Talk:Richard Goldstone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Zionism and Goldstone

No encyclopedia would ever treat a subject's daughter's comments as relevant, interesting or appropriate. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.3.10 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Goldstone is definitely NOT a Zionist and if you think he is, then please explain to me what a Zionist is. I don't care if his daughter thinks he is; I highly doubt she understands what the implications are. Goldstone has very outspoken anti-Zionist views. Being Jewish does not qualify one for this position and citing a daughter does as little to support this claim as Castro's daughter calling Fidel a capitalist. 95.35.128.238 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another really good source on Goldstone's history

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

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

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

Goldstone Report, mandate, boycott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expansion of mandate by Goldstone himself

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM: Hey, look who agrees with me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldstone's Standing w/ S. African Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage/surname

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

connection to NGOs

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

Questionable material in section on Goldstone report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you have answered neither of my questions. I repeat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistical inference

Material in this article currently says

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

I have unsuccessfully attempted to remove it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would certainly not object if you removed that image and caption. LotLE×talk 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Richard-Richard" Goldstone Controversy

66.108.25.133, I removed the material sourced to UN Watch's blog here with the edit summaryThis material comes from Blog: UN Watch. See WP:SPS "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". Yes, it took out some stuff not sourced to the blog but the whole section need to be sourced in a way that complies with policy. I'm not going to leave bits behind. Reverting with statements like "obvious reproductions of 2 Guardian articles, referenced by Goldstone, copied in blog." isn't good enough. BLP policy is clear on sourcing material from self published sources and you can't sidestep it by using the word 'obvious'. Find the original sources and use those if you want to include this story (although you might get into synth issues) or find an RS that covered this issue. It should be easy if it's notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, it is a matter of concern that you have been less than forthcoming about the fact that you removed any reference to relevant and documented reports that Justice Richard Goldstone was said by his South African legal colleagues to have harbored such political ambitions to succeed UN Secretary Boutros-Boutros Ghali that he was known by the nickanme of "Richard-Richard" Goldstone.

The source from the Mandela.org website quotes both Nobel Laureate F. W. de Klerk and Richard Goldstone himself, as follows:

It’s quite amusing, the ‘Richard Richard’ story was an invention of the chap from the Mail & Guardian, David Beresford. He concocted that as a sort of humorous thing in one of his satirical columns. As far as I’m aware that’s where it began and ended and it had a funny sequel because soon after it was printed he called me about something to do with the commission and I returned his call and he wasn’t there and I left a message to say, “Please tell him that Richard Richard called.” He so enjoyed that he referred to it in an article which appeared in The Guardian.

This was not a "bit" -- as you sought to describe and downplay your deletion -- and there was no reason for you to have deleted it. It has been restored, and you should please respect WP guidelines and not delete it.

Moreover, in regard to the 2 citations to The Guardian of London, please note that verifiability (WP: BLP) means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. The citations to The Guardian are authoritative and verifiable in university libraries (WP:BLP). The additional web link to the reproduction of such in a blog has no bearing on the independently verifiable citations themselves.

Furthermore, given that the subject of the article (Justice Goldstone) in that quote himself refers to the two 1994 Guardian articles by journalist David Beresford, it is especially ironic that you deleted any reference to their contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.25.133 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-eaters, you have wrongfully deleted encyclopedic value information concerning the high-level controversy over Goldstone's aspirations to head the United Nations. This story was reported in two articles by the authoritative Guardian newspaper, and became a matter of public dispute between Goldstone and S. African president de Klerk. The matter of Goldstone's reported UN career aspirations is of strong encycolopedic value given that Goldstone came to accept a UN job about which many questions were raised.

While the matter may not reflect as favorably on Goldstone as the list of his awards, there is every reason to include this newsworthy controversy, and none to exclude it. Nor is there anything in the quotes from President de Klerk, Goldstone and The Guardian to suggest inclusion of this story has any bearing to "soapbox."

Please stop deleting anything that conflicts with your agenda, and adopt a more neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.25.133 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

what he really says is:

"Thus, all four members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Did he say "violated provisions for impartiality of the fact-finding missions" ? I can only see the phrase "procedural injustice" being used. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct of course. This what happens when doing things in a haste. Though I pasted a wrong para., you spotted what I really meant. Pure coincidence: in ECLJ's response to the Goldstone report, they write: "...each of the Goldstone Mission’s four authors made prior statements that indicated pre-existing biases against and conclusions about Israel...". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "violated provisions for impartiality of the fact-finding missions" was in a previous source that has been removed. It sounds like the kind of statement NGO Monitor or UN Watch might make in a blog. It's difficult to keep track of details in active articles. I don't like "procedural injustice" much. It's not as clear as something like "indicated pre-existing biases against and conclusions" which is presumably what he meant anyway... Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

so, if you don't object merging Goldstein with ECLJ, I'll use the latter wording. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC Goldstone and South African Jewry

Is the information about Goldstone's deteriorated standing in South Africa's Jewish community[4] a violation of WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAPBOX? --Jonund (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hard to say, because the article is no longer at the referenced link. However, I'm sure we can all agree that it would be better to find a South African source rather than an Israeli source for a story about South Africa's response to accusations of Israeli war crimes. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've tried and failed to find other sources, so the Jerusalem Post is the best thing we can find, which is fine because it's a reliable source. I believe the edit misrepresents the article; it clarifies that many South African Jews do not feel betrayed, that those who do feel betrayed comprise a majority which is "very Zionist", and that community leaders say 90% of SA Jews are "staunchly pro-Israel". In any case, this response is related to the report, so it belongs in the section about the report rather than "family life and religious background", to which the opinions of other people are irrelevant. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• See Talk:Richard_Goldstone#Statistical_inference for my views on this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The absurd title inserted in Jonund's referenced edit is definitely a non-starter. But the whole single-source JPost effort to disparage Goldstone does not nearly rise to biographical significance in general. The fact that no other source has picked up the "story" is a good indication of its biographical triviality. LotLE×talk 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, the JPost link has gone dead now as well. So the proposed addition is to insert a WP:SOAPBOX based on zero referenced sources. FWIW, what the source used to say when it was available was "We at JPost called a handful of SA Jews in an non-controlled sample, and we found a few who would diss Goldstone."LotLE×talk 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, AtSwimTwoBirds. You seem to have found the article on another address already; for others, I provide it here.[5] I agree that we had better move the paragraph to another section.

Sean, the paragraph doesn't say that the community is unanimous (something that seldom happens in a large communities); I think the readers understand that the article refers to a clear majority opinion. But we can change the wording to "Prominent Zionists expressed disgust at what they called a 'betrayal,'".

The attempts to question the validity of JP's story represent an odd view of the possibility of knowing the general opinion. A limited number of conversations can give you reliable information if you contact the right people, who are in a position to observe the reactions and discussions in a community. A concordant testimony can be thrusted. Polls give more exact information, but a reporter sounding out the opinions is no doubt sufficient here. --Jonund (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The blog provided as an alternative to the dead link doesn't resemble WP:RS. And no, there is no "clear majority"; there probably are a handful of SA Jews experssing "disappointment" or whatever, but the JPost pseudo-survey provides no evidence that more than, say, 6 of the 77k SA Jews feel the way claimed (quite literally; I don't particularly doubt that the sentiment is more widespread than that, but the JPost source provides no evidence for that hunch). LotLE×talk 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, forecasthighs.com, a blog, can't be used as source in a BLP. That's not an option so someone will need to track down the JPost piece via Google's cache or JPost's new dysfunctional beta site....okay, here you go. Jonund, 'a reporter sounding out the opinions is no doubt sufficient here' ? In a BLP ? You can't be serious. Information in a BLP has to be true. We must know and be able to demonstrate that it is true. We can't include the unscientific, subjective conclusions of a JP journalist about the standing of a living person in a community of 70,000+ individuals when those conclusions are based on an unknown number of telephone interviews using an unspecified method to select the sample group especially when the evidence, the statistical results aren't even presented. The information provided in JP isn't even close to being a reliable source for demonstrably true statements about Goldstone's standing. It raises gigantic North Korean military parade proportion WP:REDFLAGs. Sure we can say that according to JPost X, a prominent zionist said Y but why are we even supposed to care about the feelings of a handful of people in SA ? What does it have to do with writing a factual biography about Goldstone ? Does it matter if a handful of people in SA think he's great and someone writes an article about it ? I don't think so. It isn't encyclopedic. Why South African Jews by the way ? Isn't that undue weight ? Do we normally go around adding soundbite information about the standing of people in their BLPs based on some telephone calls by a journalist to a couple of people with the same citizenship and ethnic group ? Are we going to add info about the standing of Pritzker Prize winners like Peter Zumthor's amongst Swiss people from the Basel where 3 borders meet or info about Paulo Mendes da Rocha from white or is it pardo Brazilians ? Seems like a very odd way of going about things. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question at WP:RSN and hope to get other's views about the validity of JP's article.

Right now, I will only add a couple of things. It doesn't matter where the JP article has been reproduced, what is important is where it was originally published. Thanks, Sean, for the cache-link, but I think it's better to link to forecasthighs.com, since the cache is likely to expire (of course we have the print edition, but web-access is preferable.)

The reporter bases his conclusions not only on the personal opinions of those he has spoken with, but on their knowledge of the reactions in their community. --Jonund (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your adding the material is inconsistent with consensus here and the comments at your RSN entry are insufficient for you to justify any action. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so to me. You and LotLE disagree with me and AtSwimTwoBirds, who provided a comment for this RfC. That is not a consensus against my edit. On the RSN page, one editor agreed directly with me and the other two raised objections based on misunderstandings, but had no further objections after the misunderstandings were cleared out. --Jonund (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland and others who think the material should be left out. You really need to back it up with more sources if you want to make such a bold statement here. Jonund - why are you so keen to include it anyway? Pexise (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bold statement. I think it's I who have reason to ask why you are so keen to exclude the paragraph. It's supported by a reliable source and relevant to the article. Four people offering outside opinions have been unanimous in accepting the authority of a JP news article. --Jonund (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that we should be dealing with facts here - if this is a fact, you should be able to find another source to back it up, otherwise, why include it? And I'll tell you why I'm keen to exclude it: because no one has provided another source to back up the claim, therefore I don't think it is notable or reliable as a fact. Pexise (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have multiple sources, nor is there any reason to believe that all facts are reported by numerous easily accessible sources. None of the editors who have offered outside comments have seen a need for additional sources. --Jonund (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article is correct or not - newspapers have been known to exaggerate :) - the wording of the entry doesn't reflect what was said. There's no mention of "disgust", nor that his "standing has plummeted". It's clearly a POV addition as it currently stands. There are also numerous articles in support of Goldstone in the South African media, for example [6] and [7]. The former article mentions various attacks on his integrity, and the latter criticism from South Africa's Chief Rabbi. As would be expected in a situation such as this where most people are divided and emotional, any criticism is treated harshly, and of course he would be attacked by South African Zionists. So, broadly, his standing in that community has taken a knock. The whole section is quite poorly written, various out-of-context additions and quotes, but this also expected in a contested current affair. Why are RW Johnson and Letty Pogrebin specifically mentioned, for example? Greenman (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The dishonest posturing by Jonund would almost be funny if it were not destructive of the article. Not one single other editor has supported the WP:SOAPBOX addition, of course. But Jonund has misleadingly asked over on RSN whether "JPost" meets WP:RS, in vague and generic terms. Of course JPost is fine in some general way as a potential source. Of course, Jonund doesn't actually cite JPost in the addition, but rather some blog that indirectly references JPost's pseudo-poll. But even if the citation were to a WP:RS, that doesn't mean it should automatically be included if it lacks relevance and balance (as in this case). Moreover, the insertion fails yet again on the grounds the Jonund even desperately misreads and selectively misquotes the attack blog he finds as a source. LotLE×talk 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the wording of the paragraph do reflect what was said. The article makes it perfectly clear that RG's standing has plummeted among SA Jews; disgust seems to be a fair desription of the sentiments expressed.

I have refered to the specific article in my RSN, and the editors have read it, so their inputs are to the point. As I said, none of them have indicated objections to the paragraph beyond those based on misunderstandings. Editors typically aim at good articles; it's hardly reasonable to assume that those who respond to RFCs don't care about other aspects. LotLE's continuing insistence that the JP article is somehow less authentic because it's cited from the author's blogg - where it appears exactly as it did in the newspaper - is sheer dumbness. He should spare himself the embarrassment of using this kind of argument. --Jonund (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonund - have you found another source yet to back up the claim? Pexise (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for multiple sources. --Jonund (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying there are no other sources which would back up this claim? Pexise (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to all sources. --Jonund (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have asked you to provide further sources to back up the claim. I suggest you leave this material out of the article until more sources are available which could prove or disprove the assertion. Until that time, it is too controversial to include based on just one problematic source. Pexise (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the material until further sources are provided. Sole Soul (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Information is not controversial just because some WP editors don't want to include it. Their opinions don't easily overturn the normal WP procedures. Our POVs may influence our judgement, and most who want to exclude the paragraph have a clear POV. Of those who appear to be disinterested, only one of six would like to see more sources. --Jonund (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who do you consider to be disinterested? Pexise (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick check gives me the impression that AtSwimTwoBirds, Wehwalt, The Four Deuces, Slatersteven, Greenman and Sole Soul are disinterested, or at least don't share my POV. --Jonund (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds do you suggest that I am not disinterested? Pexise (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict makes it clear where you stand. --Jonund (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So where do you stand? Are you disinterested? Pexise (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have an unfavorable opinion of Goldstone. My point was that the overwhelming majority of those who appear disinterested agree with my edit. That may indicate that I was right this time. --Jonund (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your edit - can you be more specific please? Pexise (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonund, let someone uninvolved interpret the consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, of those who appear to be disinterested, only one of six would like to see more sources. I think it's fair to say that it's an overwhelming majority of those editors who don't see a need for more sources.

Of course, they have not explicitly endorsed my edit, since that was not what I asked for, but neither have they expressed reservations and (as I have explained) editors typically aim at good articles; it's hardly reasonable to assume that those who respond to RFCs don't care about other aspects. --Jonund (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone included in Jonund's "disinterested" list, let me clarify that I do not endorse his edit. And it took me a while to realise that Jonund means "neutral" where he says "disinterested". Is that correct? "Disinterested" has a rather more negative connotation that I think is causing misunderstanding. I would like to see some South African sources for the apparent "disgust". Since we're dealing with a BLP, more than one newspaper opinion piece is necessary, and if the reaction has been as strong as claimed there should be other sources available. Greenman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I meant neutral (the word has different meanings).

Isn't "disgust" a fair description of the sentiments expressed in the article? Anyway, we can find another word.

I can't see why a BLP would require more than one source in this case. The claim is not exceptional, nor is it particularly embarrassing for Goldstone. Public figures face impopularity at times. I think it's pretentious to say that there should be other sources available if the reaction was as strong as claimed. The reaction among South African Jewry was easily drowned in the avalanche of criticism that was directed at him, and I suppose newspapers were more interested in the opinions of Israelis, who were a part in the conflict, as well as political analysts, human rights activists and experts of international law. The quality of the source matters more than the quantity. --Jonund (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonund: you appear to be flogging a dead horse here. Rather than trying to enter into an argument about wikipedia rules and procedures, why not spend your time looking for another source to back up the claim - then we could discuss it further. At the moment, you have not offered anything new, so the discussion can't move forward. If you can't find any other source to back up the claim, then it would appear that no other source exists. In that case, we must ask ourselves: if this is a notable fact, why are there no other sources? Pexise (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that I should forget WP rules and procedures and simply adopt your position. I'd like to be convinced rather than persuaded. No WP policy requires multiple sources in this case.

It's not a valid conclusion that a lack of easily available sources means that no other sources have reported the phenomenon. The majority of newspaper content isn't online. In fact, I did offer something new. I answered the objection you repeat by mentioning some reasons why there is no more easily available sources. --Jonund (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to adopt my position, I'm asking you to provide more sources. If you can't provide any, perhaps another editor can find more sources to back up the claim? Pexise (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your position is that multiple sources are needed. That's exactly the matter under discussion.

It's hard to know which editors might have special access to such sources as are most likely to report about an issue like this. --Jonund (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if you read carefully the rules under WP:BLP you will see why other editors are cautious about this edit. Pexise (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that it exists to protect people from material that "can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends". I cannot see how this could be the case with the information that Goldstone became far less popular among SA Jews following his report. Hence, BLP is not relevant. --Jonund (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's for you to judge how an edit would effect the person involved. Pexise (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. Who else should do it if not WP editors? If somebody claims that Goldstone's life may be seriously affected by the information that he became much less popular among SA Jews, he has to argue for that. --Jonund (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say in the WP:BLP policy that judgement about whether material will "seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends" should be based on the discretion of Wikipedia editors? Pexise (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see how impossible that argument is? Wikipedia is made by WP editors. There is no one else to make the judgements about how information would affect people. --Jonund (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think anyone should make a judgement about how something would effect people. The rule is that all information on a BLP should be treated with great caution regardless. Pexise (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Most of the information is not treated with any special caution. We even allow "Citation needed" where appropriate. The reason is simple: the information is harmless and doesn't require multiple sources. According to the judgement of WP editors, that is. --Jonund (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting you can just ignore the rules on BLP when you want to? Pexise (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. I suggest that those who have written this and other BLPs have interpreted WP:BLP correctly, and we should follow practise. The policy says: "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment" (not "The possibility of harm to living subjects means that there is no room for the exercising of editorial judgment.") --Jonund (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my view is that this is precisely the sort of material that we need to be cautious about. Pexise (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the information that Goldstone became much less popular among SA Jews following his report may seriously affect his life or the life of his family, colleagues and friends? --Jonund (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I am suggesting that poorly sourced or contentious material *could* cause harm, as stated in the BLP rules. Pexise (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe your position. Goldstone, a man accustomed to hard criticism, would suffer serious harm by the information that he has lost his popularity among SA Jews?

Maybe you have misunderstood something. The potential of causing harm is a question distinct from the reliability of the source and controversy over the material. RSs are required in order to avoid information that is both harmful and false, not because poor sources or disputed material cause harm in themselves. It's the nature of the information that has to be considered. --Jonund (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I thing you are mis-interpreting the rules on BLP - all information on a BLP should be carefully and reliably sourced because any information on a BLP could potentially cause harm to the subject. Exercising editorial judgement is about considering the reliability and the sourcing of the facts. Pexise (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the documentation for restricting the meaning of "exercising editorial judgement" to considering the reliability and the sourcing of the facts? And why speak of exercising editorial judgement at all if you have a clear rule that applies to all circumstances?

As I have mentioned, editing BLP:s doesn't work that way. Most of the information is not treated with any special caution. In fact, interpreting WP:BLP the way you mention would entail an extensive rewriting of countless of BLPs. --Jonund (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial judgement is not speculation about how things will effect people's lives, it is judgement about how we publish facts and sources on Wikipedia. Pexise (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you to answer the two questions in my previous post? And tell me how you would deal with the problem of established practice. Are you ready to propose an extensive rewriting of countless BLPs to bring them in conformity with your interpretation of WP:BLP? --Jonund (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. It says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced— whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Pexise (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are not able to answer my questions?

As for your quote, it's explicitly about contentious material. Now we are dealing merely with Goldstone's shrinking popularity. --Jonund (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles now, I can't see that any progress has been made. Furthermore, you have still provided no further sources to back up the claim. I stand by my view that this material should definitely not be included. I see no point in us discussing it further. If other editors have something to add I will be interested to hear it. Pexise (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we haven't been going round in circles. You have been put against the wall and been unable to counter my arguments. You have failed to explain why I should provide further sources. You just assume it. Such demands, however, should be grounded in WP policy. --Jonund (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes we have - I actually said that this material is contentious in an earlier post, which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Regardless, you and I are making no progress whatsoever. At the moment there is no consensus to include the material, you have done nothing to change my mind, if you have convinced other editors, I will be interested to hear what they have to say. Until you provide further sources, however, our discussion is over. Pexise (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You asserted that the material is contentious, but you have never given evidence for that. If it has been contested, please bring up an RS substantiating that. Information does not become contentious by virtue of WP editors's antipathies.

In fact, it's pathetic to claim that no progress is being made when you have been asked questions which you are not able to answer. You can either counter my arguments or admit that your opposition to the information was unjustified. --Jonund (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting argumentative and offering false ultimatums won't help your case either. I've made it clear what you can do to convince me: provide more sources. I first asked you to provide more sources on 12 February - more than a month and a half ago - you still haven't found any. I suggest you spend your time and energy looking for sources. Pexise (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your unwillingness to admit your failure. As the discussion has demonstrated, there is no requirement for more sources in WP policy. Your avoidance of my questions is an expressive silence. Unless you can demontrate that there is, indeed, such a requirement, your opposition is a wasted effort. Exclusion of information cannot be based on editors' disliking of the information. --Jonund (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My objections have not been based on whether or not I like the information, they have consistently been about the poor sourcing (only one questionable source to back up the claims in the material). These concerns are shared by several other editors. The fact that you are unable to provide any other sources suggests that no other sources are available which makes the material seem even more questionable. I have already made these two points before, so we are now definitely going round in circles - we can resume discussion when you find more sources (another point I have already made). Pexise (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't understood what I have said. I'm well aware that you think there should be more sources. But this is exactly what you should give cause for. Instead, you have run away from my arguments. Answer my questions before you start talking about going round in circles. Asking me to give more sources is vainglorious; I have no reason do do that.

Since there is nothing in WP policy that requires more than one RS in this case - and JP is an RS, as several editors have testified - "poor sourcing" is not a convincing explanation for your wish to exclude the information. --Jonund (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Blp#Public_figures. The information needs to be 'notable, relevant, and well-documented'. Is it these 3 things ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has been reported by an RS. --Jonund (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland has captured the problems with the silly proposed addition: (1) It's not notable; (2) It's not relevant; (3) It's not well-documented. I suppose one could add (4) Only one WP:SOAPBOX editor actually advocates it. LotLE×talk 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception and criticism are matters that are important, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. A sudden change in perception says something about the controversial nature of the things that led to that change (although it doesn't mean the guy must have been wrong). A broad deprecation from a group which a person belongs to is of interest because it prevents the impression that he is more or less representative of his group.

The other alleged problems have been answered in the previous discussion. --Jonund (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the information 'notable, relevant, and well-documented' => "Yes, it has been reported by an RS". Did you notice the plural in "If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources" from Wikipedia:Blp#Public_figures and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." from WP:UNDUE ? If it is notable please demonstrate that is notable by finding the multiple sources that establish its notability. If it is notable it will be easy. That is what notable means.

"a group which a person belongs to is of interest because it prevents the impression that he is more or less representative of his group.", pardon ? Which policy urges us to prevent the impression that someone is more or less representative of 'his group'? So, are we are going to deploy 'his group' based assessment metrics for BLP subjects based on the group editors want to put them in now ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the first quote is from a section with the subheading "Presumption in favor of privacy". That highlights the purpose of it - protecting people from exposure of sensitive information. There's nothing private about Goldstone's public reception. The second quote is about disproportionate coverage, not notability. It doesn't say that proper weight requires that more than one RS are available - which would be a significant rule and formulated explicitly, if it were so - on the contrary, it is from a context (WP:WEIGHT) which says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

WP should give the readers a fair chance to form their opinions about the representativity of persons to their groups by reporting information that has bearing on the question. Giving a true picture of reality means that misconceptions are prevented. --Jonund (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA reinserting rejected material

The single-purpose account Jonund (talk · contribs · logs) has inserted this same blog nonsense several times since it has been unanimously rejected in this long discussion. I have reverted it when I see it, but I could use help from other editors to keep an eye on this. I guess the fallback is to do one of those laborious and annoying administrative procedures to get the account blocked, but I really don't have the time for all that work (although I'm sure such would be the final result). Please help! LotLE×talk 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

LotLE, I think your post above demonstrates how far out of touch with reality you are. Your failure to see that my contributions are constructive and focus on a broad topic says a lot about yourself.

If you claim that the information in question is anything but neutral and reliable, you have to argue for that. I have patiently refuted all arguments against it, but I will listen if you bring up something new. Your reference to the info as "blog nonsense", however, indicates that you are unable to grasp the most elementary things.

Far from being unanimously rejected, the requests have revealed that most disinterested editors seem to have no problems with the passage (although they have not explicitly taken side for or against it, since the questions have been about particular aspects, rather than endorsement/rejection). (I was not the one who originally created the passage, by the way.)

Your idea about having me blocked was both amusing and revealing. I suggest that you try that - it might give you some self-knowledge. --Jonund (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that I'm not in support of this edit as it currently stands, in spite of the minor changes made since the beginning. And, to my reading, nor are the majority of editors above. Please stop attempting to restore it. It's out of place and I see no point to it. As a response, there could equally validly be a paragraph about his increased standing amongst Palestinian women. Then, degenerating, his decreased popularity amongst bar mitzvah planners. That's besides the reliability of the source. This article, more reliably (since it's a South African publication and the opinion is presumably not based on a few phone calls made in the heat of the moment), concludes "The report was met with widespread hostility by some in the South African Jewish Community", a much more balanced phrase than the rather hysterical "standing in the South African Jewish community plummeted", which, obviously incorrectly, paints the community as a homogeneous mass. Greenman (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the sources reporting about a sudden widespread admiration of Goldstone among Palestinian women? Anyway, whatever they may think about him, there is no correspondence between liking a man you have not previously had an opinion about and changing opinion about a person you have held in high esteem. Neither do the reactions of a community far away have a pertinence to Goldstone comparable to the reactions of his own community.

JP is a perfectly reliable source and the article is written by a man who grew up and was educated in SA. He made a professional news report about Goldstone's standing in the SA Jewish community. Mail & Guardian, on the other hand, just makes a brief mention without giving any details. Its slightly contradictory wording (widespread hostility by some) gives the impression that the formulation is not well thought-out. On the other hand, the same reporter says in another article: "The report was met [with] widespread hostility by the South African Jewish Community", which is exactly what JP claims.

You seem to have misundertood the notion of balance. Reporting moderate reactions is no sign of balance, just as reporting strong reactions is no sign of hysteria. The idea that there could be no plummeting of Goldstone's standing in the SA Jewish community, due to the trivial fact that no community is unanimous, is confused, as you may understand on second thought. --Jonund (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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)