Misplaced Pages

Talk:United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 23 October 2009 (→move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:46, 23 October 2009 by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (→move)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Error: Target page was not specified with to.
In the newsA news item involving United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 October 2009.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages

more on impartiality

Eye On the UN notes that 3 members of the mission (Goldstone, Travers and Jilani) signed an open letter, published 16 March 2009, addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council Ambassadors, expressing "shock" over the events in Gaza and asking to hold those who perpetrated "gross violations of the laws of war," "gross violations of international humanitarian law" and "targeting of civilians" to account. --Sceptic from Ashdod 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there something to indicate that Eye On the UN's opinions are of sufficient weight to merit inclusion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
EOTU's opinion maybe irrelevant, but the letter does exist and I'll find it later. We have excerpts from Chinkin's letter and refer directly into it. The same could be done here. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what Warren Goldstein says: The other three members, Judge Richard Goldstone, Hina Jilani and Desmond Travers, all signed a letter initiated by Amnesty International stating: "Events in Gaza have shocked us to the core." Thus, all four members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work. I think it is notable enough.

→The letter. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is getting a bit long, do you really think that including all that would improve it's encyclopedic value? I'd tend to agree if they'd written a letter to the effect that the deaths of over a thousand people hadn't shocked them, but this sounds tangential. --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whats the reason to bring this up? Its speaking in favour of the involved imo. If it is a argument some 'Israel supportes' try to use for casting doubt on these persons its a desperate act. But I might be wrong. Remember, they are not a court. Courts will be working in Israel and Gaza or in Hague if things dont work.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you read what is written above? "...members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work" - to argue that the fact-finding mission is exempt from impartiality principles is nonsense, and that is exactly what Hilel Neuer said when the mission rejected his petition to recuse prof. Chinkin. You can disagree, point out NPOV or whatever you like, but the point has a very significant encyclopedic value, the same that argues that prof. Chinkin was not supposed to be part of the committee. --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, Eye on the UN accuse Goldstone and their team of blood libel which seems quite spectacular and yet you have picked the impartiality issue from their site. Establishing due weight or deciding whether something even merits inclusion is normally done by RS rather us. It's not clear on what basis have you established that 'the point has a very significant encyclopedic value'. Are there better sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can live without EyeOnTheUN. But I put above (in case you didn't notice) that rabbi Dr. Goldstein, a lawyer himself, says in JPost exactly the same - "...members of the Mission, including Goldstone himself, expressed public opinions concerning the Gaza conflict before they began their work", and this is not how independant unbiased credible judicial, quazi-judicial or fact-finding committee should be. --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to say here, unless it's that the members of the Mission were unfit in which case I'm not sure you should be editing. Whenever there are scandals over priests abusing children, the investigation is run by people who've expressed concern about the problem. The people we can't trust are those who might be trying to play down the problem because they are friendly with some of the accused. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus on the report

Hi Wikifellows. I noted that in other articles touching this subject reactions to the report take up more space than the report itself. Wouldnt it better to first focus on the report, its background and its history for a good encyclopedic article from the begining and make sure reactions are of the notable kind and written in a way not making article chopped with claims and counterclaims. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To start this in lead:
"The resolution, mission and subsequent report by the controversial UNHRC received mixed reactions. Responses arguing that the resolution, the report or both were flawed, politically motivated or imbalanced against Israel were heard from the governments of the United States and Israel, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, UN Watch, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, NGO Monitor and Irwin Cotler. Responses arguing that the report should be taken seriously and its charges investigated were heard from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Richard Falk. Responses taking both of these positions were heard from former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and B'Tselem."
could be condensed to th first sentence:
"The resolution, mission and subsequent report by the controversial UNHRC received mixed reactions" Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Second, the report itself should be the first section after lead. Now its almost hard to find it, and that is not good. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree on everything that you wrote, I won't elaborate now being short of time. However, two points: 1) please take into consideration that the entry is about the "mission", not the report; 2) i'll expand the report's section to include more details, just give me some time (you see that your initial proposal was taken seriously, but it took some time). So, what i'm asking - give me more time, and after i expand the report's section, we'll address other concerns. OK? --Sceptic from Ashdod 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Time. Ok I can wait a few days because you ask, exept for the lead. Entry se below. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where exactly Israel refusal to cooperate and its intention should be placed. Maby it need a own section. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename to 'Goldstone Report' 'The Goldstone Report'

The report and its message is more noteworthy than the mission. With the articles structure, and the argument to keep it so because the name, the message of the report is not easy availible far down in article. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The name of the mission's report is not "The Goldstone Report", but "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right, but 'Goldstone report' is what is common used. It makes a better title too. The question is notability. The report is more noteworthy than the mission and its better to rename it now when artice still is new. But if you insist I will support your naming. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions Use common name with redirects Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For some examples to look at The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy is at Warren Commission, the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut is at Kahan Commission, the Commission to Investigate the Lebanon Campaign in 2006 is at Winograd Commission. But it should be titled Goldstone Report not The Goldstone Report. nableezy - 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. 'Goldstone Report'. Im not sure how to do it but I think there is consensus. Anyone? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is when Jalapenos and me, who hold different view, agree. So far you don't have even majority. I need time to think it over, but so far I object. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus obviously (but Sceptic, 3/5 is a majority, not that that means anything), but the policy is clear. WP:NC says to use the common English name of a topic as the title of the article. This is overwhelmingly referred to as the "Goldstone Report". WP:COMMONNAME has site wide consensus, so if there is a reason to ignore it we can but there has to be a reason to do so. nableezy - 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favour of the rename, when readers search for information on this page they're thinking of the Goldstone report, not the "fact-finding mission", so a rename would make information compiled here much more readily accessible. --Dailycare (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, 4/6. I want some time to study the policy. Meanwhile, what's the rush? "Goldstone report" redirects to the entry. Besides, the entry is about the whole mission, not the report. This is unseparable. I mean not only the report sparked controversy, but the whole mission - the resolution, composition, practices - everything. --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, change the name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "the most common English-language name" should be the title. I think it's pretty clear cut on this. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an article on the report should be named Goldstone Report and not Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. However, the report is a sub-topic of the mission, and this article is about the broader topic of the mission. If the article gets too long, we can spin out and summarize the sections on the report itself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what I keep on saying. And this is the reason why I revert someone's edit that says "...the mission"..."also known as Goldstone report"... - in the lead of the current entry it makes nonsense. --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I raise the question of moving the article to Goldstone Report again. Jalapenos and Sceptics argument falling as the report is more noteworthy than its creationprocess and the drama surounding it. To spinn of a article named 'United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict ' is not good either as it is included in the background in this article. Also refering to WP:COMMONNAME. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's have "Goldstone Report". 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Kemp speaks again

at UNHRC. --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cant for the world say he is an independent voice on the matter. Mind that this might spill over to USA:s warfare and make a huge line outside the courts Hage after the Israelis and the Hamasguys.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw, why did the links at the top of article disapper? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Because they are not supposed to be there like that. nableezy - 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Among the external links is 'Understanding the Goldstone Report'. It dont fill any function as it is of blog quality. the presentation "a web site dedicated to this subject. Includes a collection of media articles and original content. Created by a collective of pro-Israel bloggers" seems correct so... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to Kemp. 'and took "unthinkable" risks by allowing huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza during the fighting'. Do anyone than me found this commentary strange? Is he a military expert that have any credit at all as a neutral commentator? All I see is apologises for Israel. He is not a independent voice. Not enough NPOV. Either we remove it or ballance it. Discuss please. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Being in the recent past the commander of the British forces in Afghanistan makes him a military expert. He himself had to make similar decisions back there. If you'll read section on the matter of humanitarian aid in the Int_Law article and go to the redirecting links, maybe you'll realize that his remarks are no strange at all. You can argue his impartiality, since he made a speech on behalf of UN Watch - but he is a notable figure. If you'll stumble upon someone to balance him, you are welcome. --Sceptic from Ashdod 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the section and specially the Kemp part problematic. Untill its NPOV and accurate I suggest NPOV-taging. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for section Academia and journalism. Not NPOV. Discuss and propose changes. Othervise I suggest to remove them and merge the Povish part in other sections well attributed and stated as biased posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the authors of this article are obviously POV; all the classic connotations are there, such as arbitrarly sandwiching the neglected side's meager substance between thick and repetitive loaves of subjective argumentation, which surcharge the article with imbalance and drowns what should be the central elements, the report itself. I came here to see what the report was about and what I've got is blog.74.59.35.70 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)MVictorP


--- Kemp's comments are pure conjecture and their inclusion is actually a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy. He wasn't there on the ground. He does not have any first hand knowledge of the issue. More to the point, it is clear that he either does not value his own credibility as a military commander, or he hasn't read the Goldstone report, for if he had, he wouldn't have made such ludicrous claims while putting his own credibility on the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.202.31 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but as a one who read the report and been here for a while, I say you are incorrect in both points. If someone will insist, I'll prove it. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Detailed breakdown

Do we need it? "The countries that voted against the report included the U.S., Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Ukraine. China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua and Nigeria voted in favor of the report. The abstaining countries included: Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameron, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay. Madagascar and Kyrgyzstan were not present during the vote." Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola declined to vote. --Sceptic from Ashdod 20:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

focus of the article

this article is currently about 62 kB. Slightly over 10% of the article is about the actual report. 40% of the article is dedicated to "reactions to the report", another 10% to "reactions to the resolution", another 10% to "reactions to the composition". This article needs a drastic change in direction, we cant be putting in every single persons objections, it is overwhelming coverage of the actual subject of the article. We need to summarize the important bits from each of the reactions section. nableezy - 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It must be reiterated, though, that the section about the actual report needs to be expanded. I think that we're missing now some key points. The Squicks (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In the future, it might be a good idea to spin off articles (just like what we did at Gaza War) such as 'International reaction to the Goldstone report'. The Squicks (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
As I promised recently to Anon, I will expand it.
Some sections will be separated. --Sceptic from Ashdod 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem have to do with the history of earler articles, which this article is splitted from. Before the endorsement, before the Goldston Reports presentation, before Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was mandated, etc. The structure is not up to date. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

International reaction to the report amounts to yellow journalism. Due to the following reasons: 1. The definition of the word "international" needs to be clarified. Does it refer to states, organizations, non-state actors? 2. Assuming "international" is in reference to states, then not every state will have necessarily commented on the report. So, an inclusion of a few cherry picked comments would be in violation of neutrality. 3. The United Nations represents the member countries. There is no point in seeking outside opinions from the statements made by the countries in attendance during the vote on the report. 4. Reactions to the report are irrelevant. This isn't a talk show and we're not hosting guest speakers. This article should stick to the facts made in the report and include a short statement from each of the immediate parties involved (e.g. Goldstone himself, Hamas, Israel) and that's it. - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.202.31 (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

'Goldstone Report' section

I propose that the section now called 'Goldstone Report' is renamed to 'Goldstone Report findings', to be clearer to the reader. I then propose that the section be broken up into the parts- 'Statements about Israeli actions' and 'Statements about Palestinian actions'. The Israeli sub-section can then be divided further based on the specific, separate charges= 'White phosphorous allegations', 'Blockade of Gaza allegations', 'Human shields allegations', and 'Civilian targeting allegations'. The Palestinian section can be divided into= 'Human shields allegations' and 'Rocket and mortar use allegations'. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'd like to base at least some of their findings on their methodologies, if you don't mind. --Sceptic from Ashdod 04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
'Goldstone Report findings' will go well with a move to 'Goldstone Report'. As its now its better unchanged. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Statements" about ....actions.

This has no place in this article. Where are these statements coming from and what authority do those making the statements have in the first place? Anyone can make a statement, regardless of credentials, but that doesn't make the statement factual, neutral or relevant.

Has anyone on here actually read the report? At the very least, the detailed conclusion of the report should be included in this article. I will organize the bullet points as listed in the report and post them here in the coming days.

The entire report can be found in PDF at this link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

-Jim

citing format

a request to other editors, particularly to Anon - i suggest we use the following template:

<ref name="YYY">, Publisher, Date</ref>

when in edting mode, it is hard to read the text, and when the ref is 5 lines long it makes it even harder. Also, the period should be before the ref, not after. --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Honorifics for Goldstone

I tried counting how many different honorifics were used in this article for Richard Goldstone (not including section headers, direct quotes, or anything "the Goldstone").

  • no honorific - 21
  • judge - 3
  • Judge - 3
  • Justice - 2
  • justice - 1
  • prosecutor - 1

South Africa might address a non-seated constitutional judge, or a seated Transvaal Supreme Court judge (his biography does not list an end date to that seat), by a specific honorific, but it will not be judge/Judge/justice/Justice. Most definitely was he not acting as a prosecutor (a U.N. post he held from 1994-1996) when he led the mission. Which of the other five should it be, or none at all?. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Meanwhile, a criticism directed at Goldstone himself. --Sceptic from Ashdod 15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your linked article: except for the introductory line that uses his title ("Judge") and first name, Goldstone is never referred to as anything other than "Goldstone." BBC references call him "Mr. Goldstone" (barring article titles and introductory paragraphs). This constancy in honorifics (or lack thereof) is a joy for me to see, and I wish it happened in this Wiki article. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

one of the harshest criticisms

in the mass-media publication that I've seen so far: Much of the 575-page document was cut and pasted from unsubstantiated and suspect reports from nongovernmental organizations with openly anti-Israel sentiments. Some of the "witnesses" interviewed by the mission were disguised Hamas officials. The fact that Hamas loves the report should raise eyebrows about its contents. --Sceptic from Ashdod 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As an opinion piece by a newspaper editorial board, that's not really notable and not really relevant in this context. The Squicks (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances, I would not have a problem citing that. But this article has too much on that topic as is. Perhaps when, International reaction to the Goldstone Report is created it can go there. The Squicks (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a particularly serious newspaper, but I believe the specific criticisms of plagiarism from prejudiced sources and uncritical acceptance of propaganda as eyewitness testimony come from in-depth analyses by NGO Monitor and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, among other organizations. Worth checking, if someone has the time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstones latest op-ed in JPost, and a response. --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just what exactly do you mean by "not a particularly serious newspaper"? Is it RS or not? Anyway, it indeed echoes Monitor's bulletin on the issue - The direct references to the most frequently cited NGOs include: B’Tselem: 56 citations

Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR): 50 Al Haq: 40 Adalah: 38 Human Rights Watch (HRW): 36 Defence of Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS): 28 Breaking the Silence: 27 Amnesty International: 27 --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an RS, but it is not a notable POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the statement "not a particularly serious newspaper" to be a bit baffling, but- as stated before- the central point here is that the article is not that notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the excerpt I placed above, I find this opinion of yours extremely bizarre. However, taking into consideration that 2 of you say the same, I'll give it a break for now. Inform me if you change your mind though. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Today's dispatch: 1. founder of HRW criticises HRW. not directly related (but if we recall that Goldstone was until recently from HRW and defended Roth, and Roth pushed Goldstone hard...)

2. another criticism by pro-Israeli american Jew.

3. criticism from some Harold at CIF

4. criticism of UNHRC's resolution from the New Republic. --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

direct criticism of Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So-called "Military Experts"

Why is a biased military person included under the Military Experts section?

Kemp works for the American Jewish Committee.

His "opinion" is biased and its inclusion is violation of POV.

Please sign you posts. You have misinterpreted WP:NPOV. See the 'Bias' section and the 'A simple formulation' section. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel Wants to Change International Law

Today, 10/20/2009, Netanyahu asked his cabinet to put together proposals to change the international law of war so as to allow international legitimacy for future attacks, similar to the one carried out in Gaza earlier this year.

This should be included in the article.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/21/content_12284381.htm

If no one includes it within a week, I will be posting a whole section about it myself. 173.63.170.19 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. The Squicks (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've signed it for him. I'd never heard of this, but its in the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256037270297 and Haaretz and al-Jazeera and all sorts. if the Goldstone report causes changes in International law then we should be pleased and mention it in this connection. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Who" tag

Why did you place it, Sean? You know exactly who they are, and there is a comprehensive detailing in the 2nd section of the article. What do you want me to do, to name them one by one in the 1st section (which is a sort of summary)? I can do that - UN Watch, prof. Irwin Cotler, dr. Goldstein, international lawyer Alan Baker, 2 groups of lawers from UK and Canada. --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I added them because in my view a reader should be able to easily see who is saying what without having to understand the global structure of the article or search for details or install Navigation popups so that the links to the refs are easily accessible etc. What I know about anything won't help them. I think it's better to be clear and attribute opinions to identifiable orgs/people rather than assign them to a set of 'critics'. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood. So you suggest to name them, right? --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would have done it myself but I'm pressed for time. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is quite big. Little more than half of it is responses and reactions to the report (the last part from "All stages of the investigation generated significant scrutiny. The Economist ...") Is the lead right place for that much details regarding the responses to the report? From a NPOV perspective does it looks like ballansing POV parts filling up much space and can be condesed without any conserns of NPOV- problems. And it can be done without dimish the importanse of the critic against the report. Focusing that part may actually put strengt that message. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite adding a little bit to the lead myself (the FT calling the report a warning) I agree, there is far too much on the Economist facing both ways and far too much on the mandate being changed.
Why does actual criticism need mentioning? Just say that neither involved party was happy about it. Of course the minority opinion are not happy, that explains why they voted against it. If they're to have a second bite at the cherry in the lead, then every one who voted for the report needs quoting too, and that would be plain silly. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I like to move following from lead to sections below. It dont belong there and the removal of this text will make lead less heavy.
  • The Economist has mixed opinions on the final report publishing two distinct responses to it. The first, published on September 9, 2009 said that "the cases detailed in the commission's report are far too serious to ignore" and that "Israel's response has been to launch a campaign to discredit the report as 'biased'". Second response published on September 19, 2009 denouncing the report as "deeply flawed" and tainted by anti-Israel prejudice in the UNHRC. The Financial Times stated that the report should have shaken the Israeli consensus that its actions were justified.
  • B'Tselem responded with a number of other human rights organizations in a statement saying that they "expect the Government of Israel to respond to the substance of the report's findings and to desist from its current policy of casting doubt upon the credibility of anyone who does not adhere to the establishment's narrative." At the same time, the Executive Director of B'Tselem criticized the "very careful phrasing regarding Hamas abuses" as well as supposedly sweeping conclusions regarding Israel.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a lot more than that is removed and obviously there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the article itself. I propose removal of the following sections.
  • Everything in the 3rd paragraph spanning "Mary Robinson, ...the mandate was reinterpreted."
  • Everything spanning "Amnesty International urged ...conclusions regarding Israel." i.e. all commentary to be replaced with something simple like Reactions to the final report were mixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The slimmed down lead is a big improvement - though I still don't understand the point of: "The reactions from government and organisations was mixed. Some urged endorsement of the report and implementation of its recommendations. Others arguing that the resolution, the report or both were flawed, politically motivated or imbalanced." Some parties didn't agree - but we know that because they voted against. Cut out verbiage, particularly useless bits! 86.158.184.158 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not a native english speaker so please make something better out of it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
And I agree that the Mary Robinson 'The resolution mandating the mission led to difficulties... can remain somwhere else and not in the lead.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'Mary Robinson part' is back in lead. Is that part of the event notable enough to have in lead? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it was extremely significant that two of the people offered the job refused it because they perceived that the resolution was biased. Also, given that most of the article seems to be talking about bias, it seems doubly relevant. Perhaps the wording of the paragraph is not optimal, but there doesn't seem much doubt to me that the bias issue is notable. By-the-way, no-one seems to have explained why that paragraph should be removed - all I can identify are statements proposing removal, not explaining why it should be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
When selecting personnel, various candidates often refuse for whatever reasons, it's normal and a fact of life. Furthermore, since the mandate was de facto broadened to address specifically that reason, the reason for Robinsons refusal has since disappeared, which makes her refusal even more of an insignificant detail. This article is getting a bit long, so we shouldn't include material that isn't informative. --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Due weight with respect to issues like Mary Robinson is meant to be determined by the extent to which information appears in reliable sources rather than our opinions about their significance as editors. Some of these issues feature prominently in small subsets of the large number of reliable sources at are disposal from around the world. Focusing excessively on those small subsets and their viewpoints is probably why most of the article seems to be talking about bias. Unfortunately (wiki) editors often tend to look for the information they want to find which inevitably skews the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

advocacy

Please be aware of the latest coordinated advocacy efforts here http://www.goldstonereport.org/about-us that may attract editors unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages mandatory policies (since it specifically mentions a wiki article). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

please explain what do you mean. --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Which bit isn't clear ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral note split into 2 hopelessly partisan notes for clarity
  • There's a really great new site full of fascinating and accurate information about the Goldstone report built by highly respected expert sources. Since at least one wiki article (Zeitoun incident) is mentioned on the site and the site deals with the subject of this article it's possible that it may attract a whole bunch of throughly superb new, right-thinking editors who could improve this article enormously. They may however be unaware of the details of wiki rules and need some mentoring.
  • There's a new hopelessly deranged propaganda site full of lies constructed by the usual suspects. Since at least one wiki article (Zeitoun incident) is mentioned on the site and the site deals with the subject of this article it's possible that it may attract a whole bunch of new fringe-extremist, deranged editors in need of medical attention intent on robotically filling the article with nonsense. They may however be unaware of the details of wiki rules and need some mentoring.
Does that help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Goldstonereport.org, a web site put together by a number of reputable organizations and academics certainly merits a link on the page. It is an advocacy organization. But it is a reputable and significant one.Josh02138 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You probably have right in what you saying exept it dont have any merit in Misplaced Pages. WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTSOAPBOX But I like to get it clarified by more experienced editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
'* Understanding the Goldstone Report ' Whatyatink? Is that external link section any good at all? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Josh, do you have any evidence from reliable sources that "it is a reputable and significant one" ? I'm not sure that describing the contributers as "reputable organizations and academics" is entirely accurate. Most are well known bloggers who are not regarded as reliable sources for factual information in Misplaced Pages, the academics have no expertise in the subject matter and one org was caught hiring people to edit Misplaced Pages articles resulting in many blocks and reports in the media. External links are meant for "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

move

there seems to be consensus above for moving this to Goldstone Report. If the concerns against making this move is that it would limit the coverage to the actual report and not the "controversy" surrounding the original mandate that is not a concern. All that information is still relevant background to the actual report and it would still be covered. The notable topic is the report, its findings, and the reactions to those findings. nableezy - 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we could have the article about what Mary Robinson said and copy paste the rest from NGO Monitor and UN Watch in the hope that people will just move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you propose a new fork? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Categories: