Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 28 October 2009 (→move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. International relations: United Nations Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Human rights Low‑importance This 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 Low This 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. Palestine Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. Israel Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

A 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.

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)

I'll message you when it happens, one of these millenias, when the vote won't be automatically against Israel in all of the UN organizations. Until then, forget it. (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If Israel wants International Law to change, there could be significant support to do it. Meanwhile, others are seizing on this effort by Israel as proof that current law has been broken. So the effort is certainly worth mentioning in this article. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 16:56, 27 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)

"often tend to look for the information they want to find which inevitably skews the article." - LOL! (That's the definition of "History", isn't it?!)

OK. There are at least a couple of other issues here which seem to be getting in the way of the point I'm trying to make.

My point is NOT who refused the job, or that they refused the job.

My point is that two people (not just one) refused the job because they perceived that the resolution was biased. The fact that the mandate was subsequently changed/broadened/reinterpreted/(whatever), serves to emphasise this, not make it insignificant.

Perhaps my point is that the paragraph should be rewritten to reduce/remove emphasis on those two people, and add/increase emphasis on the facts that the original resolution was perceived to be biased and hence was subsequently changed/broadened/reinterpreted/(whatever)?

What do people thing? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. Please note that I have already said: Perhaps the wording of the paragraph is not optimal.)

Sean: I'm afraid I don't understand one of your points:

"Due weight ... is ... determined by the extent ... information ... in reliable sources ... rather than ... opinions." - Two answers:

1) I agree, but where does that lead? i.e. Other than the obvious point made by the statement, what other point(s) are you leading to and/or implying? (e.g. Are you implying that there is little information about Mary, and therefore ... something ... )

2) I think that facts have much higher weight than opinions, no matter how widely the opinions are reported.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow your point - the report was done on the basis of the amended mandate. Why do you feel that a detail like the mandate in it's original pre-amendment form would belong in the lead? If we'd include that, we should logicalle include too much other material as well. The main story is that the report condemned both sides, that's what should be in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, yes, that is the definition of history. :) Regarding your question, I just meant that the weight given to an issue in the article should be related to weight given to the issue in reliable sources per WP:DUE. This article currently provides quite a lot of real estate to the Mrs Robinson issue, the original mandate issue etc and it's not really clear why especially given the scope of this article. There are many things about the way this article is being constructed that I don't really understand and those are just two examples. I'd fully support much more emphasise on the facts. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 26 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)

The Goldstone Report is directed against Israel and arguably has been since its inception, yet you don't want to link to an Israel advocacy group because the link is not neutral? If you want an pro-Hamas or pro-UN advocacy group linked as well that's fine. But let's not go silencing the critics just because the critics also happen to support Israel. At least this external website you don't like has a place for both critics and defenders, if not at this article! WP:EL asks if the site has content proper in the context of the article , which it does. EL:MAYBE says *A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. & *Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Do you really want to argue that these contributors are not knowledgeable?

Even if you were to say that the site fails by way of WP:ELNO, which one is your argument? "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting"? This even makes an exception for misleading information if it is about a viewpoint the site is presenting. As long as we make it clear that it is about the Israeli viewpoint on the Goldstone Report, we should be able to link to it, one's personal prejudices notwithstanding. Stellarkid (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the contributors being "well known bloggers who are not regarded as reliable sources for factual information...with no expertise in the subject matter"!

Richard Landes, is an American historian trained as a medievalist, teaching at Boston University and is notable enough for his own Wiki page. According to the page, Dr. Judith Apter Klinghoffer taught history and International relations at Rowan University, Rutgers University, the Foreign Affairs College in Beijing as well as at Aarhus University in Denmark where she was a senior Fulbright professor. She is an affiliate professor at Haifa University. Sammy Benoit has been featured in American Thinker, Pajamas Media, AISH.com, Front Page, and the Washington Times. Israel Matzav's blog, Israel Matzav, won the Weblog Award for Best Midsize Blog in 2008 and advocates for Israel from a right wing, religious perspective. Yisrael Medad worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, is the Resource Information Director at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. That's just a few of the expected contributors to the page. Scoff all you like, your bias is showing. Stellarkid (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reading after "The Goldstone Report is directed against Israel and arguably has been since its inception". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did. Like it or not, it is the view of one of the main parties involved. Stellarkid (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And of course you cite that "view" as though it were accurate or even valid. nableezy - 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally cite that view because it is my own, yes. On what grounds do you claim it is not "valid?" For WP however, it must be cited as a "critical" group, as it has been. I try not to let my personal perspectives interfere with neutral WP editing. Stellarkid (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki editors shouldn't have to be subjected to your personal views on this talk page. It doesn't help. For example, imagine if an editor thought that the Goldstone Report is about finding out whether any legal action is required to obtain justice for the innocent victims of an armed conflict. They, just like me, might find the notion that it's "directed against Israel" quite obnoxious and distasteful. It's kind of like an airline claiming that an investigation into the crash of a plane full of children is directed against them. Editors can do without reading stuff like that here which is why I stopped reading. There are plenty of other sites available for that kind of material. Let's just stick to the sources and focus on the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Landes is chiefly notable for the most shocking racist allegations against Palestinians. He invites us to believe that they kill their own children or blow each other up. Why he does this when Israel kills so many children and shells so many Palestinian families (on the beach and otherwise) is difficult to understand. Palestinians have never been caught (or even seriously suspected) of this behavior. They don't need to invent anything of this kind. His campaign smacks of racism. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Al Jazeera report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission headed by Goldstone - video on Youtube* Al Jazeera report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission headed by Goldstone - video on Youtube

Very interesting for editors of this article but dont know about the bias... removes. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

the NPOV rule refers to the article text and not content of external sources. Moreover al jazeera is a news agency not not more POV than CNN,BBC, CBC, etc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong, looked at it again and it is NPOV. Shoudnt edit now, late friday. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

no problem--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:38, 24 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)

No, I was just kidding. We don't need anymore forking. It's more important to get details of the the report and the mission's work into this article with a summary in both the int law article and the Gaza war article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"there seems to be consensus above..." - where? --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is like 6-2 up there with WP:COMMONNAME being cited as cause. Nobody has refuted that. nableezy - 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6-2 is a humiliating defeat in soccer, but we're not playing ball, aren't we. I told you my reservation - if the entry was about the report I wouldn't object. But the entry is about the mission - and nobody has addressed this point yet. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I did address it. All the info about the mission would be relevant background and would remain (well not all of it, it does need to be cut down). But the notable thing here is the report and all the hoopla that surrounds the report. nableezy - 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If I knew how to change this article name I'd do it myself. I was actually looking again in Gaza War, expecting to find "Goldstone" in the index and it's missing. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"well not all of it, it does need to be cut down" - this is my concern. the moment it is changed, all the controversy would be cut down because it is beyond the scope of the report. I'd suggest, Nableezy, that you start a common procedure for changing article's name, so that it attracts more editors. If my concerns are addressed and I'm the only one objecting - I'll step aside. --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I object on procedural grounds to changing this article's name in the suggested manner, since that would change its topic. I have no problem with spinning out and summarizing the appropriate material to Goldstone Report. I should note, though, that there will inevitably be a lot of overlap between the two articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this will just be nominated for deletion if that happens. And Sceptic, I think that noise needs to be cut down even if the name aint changed. nableezy - 15:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>As it stands Goldstone Report is re-directed here. As it stands I agree with the reasoning expressed by Jalapenos & Sceptic. Stellarkid (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are we still waiting for someone to change the name? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because three editors have opposed that action, stating objections that have yet to be addressed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, Jalapenos and Stellarkid. This article is about the report. The creator named it wrong. The report is what is noteworthyWP:NOTE and name should reflect the common nameWP:COMMONNAME. About these two policys there is consensus I hope. Please adress policybased conserns or we have consensus for a move. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said (did you read my comments?), the mission is also noteworthy, and this article is - and always has been - about the mission. If you want to create a new article about the report, go ahead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We dont make unecessary forks here. And no, this article isnt about the mission. WP:NOTE The mission is a a good background in a good article named 'Goldstone Report' WP:COMMONNAME whatever it was named when created. Still no policybased argument against move. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is and always has been about the Mission. Saying otherwise is just covering your ears and shouting "lalalalala". The problems with calling an article Goldstone Report when it's not about the Goldstone Report are self-evident, but I found your demand for a policy-based argument amusing, so I'll give you one as an example: it would fail the recognizability criterion in WP:NAME. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the Goldstone Report. *Recognizable *Easy to find *Precise *Concise *Consistent talk to renaming it to Goldstone report. I hope you agree policy-based argument is good. I find WP:NAME also support a move. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the article was named at creation its now about both the mission and the report. To create a new on would lead to request for merge. A majority (I didnt count but Nab, was it 6-2? 6-3 with stellarkid) prefer a move under policys WP:NOTE WP:COMMONNAME and even the recognizability criterion in WP:NAME supports move. As we not are a democracy and no good policybased argues is forwarded from those against, "lalalalala" is soon over. How to go forward? Just be bold and Move? Call in comment from uninvolved editors? Start a dispute resolution? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A review of the report from the private (though notable) lawyer

Trevor S. Norwitz issued review of the report. Recommended. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can identify that as an opinion piece and a singularly perverse and worthless one. Goldstone's aim was to persuade Israel there are enough allegations to make it worth investigating them, hence it's full of unsubstantiated claims. Everyone understands that.

But Norwitz's letter is aimed at pre-empting investigations. It repeatedly calls the claims false based on, by the look of it, no possibility of him knowing either way eg "To cite just one example, at 642 you state: “On 5 February 2003, for instance, Israeli snipers shot and killed two staff nurses who were on duty inside the hospital.” These unsubstantiated and often false allegations reflect a bias and a flagrant disregard for the basic principles of due process and all norms of fairness and justice." The contents of this letter would shame any reputable commentator. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The contents of the Goldstone report, that says in para. 495 that fighters engaged in armed hostilities are not required to distinguish themselves from civilians (i.e. military uniform is not a legal obligation), "would shame any reputable commentator" - yet half of the globe discusses it quite seriously. Be very careful with such comments you make, dear anonymous IP, unless you are of course a reputable lawyer yourself. --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a legal threat. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a good-faith advice from someone who read the report and is competent enough on the subject to produce valuable opinion. --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There has to be a distinction between opinion pieces and in-depth analyses. The threshold of inclusion for the latter should be based more on their intrinsic characteristics and less on the notability of the writer(s), and should also be lower, since there are fewer of them and they are more valuable. This review is certainly an in-depth analysis, and it happens to be a good one, so although the writer is not notable (why do you say that he is?), I think it could be included. But I would feel more comfortable if it were cited in well-known reliable sources first. Has it been? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the first question - I'm not a lawyer myself, but the title "director of the Columbia Law School Association" sounds something quite notable to me. The answer to the second question - not exactly, as Telfed (The South African Zionist Federation (Israel)) does not amount to RS yet. This is why I put it first here, and not directly in the article. Just a few days ago an article in the JPost included criticism of the report from its members, so I won't be surprised if in the short while this piece would get some coverage. We'll wait and see. --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Columbia Law School Association looks like an alumni organization. Meh. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable (critical) views

U.N.'s Goldstone Report is Magna Carta for terrorists by Rabbi Marvin Hier and Rabbi Abraham Cooper / of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Here is their cartoon version of it I had to laugh.

A moral atrocity - article was originally in the Guardian by longtime journalist Harold Evans -- Stellarkid (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Harold Evans is pretty notable. The Simon Wiesenthal Center is notable; perhaps there should be a section on responses by Jewish groups, with J Street and so on, and a section on responses by Muslim groups? I'm starting to think that the categorization of responses by stage in the mission's development and work is limiting, since many responders had things to say about more than one stage. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why Abelsohn and Pogrund are here? How exactly are they more notable than the thousands of people who have published their opinions on the report in the newspapers? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Abelsohn and Ostroff were featured in JPost supposedly RS NPOV article.

Pogrund - according to the publication he's notable journalist that were reporting on Goldstone since time immemorial and actually praised his previous work (unlike R.W. Johnson) - so I don't actually see problem here. --Sceptic from Ashdod 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If the info on Pogrund is true, he's definitely notable in this context. But Abelsohn and Ostroff? Just because their opinion was featured in an RS doesn't mean they're notable or that we should include them in the article. There have probably been thousands of op-eds on this topic; there have to be standards. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

→just another one to consider: by Robert O. Freedman. --Sceptic from Ashdod 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps now that Israel is considering agreeing with the report after all, collecting "critical views" is no longer necessary? If Israel accepts that investigations have to be done, the "criticism" (which is done 95% by American and Jewish sources) will quickly disappear.--Dailycare (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not "considering agreeing with the report", and if it were, that would have no impact on the importance of the critical views to this article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of possible internal Israeli investigation, this is the latest from JPost. I'd appreciate if someone gives a hand here. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC also just covered the Israeli investigation issue too here Sean.hoyland - talk 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources regarding Israeli internal investigations, Sceptic & Sean. I put their contents into the article. If you find any more, please present them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

critical analysis

First of all, the response by the Israeli government hardly belongs in a section about supposed "analysis" of the report. Second NGO Monitor and CAMERA are unreliable sources. Third the use of each of these sources consists of using the primary source. If you wish to cover the this supposed "analysis" you need to find a secondary source doing so. I am removing the section. I kept the "analysis" in the external links where such one-sided nonsense can be linked to without repeating it. nableezy - 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nab, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't summarily remove an entire section of the article. Regarding your concerns: The Israeli government has had many responses to the report; the one you removed happens to be a castigatory analysis-- that's simply what it is, and that's how it was labeled. If Hamas issues an analysis, that should obviously be included in the article too, with the appropriate label. The issue of reliability is irrelevant, since we're just saying that so-and-so said X; the article isn't accepting or rejecting what was said (and the JCPA and NGO Monitor are reliable, though partisan, sources). The basic idea (which I explained above) is that opinions of notable figures that are extensively substantiated are more valuable than opinions of notable figures that aren't extensively substantiated; however, the article currently contains many of the latter and none of the former. Once some time has passed and scholarly journals and books ae written that deal with our topic, they should obviously get the lion's share of the article's space, and opinions and partisan analyses should be summarized in a historical section or something. But it the meantime we should use what we have. Needless to say, there should be a consistent standard of notability, based on the author and the depth of the analysis, that is blind to the actual position taken. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to revert it if it is put back in, and I moved the Israeli government section as a subsection in the section of the report. The NGO Monitor and CAMERA sources are not reliable though, but I have less of a beef with the JCPA (though I think they are likewise unreliable). And reliability matters, if they are reliable sources they can be used on their own, as it is though a secondary source covering their fantastic claims is needed. nableezy - 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you put it back in choose where you want the Israeli government "analysis", in that section or as a subsection on the report. Right now it is duplicated. nableezy - 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

registering to be a witness

Sceptic, this edit doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what this registering to be a witness is that UN Watch are talking about. Did the mission do something else other than issue the Call for Submissions that I've missed i.e. issue a call for witness registration ? The Call for Submissions (available via the ref) issued on 8 June contained the contact information so UN Watch clearly aren't talking about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now per WP:SPS, specifically "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Sean.hoyland - talk 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. When I have time, I'll find other sources devoted to criticism on lack of transparency of the proceedings. --Sceptic from Ashdod 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you will also be looking for sources devoted to praising the transparency of the proceedings to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be, and I'll hardly find any (oops, that means my mind is set up). --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

colonel Kemp, UN Watch and hard neocons

nice piece from half-partisan source. ...and the point - since colonel Kemp indeed merely repeated what he had already said in January, the attribution ('speaking on behalf of UN Watch') is not that significant. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what it says in the source "Kemp spoke on behalf of UN Watch". It's just like JPost saying "a supporter of the Goldstone report" and you adding it. I'm puzzled why this guy get's more space in the article than the Palestinian Authority. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Schabas, you're right of course. I should have added that he - together with Goldstone, Desmond Tutu, col. Travers, Mary Robinson, Hina Jilani - signed that open letter from Amnesty in March 2009, saying that they have been "shocked to the core" by events in Gaza, calling to "investigating the truth and delivering justice for the victims of conflict". The same prof. Schabas added that "The international community must apply the same standard to Gaza as it does to other conflicts and investigate all abuses of the laws of war and human rights". Do you think that the same standards are applied to Sri Lanka or DRC (we were discussing it in the past)? --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think but since you asked, there aren't any meta-standards governing the application of the standards to ensure that they are applied consistently. In that sense it's no different from poverty reduction, access to education and healthcare, human rights improvements, environmental protection efforts etc. They aren't applied evenly by the international community either but any positive efforts on those issues are normally welcomed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

'...but any positive efforts on those issues are normally welcomed' - aha, and since resources are finite we will devote time promoting human rights of Palestinians irregardless of their own violations and calls for genocide from their leaders, and at the same time praise Sri-Lanka's government and forget about places like Mauritania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should not be taking place here. nableezy - 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA

I'll be the first to admit neofascist is a very strong term, but if you read the wikipage the similarities are there. Another point is that disagreeing with the term "neofascist" is no reason to revert my edit removing them, since whether they're neofascist or "only" extremist has no bearing on the point: they aren't suitable for wikipedia. --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article, and no, I don't see any similarities to neofascism. Can you specify any? I also don't see any evidence for your implied assertion that it is extremist. What I see is that it is a notable partisan organization that is criticized by other partisans; big whoop. I reverted your edit because you gave no credible reason for removing their statement, and you still haven't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, from the neofascism article we find that:

Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism (see definition), anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

CAMERA exhibits nationalism, anti-immigration policies, nativism and (de facto) opposition to parliamentary democracy in their policy of smearing Arabs, Palestinians in particular, extolling the "Jewish" nature of Israel to exclude integration of Palestinians which would "dilute" the demographic dominance of Jews in Israel. To pursue these objectives, CAMERA publishes inaccurate, crude propaganda which falls into the latter camp. So the argument is there that CAMERA is a neofascist organization, but as mentioned above whether it is or isn't doesn't make a difference to us since they in any case aren't people that can be cited in Misplaced Pages. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive sourcing from UN Watch

Almost 10% of the references used for this article come from UN Watch and majority of them from their blog. This seems excessive. Is their blog a wiki approved reliable source for the type of material that is being added to the article ? Oddly there are more references to UN Watch here than in the UN Watch article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a statement in the article whose veracity you doubt because of this issue with the sourcing? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No because I have no reason to believe or disbelieve anything they say about anything because I have seen no evidence that they are a reliable source for what is being added to the article. Nor have I seen evidence that their opinions on anything matter to anyone. However, since they aren't being used to present statements of fact supported by evidence, veracity has little to do with it. For example, veracity doesn't really apply to statements like "no one has ever disputed that the Arab-controlled Human Rights Council deliberately selected individuals who had made up their mind well in advance – not only that Israel was guilty, but that a democratic state with an imperfect but respected legal system should be considered the same as, or worse than, a terrorist group" ? They are being used to present the opinions of UN Watch. So, almost 10% of the references used for this article are for the opinions of a single partisan source based mostly on their self published blog and we have no way of knowing whether those opinions are worthy of inclusion because apparently no one has checked whether they appear in media reports by reliable news organizations. Seems problematic. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your concern, Sean, is slightly dishonest. UN Watch, as any NGO (be it HRW or Camera or Breaking the Promise or Women's Republican Council in Armenia) is of course not a RS in itself. However, the moment it is notable (and it IS notable which could be easily demonstrated) there's no policy prohibition not to cite them directly, providing attribution. Their Blog, as any Blog of any organization or newspaper, is inherent part of their site and should not be treated separately. Of course it is quoted broadly in this article because it followed the mission closely - as due to the org. that watches UN, particularly its HRC being situated in Geneva. Next, in many places in the article they do not stand alone but quoted side by side with other critics, e.g. prof. Cotler. Whenever you say that their opinion was not picked up by others - this is simply untrue. They were cited by several RSs (not only JPost) and I'm pretty sure that in one place I referred to the JPost publication citing them. What is more, you somehow forgot that their petition to recuse prof. Chinkin was supported by 2 separate groups of UK and Canadian lawers and this was reported by JPost too. Finally, if you have any reservations regarding specific sentence in the article - go ahead, but pls don't make such sweep generalizations. --Sceptic from Ashdod 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Using UN Watch as a source for their own opinions should be OK, but I do agree with Sean in that in this article, UN Watch is being used as if it was a WP:RS which it is not. The correct article for describing the opinions of UN Watch would in principle be UN Watch. Confusing HRW with UN Watch or (which is even worse) CAMERA does not sound entirely appropriate, IMHO. --Dailycare (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Um no, what is slightly dishonest is editors agreeing to abide by Wiki policies to build a neutral encyclopedia when they create their accounts, not abiding by those policies and instead advancing the interests of a belligerent in the conflict. I have expressed my reservations. My reservations are that almost 10% of the references used for this article are for the opinions of a single partisan source based mostly on their self published blog and we have no way of knowing whether those opinions are worthy of inclusion because apparently no one has checked whether they (the opinions) appear in media reports by reliable news organizations. Now, if someone has checked that the opinions are in sources like JPost why are we using a blog ? The more important issue is why did this happen ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is not one of verifiability but whether the opinions of UN Watch might be getting undue weight, then the amount of references they have or where they were taken from is irrelevant (and I counted 9 out of 142 refs, which isn't "almost 10%"). The question is how much weight are they getting in the article, and how much they deserve. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After merging 2 refs that were the same and substituting refs from public hearings with authentic ones from the mission site, we are left with 8. I'll start to post a detailed breakdown of each of them - tell me where there is a problem. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

detailed breakdown

• "UN Watch, former Justice Minister of Canada Professor Irwin Cotler and Chief Rabbi of South Africa Dr. Warren Goldstein noted that despite the agreement between UNHRC's president and Judge Goldstone over widening the mandate..." - this sentence has 2 refs from UN Watch from 2 separate statements they issued (the 2 can be merged into 1 if it preserves the links). This is not just their opinion - there are other two who expressed similar criticism, shouldn't be a problem. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• "In August 2009, Geneva-based NGO UN Watch submitted a petition to the UN, calling to disqualify Chinkin over prior statements she made that bring her impartiality in question. UN Watch further noted that in a May 2009 ..." - the first sentence's ref is Jpost, outlining the petition. second sentence ref is authentic petition of UN Watch - shouldn't be a problem.
• "The inquiry members rejected the petition and said that on the possible violations of humanitarian law during the fighting, which are the only focus of the mission, the letter co-signed by Chinkin "had expressed no view". The members further wrote in their reply ..." - first sentence's ref is The Jewish Chronicle, outlining the mission's reply (btw, one of the groups of lawyers in their letter referred to the article in TheJC). second sentence ref is authentic mission's reply - is there any problem?

→so far i covered 4 out of 8, i'll continue in a couple of hours. --Sceptic from Ashdod 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Critics (NGO UN Watch, Rabbi Dr. Goldstein, former South African journalist Benjamin Pogrund, groups of UK and Canadian lawyers) note that mission members..." - this sentence has 5 refs. is JPost where UN Watch and groups of lawyers are mentioned being the major one, while 2 from UN Watch (, ) are merely complementary, linking to authentic UN Watch bulletin and authentic letter from group of Canadian lawyers. don't see problem here.
• "UN Watch criticized Goldstone's report methodologies that allegedly dismissed or ignored much of the evidence provided in Israeli Government report from July 2009 on the one hand and on the other hand endorsed unquestionably testimonies by Gaza officials, e.g. police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan" - this sentence is well-attributed. UN Watch's opinion on the matter is nothing extremist or partisan, since it provides link to original YNET article covering peculiar statement of police spokesman in Gaza. One can agree or disagree with UN Watch on this one, but it belongs to the article.
• "UN Watch issued a statement saying that the announced special Council's session would be a gross abuse of the procedures." - again well-attributed sentence. To remind, UN Watch are situated in Geneva and participate actively in the work of UNHRC - they are competent to produce such criticism.

→I guess i covered all the instances, if i omitted something pls inform. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Our objective according to the discretionary sanctions is "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." I don't think we are doing that by building a delegitimize-the-Goldstone-Report advocacy link farm, call me old fashioned, so I've removed some. If we are going to direct readers to sites let's make sure we have good reasons to do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reread WP:EL and couldn't find anything supporting your removal. I also don't understand your appeal to the (I/P?) discretionary sanctions: obviously the content in the article should be held to a higher standard than the content linked to; otherwise we wouldn't need the article in the first place. I also don't think that anyone was "building a delegitimize-the-Goldstone-report link farm". So can you explain? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that we have a lot of opinion pieces from people who don't do any investigation of anything, are not journalists experienced in the same general, or indeed any, field. They'd not be WP:RS whatever they were publishing. Worse, some of these organisations are never in disagreement with a state party widely agreed thought to be a particular target of the report. As such, their contributions are simply noise and add nothing to understanding. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you find anything supporting your inclusion of the links in WP:EL or on this talk page ? If so, what ? I referred to the sanctions because I do not believe that we are providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage or that readers will obtain a broader understanding of the issues by us driving them towards these sites. Collecting together an excessive number of links from partisan sources that are intent on delegitimizing the Goldstone report gives undue weight to particular points of view. That isn't our job. Okay, I'll go through them one by one to explain why I removed them but my main reason is that there was no discussion.

• NGO Monitor: House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report

• Site doesn't match the inclusion criteria, "neutral and accurate material" or "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
• Site matchs exclusion criteria because it misleads the reader. As a propaganda org that is their job.
• Exclusion helps to avoid undue weight on particular points of view. I left JCPA and the MFA links..
• Site is already available via refs (which is a pity given that they aren't shy about making a blatantly false statement).

• Att. Trevor Norwitz, Open letter to Richard Goldstone

• Excluded because I couldn't see why it was included.

• GoldstoneReport.org (critical)

• This has been discussed to some extent on the talk page and my view continues to be that most of the contributers 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". This a propaganda site, plain and simple. Why would Misplaced Pages drive readers looking for neutral and accurate material in an encyclopedia towards propaganda sites ?

• Testimony of Col. Richard Kemp (video)

• Excluded because singling out this testimony out of all of the testimony available is very odd indeed.

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all the links you removed are partisan regarding this topic, and I agree that giving undue weight to any particular POV "isn't our job" (in fact, it's contrary to our job). But instead of removing links to sites with informed opinion holding a particular POV, you should be adding links to sites with informed opinion holding other POVs. If there aren't any, that means that the first POV dominates informed opinion, so giving it more link-weight isn't undue.
I'll briefly go over what you said about each link:

• NGO Monitor: I disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that the site "misleads the reader" and thus matches the exclusion criteria. Not impressed with your name-calling, either. The site is a very interesting analysis of the sources of the report's content. Any site that disagrees, based on a similar level of analysis, should be in too.
• Norwitz: so, do you delete all links to sources that you don't see why they're included? Or just this one?
• GoldstoneReport.org: yes, and two editors (I'm a third) explicitly said that it should be linked, and said why. I didn't see anyone who explicitly said it shouldn't be linked and who dealt with the former's arguments. I'll add that the fact that a website was created specifically to rebut a UN report is quite novel and interesting, and I imagine many readers would want the opportunity to know what the deal is with that.
• Kemp: I added the link, and I didn't single Kemp out. I looked for video testimony, and that was the only one I could find. I believe I also made a section title specifically to invite addition of other testimonies, in case anyone could find them or if they became available.

Re your opening question: the answer is yes. I believe the links exactly match WP:ELMAYBE #4. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

External links also fall under undue weight so max one link of the outspoken critical ones is acceptable. Absolutly no linkfarm Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't read what I wrote before commenting on it, so I'll repeat it for your convenience. and I agree that giving undue weight to any particular POV "isn't our job" (in fact, it's contrary to our job). But instead of removing links to sites with informed opinion holding a particular POV, you should be adding links to sites with informed opinion holding other POVs. If there aren't any, that means that the first POV dominates informed opinion, so giving it more link-weight isn't undue. In the future, please don't do this, because I have better things to do than repeat myself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt matter. Linkfarms is not good. And Goldstone Report is not a POV-work. And your rant is not necessary just becase I formulated me wrong. No need at all for other external links than to the Goldstone report. Not one. And if you bring in Israeli POV to links, ballance it with Hamas ones if you like to edit under NPOV Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• B-Class United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles