Talk:Richard Goldstone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

• Of those hundreds or thousands commentators, please name ... say ... 25 others (should be easy, no?) who have superior credentials in the area of war crimes law, are lawyers, have written as much on war crimes law as has Dershowitz, and have attended and teach at law schools of similar quality to Harvard Law. Let's make it easier -- just name 10 who fit all those criteria. This is absurd IDONTLIKEITism/POV -- though I don't expect anyone w/a pro-jihadi POV to agree with me. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make clear--I'm of course not attacking any editor in my above statement, and certainly not attacking any editor personally, as at the time I wrote it no editor had failed to agree with me. At this point in time, later than my post, all editors have not entered their agreement with me -- and I am certainly not, by any means, attacking all editors (and if I were, of course that would not be a personal attack either). But I say this as one editor thought he might be the sort of person I had in mind, so I want to assure all that I certainly do not mean to attack anyone. I do think, in the abstract, that if there were an editor (or more than one) that they would not agree with me. Although that, of course, would be only one of many possibilities for their failing to do so. Patterns of behavior, of course, might upon review lead one to reach a conclusion that is more specific, as well as histories of upheld blocks and topic bans that relate to the subject area, but that is of course completely theoretical and non-specific. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you list the academic presses that have published Dershowitz on the topic of international law or the A/I conflict, or what actual experience this US criminal lawyer has in that field? And I would strongly suggest you strike that last line. nableezy - 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a number of books in which he discussed the issue of war crimes. Some of those touch on the P-I conflict. There are more, of course. I imagine you can easily google them for more information you desire. But if that proves challenging, please let me know and I will happily let my fingers do the walking on your behalf.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 28 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.[1] Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Yes. That's quite helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 28 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 [2], 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 [3], 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)

The majority of editors are happy with ChrisO's version. We've been over the objections to your paragraph at length, I'm not going to get into those debates again. Pexise (talk) 17:16, 28 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)

I hope a source like NY Times from March 8, 1993, an article written by Bill Keller (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/08/world/cape-town-journal-in-a-wary-land-the-judge-is-trusted-to-a-point.html?pagewanted=1) which has been already 5 times cited in Wikipedia in favor of Goldstone's activity can be also used as a reliable source for his critics. The case of 13-years-old boy is described there--LReit (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the article which describes him as "perhaps the most trusted man, certainly the most trusted member of the white establishment, in a land of corrosive suspicion" and notes that even his critics "tend to agree that without Mr. Goldstone's reassuring presence, South Africa's hopes of reaching a peaceful political settlement might have collapsed in rancor". It points out that his critics "say he is an able and fair-minded judge, but too inclined to balance his reports by dishing out a little blame to everyone" and that the ANC "now regards him with respectful ambivalence". The only specific accusation there is that "he distressed civil rights lawyers by concurring without comment in a 1986 decision to allow the jailing of a 13-year-old boy for disrupting school". So the most we could say is that seventeen years ago his critics considered him balanced, viewed him with ambivalence, and were "distressed" that he did not comment about the jailing of a child. Hardly a staggering charge sheet, and in context an entirely undue focus on the single less-than-positive assessment of his role. RolandR (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And the author of the article doesn't think it's a shame to add to his positive view of Goldstone also some critics. I don't understand why Wikipedia can't do the same--LReit (talk) 23:52, 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)

I agree with HJ Mitchell. I'm glad we are making progress. The information is perfectly valid and sourced, and if we have to attribute it to Yediot, then that's fine. But there is absolutely no acceptable explanation as to why we should be censoring the information altogether just because it is critical of Goldstone. Breein1007 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd add one extra point. Though other outlets may have commented on it in some fashion (noted that the Yediot report exists, or I think one outlet ran Goldstone denouncing it as false), as far as I can tell, no other more reputable news outlet has actually done any checking on the veracity of Yediot's original claims, at least not that I've seen. I make no ultimate judgment about whether or not it's appropriate to include, say, his denunciation at this point, but I do think that we have to think long and hard about whether allowing what seems to be a politically-motivated smear to be referenced at all is appropriate. Chris has noted, appropriately I think, that Barack Obama makes no mention of the "birther" discord about his birth certificate because it's a spurious claim, but that's certainly been covered to death in many places. While articles here aren't templates, and a treatment of a subject one way in one article doesn't necessarily mandate the same treatment in an unrelated article, I think that example should give us significant pause while we consider whether it's appropriate to reference the referencing of a contentious claim that so far has only come from one source whose quality is in question. Referential sources may meet WP:V and even WP:RS, but there's still the matter of WP:UNDUE and the BLP guidelines about very controversial claims to consider. — e. ripley\^talk 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the argument a number of us have been making for many days now, and those pestering for inclusion of this material haven't offered anything that leads me to change my mind. Four paragraphs of this crap? If that's what is on the table, forget it -- for all the reasons adduced ad nauseum above. At some point you folks are just going to have to accept that you're not convincing anyone here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I would say this is getting tendentious. It's absolutely false to claim, as Breein1007 does, that the YA material is being "censored" because it's "critical". There is already critical material in the article. I removed the YA material because it's demonstrably wrong, just like the claims that Obama was born in Kenya. Furthermore (quoting Johnuniq above), "to drop in cherry-picked rulings showing that Goldstone was part of some appalling events would be to provide a completely false picture." There is a huge amount of documentation of Goldstone's career which pre-dates his Gaza report. Highlighting one single report from an Israeli tabloid newspaper, which makes claims that are not supported by any other sources and represent a radical revision of the historical record, in the context of an ideological campaign to smear him, is textbook WP:UNDUE weight. BLP tells us to avoid such material. And to repeat myself yet again, a majority of editors is against the inclusion of YA's claims. They cannot be included unless there is consensus. No matter of ranting is going to change those facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the BLP issue, by attributing it directly to YA and not commenting either way as to whether it's true, we should resolve most legitimate BLP concerns, especially when we follow it immediately by his rebuttal (presenting both sides, thus maintaining WP:NPOV) which seems to be quite well covered in reputable sources from what I can see. Finally, I don't believe it would be giving it undue weight, provided it's limited to a sentence or two (and it's not really significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please go and read WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A tabloid smear campaign does not even come close. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Again you use sweeping generalizations to justify the removal of 4 paragraphs under the dubious rationale that they belong to some campaign to "smear" Goldstone. Sound a little protective, eh Chris? We have 3 separate sources all confirming notability and verifiability. When you first came to this article Chris, you removed everything controversial. I mean everything. Then you plug in tons of positive research in an attempt to prove that the controversial material is somehow a minority opinion. The reality is we have tons, and tons of legitimate criticism and yet you say it is somehow inconsistent with his legedency career as a judge in Apartheid South Africa. Oh, and by the way - just because you have loads of fellow POV warriors that agree with you does not somehow mean there is a "consensus." We have numerous users who object to your original research and have provided explicit, meticulous reasoning. You have just written it all off as "fringe." If anything, you are the one who is smearing notable academics simply because they dare question the great Goldstone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to me that neither of you will give an inch after 9 days of protection and endless arguing on this talk page. The simplest and easiest compromise is what I suggested above which is in line with BLP, NPOV and V and does not give it undue weight. Four paragraphs is excessive, and we need to be careful with a living subject, but we cannot possibly present a neutral point of view by eliminating any whiff of criticism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you guys are just inventing more excuses to ignore important content simply because it is "controversial." So the paragraphs are excessive? Compared to the 20+ pimp paragraphs that Chris0 wrote all on his own? What is undue about verifiable sources? The problem with this debate is that ChrisO and the gang continue to fish for reasons WHY we shouldn't include controversial materials, instead of trying to find ways to include it without violating BLP. Misrepresenting information by claiming it is predicated on WND when only a single sentence is supported by WMD weakens the integrity of the articles and the editors writing them. Inferring other users are part of a non-existence witch-hunt campaign to smear the Goldstone creates a hostile and unfair environment. Consensus has shown it is Chris' way or the highway. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

HJ, this idea that "any whiff of criticism" is being "eliminated" is completely false. I've systematically added criticism to the article - I specifically went out and looked for it, as I've noted here. What I am objecting to here is simply the undue weight that is being put on a tabloid article that is barely two weeks old. Let's be clear what Wikifan and his ilk want: nothing less than the restoration in its entirety of the four paragraphs that I removed. They simply don't accept that there were ever any problems with it. And in fact, while I was typing this Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs) just restored that material [4]. Let's be blunt: Wikifan and company are so blinded by hatred for the subject of this article that they are unable or unwilling to follow BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we take a look at what has, yet again, been reverted into the article?

• [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116873 WND] - unequivocally an unreliable source, especially in a BLP. Anybody who repeatedly puts such a source in a BLP should be permanently banned from editing BLPs.
• Huffington Post - a blog entry by one Ashley Rindsberg, who, as far as I can tell has never been published in a serious source. An unreliable source, especially in a BLP.
• [www.emunahmagazine.com/goldstone-racist-history Emunah Magazine] If somebody has any information about this source that would be appreciated. I can't find anything that makes me think that this is a reliable source.
• The YA article - this has already been dealt with at the RS/N.
• Shalom Life - Simply reports that YA made these claims and that Goldstone responded. But I cant find anything about the reliability or reputation of this source.
• The response from Haaretz and JPost
• Alan Dershowitz in Ynet making a ludicrous analogy comparing Goldstone to Joseph Mengele. Including this is ridiculous. You want to include criticism of Goldstone, that's fine, but with this you are simply trying to defame the man. This is an outrageous comparison that cannot be repeated in a supposed biography of Goldstone. No real "encyclopedia" would include such a line.

I can see that some of this could possible go in, mostly along the same lines of HJ. But if you want to include the latest bits of the smear campaign directed at Goldstone, I think we should also include some information from people saying why this campaign has occurred. Neve Gordon recently wrote that "Richard Goldstone has learned a lesson or two in the past year. Ever since Goldstone, a self-proclaimed Jewish Zionist South African judge, authored a UN report charging Israel (and Hamas) with war crimes, he has been subjected to a well-orchestrated delegitimization campaign" and later says the YA article was "the latest episode in an ongoing character assassination campaign". Uri Avnery recently wrote of "a worldwide defamation campaign against the Jewish Zionist judge, Richard Goldstone." Why not include this along with the bits from the character assassination campaign y'all are so anxious to keep inserting into the article? nableezy - 00:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post information was cited from NYT paper (March, 1993), which I hope is reliable source. ChrisO has deleted my edit describing this--LReit (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now Neve Gordon and Uri Avnery are extremist figures who belong to an extremely vocal minority. Alan Dershowitz has provided meticulous and very calculated criticism of Goldstone in numerous interviews. Here he argues Goldstone used different criteria in grading the abuses of the IDf and Hamas - contrary to the legal ethics of human rights (which are universal in nature). Now I'm sure it is convenient to dismiss Dershowitz by relying on a total strawman statement, as if the crux of his agenda is Goldstone=Nazi. No, Dershowitz merely provided an analogy, just as many co-authors and supporters of the Goldstone report have drawn parallels between the holocaust/Nazi Germany and the IDF/Israel. Here Dershowitz evaluates Goldstones' character from an ethical perspective. This victimhood and hysterical response to anything critical of Goldstone is nothing short of fear-mongering. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you name the number of university presses Dershowitz's "work" on the A/I conflict has been published in? Gordon's Israel's Occupation is published by the University of California Press and he is routinely published in peer-reviewed journals discussing the conflict. And it is not a "total strawman statement", it is what was in our article. nableezy - 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question that I posed above but you ignored: why do you want to highlight Dershowitz's commentary above any of the hundreds if not thousands of other commentators who have opined? As United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict#Reactions shows, there's been a huge amount of reactions on all sides. What makes Dershowitz special? Why is this not undue weight on one rather extreme individual's views? I have asked you this three times. Why will you not answer? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is a far more prolific writer on the A/I conflict than any of the authors mentioned above: The Case for Israel, The Case for Peace, for a full bibliography. My point is ChrisO characterization as "fringe" is ludicrous, if not defamatory, and his fixation on the Nazi analogy while ignoring extensive, meticulous criticism is suspect. I have provided 2 reliable sources detailing very explicit commentary of Goldstone that don't necessarily involve Nazis. Tell me Chris, what makes anyone special? I see dozens of authors who aren't particularly famous that you have chosen and cited throughout the article. What makes them unique to Dershowitz - a far more famous academic? Apparently anything that doesn't tow the Goldstone narrative must be extreme and undue. As far as I'm concerned, the absurd level of fluff and complete absence of third party figures (virtually the entire article is primary sources) is undue. If you want I'd be happy to sort through the article and identity a dozen sentences editors here have written without quotations or appropriate attributions that resemble OR and personal bias. I really would appreciate it if you would keep this discussion to the article, and stop threatening editors with arbitration who disagree with you. It creates an impression that editors here are trying to stifle users they see as opponents. I have yet to threaten anyone here with arbitration or sanctions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You dont judge the quality of an author by the number of things they have written, you judge it by the reputation of the publishers and the reviews in scholarly works. Dershowitz doesn't come close, in this topic, to being a quality source. Dershowitz is a partisan commentator, he is not a scholar in this topic area. And the criticism of the report belongs in the article on the report, not in the biography of Goldstone. nableezy - 01:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. For the purposes of a biography, all that's necessary is to note - as I've done - that criticism exists, and that support exists, for the report.I deliberately didn't go into detail because I wanted to avoid arguments about which criticism and which support to feature. It's also far too much detail for what is supposed to be a short summary. This article is not about the report. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What? John Wiley & Sons is a perfectly respectable publisher. Not to mention Dershowitz is a professor at one of the most, if not the most prestigious university on this Earth. Your characterization as "partisan" commentator isn't particularly relevant. He is a legal scholar, popular commentator on the A/I conflict as well as international law. You guys are simply inventing your own qualifications for what is considered "scholarly" to eliminate sources you obviously don't like. It doesn't even take a degree to be considered a "scholar." Noam Chomsky has no degree in middle eastern studies, nor is he a lawyer - yet he is cited repeatedly in hundreds of A/I conflict articles. Dershowitz as well as others provide explicit, meticulous criticism of Goldstone as a judge, beyond analogies to Nazi Germany and Mengele. He is neither fringe, extreme, or unreliable. Disagree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

He is irrelevant. So is every other commentator, because this article is not about the report. This is not the place to argue the rights and wrongs of the report. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So first he's fringe, now he's irrelevant. If you read the sources - which you obviously have not - you would know Dershowitz, as well as many others, go beyond the Goldstone report, though that is what he is most famous for. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please engage with the arguments that have been presented earlier rather than simply repeating your desire to have certain points added to this article. For example, is there any evidence to suggest that Dershowitz is a reliable source regarding the South African apartheid era and which judges contributed for or against it, more than twenty years ago? Further, aren't you at all concerned that Dershowitz has waited twenty years and now decides to comment on Goldstone's role? Isn't there a possibility that Dershowitz is just seeking to smear the author of a report, and such smears may not be suitable for a BLP? Note that the points would be suitable if they were sourced to an independent source who had performed an analysis of the apartheid era, and who is known to be a reliable source for that era (such a source would have investigated the whole system rather than a single person). Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it were 20 years or 20 days ago? It seems many editors here have dismissed any source that wasn't somehow pimping Goldstone as part of a magical "smear campaign." This is simply fear-mongering. We have reliable sources citing reliable figures that provide legitimate commentary from a serious and respectable academic. Is this really too complicated? Instead of the knee-jerk reactionism, why don't we LOOK at the sources. Look beyond the Nazi strawman, or else we're just censoring relevant information in a struggle against a bogus smear campaign. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are attempting to engage the arguments, I do not see it. Please start by saying whether you agree that if X writes a report that Y does not like, and Y attempts to counter the report by making comments about unrelated events concerning X from the 1980s, then it would be reasonable to question whether Y's comments are suitable for a BLP on X. Would it matter if Y had no recognized qualifications regarding the affairs surrounding X? Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from calling Goldstone a latter-day Mengele, Dershowitz has also called him "a despicable human being", "an evil, evil man", "a traitor to the Jewish people" and the UN's "token court Jew". Does this sound like the kind of criticism that is (a) informative, (b) encyclopedic or (c) indicative of any special expertise on Dershowitz's part? Of course not - it's just vulgar abuse from someone who holds an extreme POV. There is no reason to highlight Dershowitz's comments unless you want to promote his POV, which is basically what's going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, of course not - those are just soundbites you handpicked to "smear" Dershowitz. I could just as easily cherry-pick words from other authors, or hey - Goldstone himself, when he conceded his report had no merit if tested against a court of law. It really isn't a fair way to judge an academic source. Dershowitz has provided explicit, non-emotional or hyperboloid commentary on Goldstone, as the sources I provided above indicates. We are editors, not Goldstone's publicist. It seems many here are looking to protect his image beyond the guidelines of wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• WP:V and WP:RS are very important, but just because something might clear this bar doesn't mean it is automatically suitable for inclusion. There is also WP:UNDUE, which is part of our NPOV policy — one of the "five pillars" of Wikipedia. WP:REDFLAG also goes along with this. Look, I could probably fill a page with newspaper articles discussing the so-called "birther" movement — but that doesn't mean it should even be mentioned in the Barack Obama article, because including an extremist fringe theory of that sort in any way would violate our policy on undue weight and BLP. This is no different; Goldstone's judicial record was never seriously criticized until he issued a report that was very strongly disliked by partisan commentators for unrelated reasons. To treat this as a serious part of Goldstone's biography, rather than dismissing it as just the political smear-of-the-moment, is wrong, BLP-violating, and unencyclopedic. Note also that a person is usually only considered a "reliable source" for areas directly related to their field of expertise. Dershowitz's real scholarship is in the field of U.S. law (mostly criminal and appellate law) and he would be a reliable source for those subjects. On the I/P conflict (and let's not pretend that that isn't what this is about) Dershowitz is just another extremist partisan commentator with no special credentials. It is not at all unusual for someone to be an eminent scholar in one field and to hold disreputable fringe views in other, unrelated fields. William Shockley and Linus Pauling are two examples that come to mind off the top of my head. *** Crotalus *** 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted text is not an extremist theory. The fact of 13-year-old boy sentenced to jail was reported by NY Times in 1993 and Goldstone confiirmed it was true. He also confirmed that he sentenced to death 2 persons (from 28 mentioned by YA) So we don't have any unconfirmed information. Goldstone himself doesn't see this facts as shameful for him, so I don't understand why you try prevent them to appear in Wikipedia --LReit (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

^^^Exactly. Those who continue to argue Dershowitz is an "extremist partisan figure" don't know what they're talking about. That is defamation and slander. Dershowitz is a perfectly reliable source when it comes to the I/P conflict, he has written numerous books and hundreds of essays - and, he's a lawyer. Editors here are inventing their own rules and condemning critics of Goldstone as extremist and partisan. As far as I'm concerned, many editors here are extremist and partisan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-prot

In an effort to stave off any potential socking, or accusations of socking, I think it would be wise to have this article be semi-protected. The 1RR will be impossible to uphold with users conveniently forgetting to log in. nableezy - 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I, as usual, agree with my friend Nableezy.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was already working on doing that after blocking the first IP who tried that. It's done now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not surprised. Is it possible to identify which editor was using that IP? It's almost certainly one of the previous edit warriors - it'll be interesting to see who doesn't edit during the duration of the block... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it's important enough you could file a SPI / CU request for the two IPs.

I hardblocked both IPs - they can't edit (from those addresses/computers) for the 24 hrs even if they log in. I figured that would get the point across sufficiently forcibly without subjecting the two offending parties to excess public shame. The combination of hardblocking again if we need to and a semiprotect on the article to more or less prevent a need to do that should be enough. Chasing down and stomping on our two poster cases, one on each side, seems a little excessive. They know who they are.

I won't oppose an SPI, but I think that this was enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose an SPI either.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea so we can take the semi protection off for the benefit of any new/unregistered editors who want to edit. Anyone want to open one? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

I suggest that rather than getting hung up on stale disputes we should try to find ways of improving the current version of the article. A few editors here have suggested that there are issues with the content OTHER THAN the dispute over the YA claims and the Dershowitz/Sher quotes. If so, it would be helpful if editors could suggest changes to improve this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Seems to me that the conversation is more heated here than would be ideal. I have a suggestion -- that all editors who have been previously sanctioned or admonished for edits or actions relating to the I-P area take a wikibreak from this article for a week. The remaining editors would, I expect, have a more constructive discussion, and perhaps make some headway.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The heat, as you call it, is coming principally from Wikifan12345's argumentation and tantrums. He's exhibiting exactly the same behaviour that got him topic-banned for a long time last year. Ban him from this article and most of the heat would go away. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An attempt of compromise

The problem of an honest man in a totalitarian or apartheid state have been interested me for a long time. It’s not a simple question to which extent a person can cooperate with such a state participating in different power institutions like (non-democratic) parliament or court. Some persons can take a decision not to cooperate with a state. Others believe that their involvement in government institutions, which obligates them to take decisions in contradiction with their conscience, at the same time can help to influence on the system from inside. The biography of Richard Goldstone is an example of a person standing behind this dilemma. Examples of very problematic Goldstone’s decisions have been reported by the NYT (March 8, 1993) (the case of a 13-year-old boy who had been sentenced to jail for disrupting school as a protest against apartheid - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/08/world/cape-town-journal-in-a-wary-land-the-judge-is-trusted-to-a-point.html) and YA (Richard Goldstone sentenced 2 black men to death and ruled against appeals of 26 more black men sentenced to death).

All these cases were confirmed by R. Goldstone with his explanation the reasons why he was forced to act against his conscience.

I think that reticence of the mentioned facts from the biography of Goldstone is a big mistake and distortion of the reality which is much more complicated that many of us want it to be. It should be mentioned that Bill Keller –the author of the mentioned NYT article, who called Goldstone “the most trusted man”, didn’t hesitate to include at the same article that some of Goldstone’s judgments “distressed civil rights lawyers”. I don’t understand why for WP editors is forbidden to mention the same facts

My suggestion is:

1. To restore the deleted fragment as it is (2 sentences is not enough for the descriptions). This fragment will represent a position of editors which like prof. Dershowitz think that an honest men must be always in opposition to apartheid state

2. To add additional paragraphs which represent in more details a position of those who agree with Goldstone’s solution of the dilemma. --LReit (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this seriously a proposal to restore those four paragraphs (and add some other material besides)? I'm afraid that doesn't strike me as much of a compromise that considers the objections expressed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requested

Due to the continued violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, I have filed an arbitration enforcement request against four editors involved with this article. Please see WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

14 day ban

ChrisO (talk · contribs), Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) and Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs) have been banned from editing this article and its talk page for 2 weeks. This should be seen as a chance for everybody to calm down rather than as a punishment, though violations of this ban should be reported to WP:AE. All editors are advised that the 1RR restriction is still in effect and violations thereof have done and will result in blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WND

Goldstone's apartheid past is important to note. I agree that WND should not be used as a source in this context and therefore, I've replaced it, as well as other "weak" sources associated with the previous edit. The new sources include and are limited to, Haaretz, Ynet, JPost, New York Times, Business Day, the Atlantic and the Huffington Post. These should suffice as reliable sources. and hopefully, this will put an end to attempts to quash discourse and impose censorship.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting specifically on what you reinserted (I have yet to look at it), it doesn't really put your best foot forward, particularly after this recent row, by opening your argument suggesting that people who disagree with your edit are attempting to "quash discourse" and "impose censorship." Assume good faith. — e. ripley\^talk 02:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, why on earth have you reinserted that material without consensus ? Please self revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This was an unacceptable edit. You retain the issues that have been discussed at length and reinsert the same content, almost completely without change, without consensus. WP:BLP clearly states that you must obtain consensus for content that has been removed as a BLP vio. You retained Dershowitz's offensive commentary comparing Jewish Goldstone to Nazi Mengele, and you retained the bloated 4 paragraph diatribe that many editors have said was a WEIGHT issue. I, as politely as I can, request that you self-revert and instead actually address the issues raised. The issue is not as simple as the single WND source. This type of editing behavior is unacceptable in a BLP, and it is what got the editors named above a two-week ban from the article. The 1RR does not entitle you to carry on the edit-war, just at a slower pace. nableezy - 04:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's views here -- expressed as his views -- are appropriate; IDONTLIKEIT doesn't require its deletion, whatever we may think of them and however they reflect on Dershowitz. Nor is it a BLP violation -- it is an opinion, of a notable person, and stated as such.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So I suppose you wont mind me including the cartoon of Ariel Sharon, published by a Qatari newspaper in his bio? Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is entitled to his opinion, however offensive that opinion may be, we are under no obligation to repeat it. And, again, WP:BLP clearly says that consensus is required prior to restoring material removed as a BLP vio. nableezy - 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• • "There is no solution but reflection, reason, and thoughtful collaboration." --Jimbo Wales. Ignoring this discussion at BLPN and all the other discussions on this issue is kind of disruptive and if it doesn't stop I will ask an admin to make it stop. To be fair to Jiujitsuguy he did post this message User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Goldstone_and_1R.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nab, tell me precisely which sources you object to.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not sources. You're invited to consult the arguments elaborated above; I see no need to write them out again for you here. I have removed that section on BLP grounds as you failed to gain consensus before restoring it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Controversy surrounding apartheid era decisions"

There is no such controversy being covered by reliable news sources. Where are the stories in The Times, The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times? Where is the coverage on ABC, BBC, CBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC?

All that exists is a manufactured "controversy", a series of ad hominem attacks attempting to discredit the head of a commission which had the temerity to criticize both Hamas and Israel instead of issuing a report saying "Israel good. Hamas bad. Ugh." That is why, no matter how many opinion pieces by Israeli media and their supporters are amassed, addition of a separate section concerning this so-called controversy would be total undue weight.

A couple of sentences in the section on his judicial service, mentioning the 1993 NYT story (which said the detention of the 13-year old "distressed civil rights lawyers", not that "Goldstone was heavily criticized by South African human rights organizations for this ruling") and his admitted concurrence in death sentences would be appropriate. So might reliably sourced criticisms of him published before May 2009. If hit pieces by YA and insults from Dershowitz need to be included, put them where they belong and show their proper context – as reactions to the Gaza report, similar to the threats to disrupt his nephew's Bar Mitzvah. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no "controversy" other than that manufactured by the strong push to counter the Goldstone report with the usual techniques including an attack on its main author. Those techniques should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. After Jiujitsuguy's reinsertion of the "Controversy" section, the article contained a false picture from the cherry-picked factoids that have been found by Goldstone's opponents. Sources like YA and Dershowitz are not qualified to provide an analysis of Goldstone's actions in South Africa more than twenty years ago: they are reliable sources only to verify that they have made certain claims, but the text dropped into this BLP portrays those claims as if they are a reasonable commentary on Goldstone's role in the apartheid regime. However, a true commentary on that regime would involve a discussion of many different people, the options available to them, and a comparison of the long-term achievements of those involved. There is no consensus for the inclusion of attacks in the form of a commentary from sources that are not reliable concerning the apartheid era. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't support inclusion, or at least much of an inclusion but I think that you both are advocating unreasonable standards. I think that your suggestions would remove basically all political controversy from WP. Most of it comes from political opponents by nature. So YA doesn't like Goldstone. The Guardian doesn't like George W. Bush but without looking, I'd feel safe betting money that it is used as a source in that article. Most foreign things are sadly not reported in the major Anglo-American-Canadian media. Especially in the I/P area. The Deir Yassin massacre for example has several dozen sources but only one from the Anglo-American media. And many things are sourced to media that are foreign to the site of the controversy itself. If we can't include foreign media sources for apartheid that article would become a stub pretty quickly. Yes, this is a controversy that is mostly localized to one country where the subject is disliked. Is that not allowed on WP?

Like I said, I oppose most of the information. If I wrote the article by myself I'd probably exclude it all. But I don't think it is reasonable to say it should be excluded just because they only care about it in some little country. Or that their media isn't competent to comment on foreign issues. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the point about sourcing is weak -- there's no question that YA's smear campaign itself has been covered in reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. But I think the rest of those first two posts is spot on.

I've indicated a couple of times that I think the kerfuffle created by the YA report can itself be covered very briefly in the article -- in the UN Fact-finding section as Fat&Happy suggests. Naturally, Goldstone's rebuttal and the perspectives of others on this line of critique should be included as well. What I have in mind is something like the following (ref symbol deliberately omitted so that the proposed sources show here):

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot published an article in May 2010 scrutinizing his sentencing record and asserting that Goldstone had been an “apartheid judge”^ref> Yediot Aharonot, 07.05.2010 "Goldstone's death trials"</ref>^ref> http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=174769</ref>; Goldstone disputed details of the article.^ref>http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/judge-goldstone-responds-death-penalty-story</ref> Sasha Polakow-Suransky writing in the Huffington Post accused Goldstone's critics of hypocrisy, pointing out Israel's own close relationship with the South African apartheid regime.^ref>Sasha Polakow-Suransky, "Hypocrisy Now!: The Pro-Israel Crowd's Sins of Omission", Huffington Post, 12 May 2010</ref>

This could be integrated in the fifth paragraph of that section, though sentence order for existing sentences would need reworking. I'm not yet persuaded that this is actually desirable -- I'm offering the suggestion for the sake of discussion in the absence of any proposal from those who have been trying to add those four bloated paragraphs. I think if this went forward there would have to be general agreement that the matter was settled for now -- no continued efforts at expansion in reference to the YA accusations; I know a Wikipedia article is never finished, but the point is that the matter would have to be considered settled for now among editors currently active here. I'll add that I'm pessimistic about achieving agreement along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems to nicely fulfill your stated goal of being a good starting place for discussion.

• If we are going to attribute anything directly to Yedioth Ahronoth, I'd like to see an English translation of relevant passages, at least entire paragraphs to indicate context, per WP:NONENG.
• Although the existing section on his tenure as a judge mentions the moral dilemma of cooperating with the apartheid regime, addition of his comments about invoking or upholding the death penalty, and possibly the case of the teenager sentenced for disrupting school, add specificity to the discussion, which I think would be an improvement.
• While we should include his comments concerning the YA charges – and/or those of some of his South African supporters – I'm not sure the Polakow-Suransky opinion piece in HuffPost adds anything probative. Ad hominem is no more valid from one side than the other, and this remains true even if it's technically ad patria,

Fat&Happy (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is covered by RSs. I don't see any controversy at all. Suggest it be put back in post-haste -- one can't simply evidence that they know how to spell blp, in order to filibuster an article. I would suggest that future such attempts yield sterner repercussions than this advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please ask for Jimbo Wales to be blocked for his views on this article and see what happens. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support inclusion of edit in its entirety with following qualifications: 1) The word "controversy" be substituted for "allegation" or words to that effect. 2) The sentence "Goldstone was heavily criticized by South African human rights organizations for this ruling," be replaced with, "distressed civil rights lawyers." Also the latest version of the edit omits the "weak" sources entirely. As far as concerns about Yediot Achronot, it is the largest, most circulated Israeli daily and has a strong vetting process. It is as reliable as any Western paper. To suggest otherwise is to call into question the reliability of Aljazeera and a host of other sources used extensively in the IP arena.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who wants the material included please engage with the contrary views expressed above and offer counter arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns

I've noticed at least one passage repeated verbatim without quotes that is taken from Davis & Le Roux 2009. I will fix that one, but if I find any more, I'm going to list this article as a copyright concern. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding material regarding myths and facts to the report section

hi sean - not sure why you removed the first part of what i added. the entire section is not just about goldstone the person. it is about the report and goldstone. so, here is one very important piece to the entire criticism puzzle - the fact that hamas admitted 'x' which was significantly different than what was reported earlier. why doesn't it belong in there with all the other material? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source stating that there is a connection between the material and the life of Goldstone would be required, and the information would need to satisfy WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)