off-topic for the subject of this article, the life and career of Richard Goldstone.

I also see no good reason for picking out Dershowitz's reaction alone of all the other commentators who have expressed views on the report. As United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict#Reactions shows, there's been a huge amount of reactions on all sides. Dershowitz is just one rather extreme voice. Why not just leave it as what we have now - a one or two-line summary of reaction saying that some agreed with the report while others disagreed? We simply don't need to get into any further detail; it's all covered elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is going to be the deciding point. The passage we're talking about was textbook WP:UNDUE, particularly in the context of a BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quoting anyone would be WP:UNDUE. If you do that you get into the question of why you're quoting that particular person, and for balance you need to find an opposing viewpoint, and again you have to find some reason for favouring one particular commentator over all the rest. That's why I very deliberately avoided quoting any reaction but simply summed it up as essentially "some liked it, some hated it". That avoids any arguments about undue weight on individual views. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So what if Dershowitz only commented on Goldstone after the Gaza report? Who cares? I think you guys are simply trying to sandbag anything of substance or remote controversy, inventing bogus excuses to avoid legitimate discussion. Dershowitz is not an extreme voice, continuing to use buzzwords that don't match reality Chris is inconsistent with our consensus-based editing goes. This is not your article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, why don't you try responding to the substance of my argument? What is your reason for choosing Dershowitz out of all the hundreds if not thousands of commentators who have opined on this issue? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Editors of this article are hereby restricted to 1 revert per editor per 24 hour period. Violation of this restriction will lead to blocks of escalating expiry times and persistent edit warriors may be banned from the article or topic area. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. Appeals of actions taken under this restriction should be made to my talk page (or that of the imposing administrator) to WP:AE or directly to ArbCom. Once everybody has had chance to see this, I will unprotect the article. questions or requests for clarification should be posted below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Addendum: Reversion of blatant vandalism is exempt from this restriction. Exemptions for BLP violations and other material exempt from WP:3RR will be decided here on a case by case basis by myself or another uninvolved administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for staying plugged in to this article. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it is now in the category of "I/P articles" is odd and illustrates the main reason there has recently been trouble editing it: Goldstone really isn't an I/P topic, despite the efforts of some to make it one. That said, I agree that the editing restriction makes sense under the circumstances. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, given that (1) the controversy over Goldstone's involvement with Gaza means that the article is clearly within the scope of I/P articles, broadly construed, bringing it under the ARBPIA ambit; and (2) the recent problems with the article have been entirely to do with partisans from the I/P topic area (ab)using the article as a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock

As I saw users counting User:Momma's Little Helper 's in opinion issues, he is a blocked sock puppet and his comments whatever they were are to be disregarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversion by off2riorob

As has been noted at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summarizing the assessments of ChrisO's draft, there is a clear consensus in favour of implementing the new version of the article. Off2riorob, who seems to have played no part in this discussion, has reverted my addition of the new version as soon as I added it. This is absolutely unacceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC on rewrite and large expansion of article

I don't see much of a discussion or a clear consensus about this large addition to the article, imo it would be only fair especially considering it has been written in user space and whilst the article was fully protected, to allow a decent discussion about this, as there is no hurry is there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, you don't see much of a discussion? What do you think #New version and below is all about? If you had bothered to participate in this talk page you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself like this. I have removed your pointless RfC notice because we have already had the discussion. Now kindly go and find something else to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this was pure disruption. Off2rio hasn't expressed the slightest concern about the re-write, and there has been an extended discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, all the correct procedures have been followed and consensus carefully built for the new version of the article to replace the previous version. Pexise (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

J

Does anyone know what the J. in Goldstone's name stands for? Every source I've seen either calls him "Richard Goldstone" or "Richard J. Goldstone" without any expansion of the middle initial. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Joseph.[6] Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good job, thanks for finding that. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

controversy again

This edit reinserts highly problematic sources and reinserts material that was removed as a BLP violation. WP:BLP is clear that any such reinsertion must have consensus prior to being re-added to the article. It is unacceptable to use such sources as WND in a BLP. It is unacceptable to re-add sources that nearly uninvolved editor agreed should not be used in this article. nableezy - 15:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Was it removed explicitly as a BLP violation? I'd be grateful to know whether it "counts" under the BLP exemption to 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. However, the edit was made in good faith. If there's a case to be made for the inclusion of that material, it should be incorporated, rather than in its own "critcism" section, which gives an unduly negative view of the subject. Likewise, a "praise" section, though not a straight BLP violation, would present an unduly positive view of the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

only the first sentence is supported by WND. Haaretz, Jpost, ynet are all reliable sources. There is nothing controversial about including such information. Oh noes, how dare we include criticism of the great Goldstone. Must be a BLP violation111!!! Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ynet piece was brought to the RS/N where nearly every uninvolved editor agreed that it should not be used in this BLP. nableezy - 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Grow up, Wikifan. We can do with a lot less of the juvenile hysterics. This has already been discussed at length under #Summary of BLP issues above. You know perfectly well that there is no consensus to include this material in the article. WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content is clear that material removed on BLP grounds may not be restored without consensus. I am quite prepared to restart the arbitration enforcement process that HJ Mitchell halted earlier if you or others try to push this material into the article without consensus. I'm sure you haven't forgotten your earlier lengthy topic ban. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That's not entirely correct. Some editors argued the Ynet article should not be included, while some argued that the Ynet article on it's own should not be used in this BLP. This issue is now sourced from two more RS. Looking forward to hearing some new arguments for why this information should be censored from this article. Perhaps Haaretz is a "right-wing sensationalist tabloid"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The tabloid newspaper Yediot Arinot is still the only primary source. Everyone else is simply responding to YA's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, secondary reliable sources reporting on the subject. That's what WP:V is made of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like before Chris, you misrepresent the edit by claiming it is supported by WND. This is false. Only the lead sentence is supported by WND. Okay, we can remove that - that still leaves 4 paragraphs supported by Haaretz, Jpost, Ynet. Oh, Ynet is a tabloid paper? All right, that STILL leaves Jpost and Haaretz. ChrisO, you came to this article with an agenda and you removed all things controversial and replaced it with total fluff. Then some POV warriors came in and agreed with your massive deletions, and suddenly we have a "consensus" to steamroll editors that support a collaborative process that isn't predicated on mob-rule. It's impossible to seriously discuss relevant topics when anything remotely controversial is dismissed as "fringe", "tabloid", and in violation of whatever policy-shopping guideline you can think of. And then of course threatening editors you don't like with Arbcoms. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You can spend your time bickering and pretending that the majority of editors who have commented do not in fact oppose the inclusion of this material, or you can go and do something more productive elsewhere. Which is it going to be? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate why you think saying "Yediot Ahronot reported that..." does not meet WP:V and/or WP:N when you have two reliable sources reporting about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

#Summary of BLP issues. I've already gone through this. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. All reliable sources - jpost, dershowitz, haaretz - must be "fringe." But wait, some editors still have an issue with such an absurd characterization. Oh, we've "already gone through this" but we really didn't go through anything other than failed admins shouting down users who dare to edit according to policy and not Goldstone's sensitivity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your summary does not address the fact that Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post have reported on this issue, both adding to the reliability and the verifiability of the material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Yediot Ahronot reported that..." is probably not a BLP violation. If the material it's being used to cite is highly controversial though, it shouldn't be included unless other reliable sources have also reported it, independently of the YA source. On another note, it would give me a lot less of a headache of people wouldn't mind calming down a little bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Yes, I would be very glad if the hysterical denunciations could be stowed. It would certainly improve the atmosphere around here. As for the YA article: HJ, I've already been through this in detail in #Summary of BLP issues above. I wrote that section to inform you, quite apart from anything else. Please re-read it; I don't want to keep repeating myself here. The bottom line is that it makes claims which are trivially false, it represents a radical revision of Goldstone's history (and thus a big WP:REDFLAG) and it does so explicitly in the context of attacking him over his Gaza report. It's not much different in kind from the whackjob outlets claiming that Obama was really born in Kenya. In the discussion above a substantial majority of editors agreed that it should not be included, given that it's an exceptional claim from a low-quality outlet in the context of an overt political smear campaign. The two editors above are trying their hardest to ignore the substantial consensus against inclusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it many times over the last few days and I've just re-read the JC source in which Goldstone rejects that YA claims. It's my opinion that it can be included in context. Our job is to summarise third party sources and I see no problem with "Yediot Ahronot claimed..." (note the difference between "YA claimed" and, for example, "Goldstone is") followed immediately by something along the lines of "though Goldstone denied/rebutted/[insert verb of your choice], saying..." both sourced to the relevant articles. That presents all the sources without violating BLP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)