Talk:United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] 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 ^(talk) 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)

Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 20:02, 16 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 ^(talk) 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">[URL 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

direct criticism of Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

advocacy

Please be aware of the latest coordinated advocacy efforts here http://www.goldstonereport.org/about-us that may attract editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 [2]' 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 Wikipedia, the academics have no expertise in the subject matter and one org was caught hiring people to edit Wikipedia 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. [3] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

If you're not happy with the status quo, the obvious thing to do would be to create a spinout article Goldstone Report, since everyone said they don't mind that. I don't particularly want you to do that, but you asked a question, so I'm answering you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:18, 29 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 [4] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:56, 27 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 Wikipedia, the academics have no expertise in the subject matter and one org was caught hiring people to edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [5] 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)

Here's a link to an Hamas press release“Goldstone Vote, A Victory To Our People, Their Sacrifices” from the International Middle East Media Center Stellarkid (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article includes several speculations and assertions attributed to the JCPA "researcher" Jonathan D. Halevi. From statements like: "it could have been a drone attack" and "the IDF might have come to the false conclusion that the mosque itself was empty", It is clear that Mr Halevi is basing his speculations on little or no inside information about the activities of even his own sides army. His positive assertions are equally suspect. For instance regarding the al-Maqadmah mosque incident he boldly states that "the casualties in this incident were terrorist operatives". It should be clear to anyone who has looked at the available evidence that this statement is simply not credible. Why are the assertions of this unreliable propagandist included in this article?Prunesqualer (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This evidence looks authentic and credible enough for me. You are not in position to judge Halevi's credibility. He specifically names 7 out of 15. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All the witness statements at the time, and since, have agreed that between 200 and 300 people where worshipping in the mosque when the attack took place. Lord Goldstone and his team personally investigated the scene and noted the following information in their report: "The Mission observed that the interior walls of the mosque and part of the exterior wall around the doorway appeared to have suffered significant damage as a result of a spray of small metal cubes. A good number of these were lodged in the wall even at the time of the Mission’s visit to the site in June 2009. Several of these were retrieved and the Mission could see how deeply embedded they were in the concrete walls." They also noted " The penetration pattern witnessed on the concrete ramp and stairs underneath is consistent with that which would be expected of a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve fitted onto an air-to-ground missile. Shrapnel cubes that the Mission retrieved from the rear inside wall of the mosque are consistent with what would be expected to be discharged by a missile of this nature" Given the extent of the damage inside the mosque, and numbers of people present, it is simply not credible to assert that all of the casualties where terrorist operatives. Yet, having read all of this evidence, that is exactly what Halevi did assert. Therefor I repeat; Why are the assertions of this unreliable propagandist included in this article?Prunesqualer (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are treating "Lord" Goldstone's report as absolute truth. Wiki is not about the truth, it is about verifiability. No point in arguing. Reader has to read pros and cons and decide for themselves. The fact that you made up your mind doesn't mean everyone has to follow you. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:51, 1 November 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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)

today's must read

deserves a sentence in the lead, doesn't it? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Deserves a sentence or two, but not in the lead.VR _talk 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends. If the OIC just happened to be the one to get the ball rolling, it's not important enough for the lede. But if it was intimately involved in the formation of the Mission, by persistent lobbying, by participating in the formulation of the mandating resolution, etc., then it should be in the lede. We need more information. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is excessive interest in the "politics" behind this resolution already. If the OIC hadn't called for this resolution, other delegates would undoubtedly have done so - as happened over the aborted Jenin report. I see no such discussion of the horse-trading at the strangely named Battle of Jenin article, or at highly partisan resolutions such as 181. I've removed most of the Mary Robinson material (1st Nov 14:15 UTC), she specifically objected to the misuse of her concerns to make it appear she opposed the Goldstone Mission. It's difficult to understand how such a very distorted impression continued to appear at length in the article, her objection to this use appeared in the very references already presented! 86.158.184.158 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

→another piece of Zionist propaganda.--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems very reasonable to me to mention what you've found: "... The following were the main points quoted by the Hamas-affiliated Safa News Agency, October 28, 2009: i) The [Hamas] interior ministry “coordinates with all the factions of the resistance in [the] Gaza [Strip]” [i.e., the terrorist organizations]", only subject to there being a translation from a Reliable Source - the mis-translating of Middle-East languages seems to be quite a serious problem. When you find a good reference I'll add the quote myself.

We should similarly mention Israel's policy towards the land of Gaza and their intention to clear out the Palestinians. Here's a useful 25 year old quote from that most dovish of Israeli Prime Ministers (a "Prince of Peace" according to Clinton) and quoted in an RS: "[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat." - Yitzhak Rabin quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're about to quote Rabin's 25-year-old statements in this article, I'll create an entire section that quotes from Hamas charter from 1989, including their allegations that Jews were behind revolutions and both WWI and WWII (art. 22). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamas's charter (if that's what it was, there are very serious translation concerns there as well) has long been superseded by recognition of the 1967 borders, the same thing that UN resolutions always agree about. It would be a grave breach of NPOV to claim it was somehow current.

Whereas Rabin's words are the most dovish statement of current Israeli policy that I know of - what would you suggest? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following: (a) we stop discussion unrelated to the topic of the entry (even though I disagree with every single word and can make my point without speculations); (b) if you think that anything you say or write belongs to the article - this is not enough to qualify, i.e. you need a source that makes the connection. It is either RS - then it is stated as fact, or it is notable source - then it gets an attribution to that source; (c) in my view, considering that you are relatively new here, you could use to reread central wiki policies. WP:NPOV may be not what you're thinking. For example, we are writing an article about Hamas. I can cite from its charter in neutral tone, sourcing my quotes (of course, if you prove that the charter was abolished or amended - we include relevant info to reflect this). If indeed you have sources that say "hey, its English version is poorly translated" or another source that says it is irrelevant because so and so - then you can and should insert that sentences in that way. But it isn't enough if you, just you, think it is irrelevant. Moreover, NPOV doesn't necessarily mean the article is balanced - it means all existing views are fairly presented. If for example you have one, just one source, that happens to be Noam Chomsky who says that the charter is irrelevant, and I have dozen different articles that say otherwise - the article won't be balanced, but it will say that Chomsky says otherwise. (d) as a good practice, write down edit summaries whenever you make edits, and pls be very cautios to cite things within proper context. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, you suggested we include sourced (though not necessarily via an RS) material linking Hamas to resistance organisations (labelled terrorist by the West) and I agree it should be included. However, the state of Israel is linked to earlier ethnic cleansings (filling the Gaza strip with refugees) and either a further ethnic cleansing or a mass slaughter. That needs including too. 81.152.36.26 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

...only if you have any reliable or notable source that makes the connection to this entry. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Complimentary analyses

I'm glad to see that someone has taken initiative and added content to this subsection. However, the content added is not actually appropriate for the subsection, which is labeled "complimentary analyses". The first source added is a 4-paragraph press release, and the second is an op-ed that says very little about the report's content. These sources can be in the "reactions" section, which includes op-eds and such, but since they are already in that section, I believe they should simply be removed from this one, unless someone has a counter-argument. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to everyone why you've reverted and re-inserted words from Mary Robinson about the UN (and the original mandate and possibly the makeup of the Mission) which she has specifically said were being abused to distance her from Goldstone and the report? It's not even clear that these objections caused her to refuse the chair as is stated in the article. What are these words doing in the article? In fact, is there any reason to have Mary Robinson mentioned? The only use of this information would be to document a mis-quote, which is sometimes useful eg False Moshe Ya'alon quotation and Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - I don't have reason to doubt authenticity of "I made previously are now being used as part of the effort to undermine wrongly Judge Goldstone and his important work". Do you have reason to doubt authenticity of "Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel had done, and I don’t think that’s a human rights approach."? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So we have to include material that distorts everything that Mary Robinson has ever stood for and we have to do it in a way that she's protested about and it has to dominate the beginning of an article on a topic that she has little to do with? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it - she refused to lead the mission because of the one-sided mandate, did she not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

US Senator's response to Goldstone

can be found here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see no reason to give more than a passing reference to this kind of discussion. The report was endorsed by a 4 to 1 margin at the UNHRC and now goes to the Security Council, where implementation may be vetoed for what are, in fact, the internal politics of one member. There's not even been a decision by Congress over the report yet and any posturing beforehand will be completely superseded shortly.

In the meantime, there is huge UNDUE emphasis on criticism (with the anti placed before the pro!) of the report, which is a small part of what people want to see from the article. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the source. Goldstone complained recently that so far no specific criticism was expressed from US officials, just ad hominem attacks - here is an attempt to criticize the contents and (without giving it undue weight) it should be noticed.

"The report was endorsed by a 4 to 1 margin at the UNHRC" - somewhat disingenuous. There are no western democracies among those who voted in favor; counting relatively democratic and relatively developed countries, you come up with 6 (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Philippines, Russian Federation) and I was very generous with the count. Criticism is not undue - it reflects numerous publications on the matter. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

→With a 344-36 vote, the House passed a nonbinding resolution that urged President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose unequivocally any endorsement of the report. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

heading to GA.--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

36 incidents

"We chose those 36 because they seemed to be, to represent the most serious, the highest death toll, the highest injury toll. And they appear to represent situations where there was little or no military justification for what happened. We didn’t want to investigate situations where we would be called upon to second-guess decisions made by Israeli Defense Force leaders or soldiers, in what’s called the ג€˜fog of battle’. It’s really unfair to do that, especially without hearing the other side. So we tried to concentrate on issues which seem to be less likely to be justifiable by applying those standards". Now I'm confused - I thought 36 were supposed to be an average crossection, not the gravest incidents. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

→op-ed of Robert M. Goot SC is president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry;

→voice of India and Non-Aligned Movement. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Norway dismisses Israel war crimes lawsuit

The Goldstone Illusion. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaction by various organisations/countries to the report

Is there a case to be made for distinguishing between organisations that expressed some support for Goldstone's recommendations and those that outright rejected it? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to separate the pro- and against- organizations. However, I am not familiar with any org that rejected it "outright" - those who reject it make some good points. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm against splitting this into "Camp A vs. Camp B". This article is already more complicated than it should be, and there are too many "reactions" listed with undue weight on those vaguely critical of the report for alleged "bias". --Dailycare (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

a request to fellow editors

Pls do not delete contents that you don't like, when it is well-sourced and stable, not before the discussion (and no, simply informing on the talk page that you delete is not a discussion). For that matter, both NGO Monitor and Chomsky are entitled to their opinions, even though both are very much disliked.

Also, I ask editors not to engage in Original Research. Example: the Goldstone report says in para. 612 (advanced edit): "The Mission understands that the Israeli Government may consider relying on journalists’ reporting as likely to be treated as more impartial than reliance on its own intelligence information. The Mission is nonetheless struck by the lack of any suggestion in Israel’s report of July 2009 that there were members of armed groups present in the hospital at the time", first sentence of the quote is referring to para. 173 of the Israeli Government report "Factual and Legal Aspects". The Goldstone report is very inaccurate here, because the suggestion in Israel’s report of July 2009 that there were members of armed groups present in the hospital at the time is there in the very next para. 174: "A report from Corriere della Sera confirms that the grounds, ambulances and uniforms of the al-Quds hospital had been hijacked by terrorist operatives". However, I myself cannot say that the Goldstone report lies, even if I cite the "Factual and Legal Aspects" - that is OR. I can do that only if I have another source, issued after the Goldstone report, that says so. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:57, 7 November 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 ^(talk) 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)

This is not an accurate representation of Wikipedia policy.

(1) I do not think it is necessary for the article to be titled "International Reactions to...", "Reactions to..." is sufficient (see e.g. Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks).

(2) That is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. The fact that not every state has responded to an issue says nothing about NPOV. WP:NPOV states: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean 'a matter which is subject to dispute.'" When we list reactions to any event we are, in the context of the preceding statement, "asserting facts, including facts about opinions." We are not presenting the opinions of states and organisations as statements of fact, nor are we presenting opinions at all in the sense contemplated by WP:NPOV (e.g. "The Goldstone report is bad") - we are simply asserting the fact that some states and organisations have expressed positions on the report.

(3) The question here is whether the international reactions of various states and other bodies complies with the standards set by WP:Notability and WP:Weight. As I have already said, precedents set by such articles as Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks and International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War, among others, suggests that generally these are notable enough to warrant their own article, and certainly to warrant a section within an article. That is particularly so in a case such as this, where the controversy over the report has been highly "[prevalent] in reliable sources" (per WP:Weight) such as a myriad of articles and news reports.

(4) See (3) above regarding Weight and Notability. In addition to the points made there, it seems obvious, at least to me, that since the report which may have ramifications for other countries (See: United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict#Possible ramifications for other conflicts), and which has clearly become an issue of political dispute and will have political consequences for Israel, and which requires to approval of political bodies (i.e. the Security Council) in order to be binding, it would be appropriate to include various reactions to the report.

That's just my 2c. Sstr (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's play the game

Someone inserted the following: "The left-leaning "Jews say no!" organization published a letter expressing support for Justice Goldstone on November 4, 2009...". What is this "Jews say no!" organization? Is it reliable? Is it notable? This is what their site says: We are a coalition of individuals in New York who came together during the December 2008 and January 2009 Israeli massacres in Gaza. Why does this coalition of individuals in NY, assemebled lately and clearly expressed ultra-left views, deserve 5 rows in the article? And who inserted it in the 1st place? Wasn't it the one who so objects the notable and respectable NGO UN Watch? Based on what is written in Haaretz, and taking into consideration that organization has no credentials, you can say at most (and in another section) that some left-wing activists like Howard Zinn signed a letter that expressed support for the report and criticism for Obama administration. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. Per WP:Weight: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." An appropriate (albeit imperfect) test in this case might be to search Google News to determine the "prevalence" of and notability of this organisation's views by comparison with others cited such as UN Watch and NGO Monitor. "Jews Say No" is cited in one news article in the past month.[6] By contrast, UN Watch is referred to in at least 37[7], and NGO Monitor in at least 26.[8] In reality, these are referred to in much more than 37 and 26 articles respectively, but Google has grouped these into similar articles. Regardless, I believe the point is made that 'Jews Say No!' does not represent a prevalent view, at least by the standards set by Wikipedia, by comparison with UN Watch and NGO Monitor. I believe that, in light of these facts and Wiki policy, Jews Say No! has been given disproportionate weight in this article. It might be more appropriate to note, in no more than a single sentence in the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict#Other section, that a group of private citizens including Tony Judt and Howard Zinn signed a letter supporting Richard Goldstone's position. Even this is somewhat problematic since it opens the door for including the views of private citizens and prominent individuals generally, which simply do not carry enough weight to be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article. Sstr (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reply to the last sentence - so far the policy of the article was to include opinions of private individuals if they produced any valuable opinion. E.g. journalist Benjamin Pogrund's opinion was included, but in the end I don't mind to either include sentence from all notable figures or remove them all. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of you that Jews Say No! is obviously not notable. There are some other groups and individuals both for and against the report that are cited in the article and aren't notable either (Abelsohn and that British trade group come to mind), but this is probably the most egregious case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can anyone install an archive here? Thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent (nov. 9) developments

IDF hurries on counter-Goldstone report

Ban to send Goldstone to UNSC 'ASAP'

Goldstone criticizes US response

Authors of IDF ethics code demand Gaza war probe --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Basic facts section

Is this a way to have a giant lead or is it based on the manual of style ? Either way, the table of contents needs to go above doesn't it because basic facts are part of the article not the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jim Fitzgerald created it as an alternative to the giant lead that developed. Since it's not a customary way of doing things, I changed it back and cut the lead down to four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. This should be the end of the problem. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

..and Jim reverted. Jim, either we incorporate the 'basic info' into the lead or the basic info section becomes part of the article after the table of contents. That is the standard approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-reverted, as Jim either did not see or ignored this discussion, and it seems like a clear-cut case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see Sean's message. If Sean thinks so I would agree with him. -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A must see!

Arab Media Cartoons on the Goldstone Report.

Tut, tut. Not only do some of them use classic antisemitic motifs, but not one of them is funny. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aljazeera's cartoon is though balanced.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 11:46, 11 November 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'".[13] Second response published on September 19, 2009 denouncing the report as "deeply flawed" and tainted by anti-Israel prejudice in the UNHRC.[14] 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."[15] 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.[16]

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.[5]"
• Everything spanning "Amnesty International urged ...conclusions regarding Israel.[16]" 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 ... [of] 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)

WP:DUE refers to viewpoints, not to undisputed facts. That the UNHRC ran into some trouble looking for a mission chief is (I would hope) undisputed. I'm not aware of any policy addressing the appropriate weight for different facts in an article; it seems it's an issue of a common-sense judgment call as to the inherent importance of each fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel ran into trouble choosing a Prime Minister and ended up unable to have the one supported by most MKs. But no article obsesses about it or claim it undermines Netanyahu's conclusions. Stiil, with all knowledgable and NPOV editors chased away the article was always going to be worthless anyway. 86.159.190.174 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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.[35] UN Watch further noted that in a May 2009 ..." - the first sentence's ref [35] 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".[37] The members further wrote in their reply ..." - first sentence's ref [37] 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 ^(talk) 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. [41] is JPost where UN Watch and groups of lawyers are mentioned being the major one, while 2 from UN Watch ([40], [42]) 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.[136]" - 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 ^(talk) 05:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Does UNwatch have any function other than to popularise an Israeli government line? If it never criticises the policies of the government of Israel then it's worse than most blogs and almost nothing it can say is going to be relevant. According to UNwatch itself on it's "In the News", the Jerusalem Post quotes UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer saying "There's no emergency, other than Palestinian President Abbas' precarious political predicament", truly an astonishing statement, knowing what Amnesty has just told us about water supply.

But UNwatch's web-page link's to this page at the Jerusalem Post which doesn't say what is claimed. And a search finds no evidence that Neuer was ever quoted saying that in any reliable source.

I think that probably answers Sean's question, UNwatch is excessively quoted. And nothing it says should be trusted in the first place. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asks you to trust UN Watch. This is why all their statements are well-attributed. There's no reason to trust Amnesty too or HRW or Cotler or Goldstone or Ahmed Tibi. Each reader decides for himself. If you have any problem with specific sentence, express it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The discrepancy about the statement from Neuer could be (perhaps) explained by simple fact that the original JPost publication, to which UN Wach site refers, was on Oct. 16, but then the link says that it was updated on Oct. 19 - so maybe his words were omitted. Anyway, the text in the entry refers to their original site, not JPost. And Amnesty raising water issues is definitely unrelated to the Gaza War. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to check UN Watch on the reliable sources noticeboard. Pexise (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See: [9] Pexise (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but as I explain there, there's no need, since no one uses UN Watch as RS. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, however, there are several instances where the UN Watch comments appear to be POV pushing. Some of the sections prevent important factual information about the report and are then followed by an out of place opinion from UN Watch. This screams POV pushing and really lowers the quality of the article. Pexise (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"there are several instances..." - show me them, one at a time. Pls read the breakdown before, and pls don't let me think that all this deletions you are doing lately have something to do with the possibility that you might not like pro-Israeli advocacy groups like Monitor and UN Watch (I, for one, don't like HRW's Mideast division, but I do not allow myself just to delete their statements, certainly not before the discussion takes place). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The section on the composition of the mission reads:

According to the mission's report, "The President appointed Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to head the Mission. The other three appointed members were: Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun (2008); Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004); and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations."

United Nations watchdog UN Watch said: "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".

There is no other opinion presented, this sticks out as POV pushing. Pexise (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. The sentence you underline is quoted from JPOST, an RS, not from UN Watch site (i.e. from secondary source). It has nothing to do with POV. It is conceivable, though, to reproduce statement that praises the committee members selection. I'm not familiar with such, only commends of Goldstone. If you have one, do pls. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that this section deals with the facts of the make-up of the committee, not with opinions and judgments about their suitability. There is lots of criticism about the panel in other sections. I am new to this article and have been reading through it to see what the quality of the article is like. This section, to a fresh impartial reader, really makes it seem that there is an editor pushing a particular POV in the article (just as if the highlighted section was replaced with a quote saying "xxx commented on the excellent choice of the mission members, saying how accomplished they are in their field etc. etc." - this is an opinion that doesn't really belong in the section). Pexise (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is lots of criticism about the panel in other sections" - not so correct. In the following subsections dealing with Goldstone and others, there are also judgements (including positive ones). The uniqness of the statement you challenge is that it is a general statement about the proceedings of the UN Human Rughts Council with regard to the mission, and not directly critical of the members per se. Taking another look at the article, I can't think of another appropriate place, unless you have specific suggestion. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat inclined to agree with Pexise on this issue. On a natural reading of the text the statements by groups such as "UN Watch" and "Eye on the UN" and others seem out of place in some contexts. In my opinion it is necessary to distinguish and separate statements of fact from evaluations/analyses. I am not suggesting that these criticisms should be entirely excluded from the article, but the fact that UN Watch was critical of the appointments should not be under the heading "Composition." But by the same token, the praise of Human Rights Watch for Goldstone's appointment should also be separated from the facts. I propose that the "Fact finding mission" section be restructured as follows:

--Fact finding mission--

---Mandate---

---Composition---

---Investigation---

---Criticism and Praise---

----Criticism and Praise of the Mandate----

----Criticism and Praise of the Composition----

----Criticism and Praise of the Investigation----

OR

--Fact finding mission--

---Mandate---

----Criticism and Praise----

---Composition---

----Criticism and Praise----

---Investigation---

----Criticism and Praise----

This will make the article clearer by separating the facts, i.e. what was the mandate, what was the composition, and what was the investigation vs. what people thought of these things. The "Mandate" section provides a decent example of this, although I still think it needs to be tweaked in light of this restructuring. For example Mary Robinson's views should be summarised for the "factual" section, in the context of her decision to refuse to head the commission (e.g. "Mary Robinson, who was initially asked to head the fact finding mission, refused to do so on the grounds that its mandate was one-sided, that the Human Rights Council paid disproportionate attention to alleged human rights violations by Israel, and that it was motivated by politics rather than concern for human rights.") Her full criticism and subsequent praise for the report would then be included in the praise/criticism section. In my opinion this would tidy up the article a lot, but that's just my opinion. Sstr (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would clearly prefer the latter format, but the overall suggestion is fine by me. That said, the format of the entry was changed constantly, and I'd like to hear the opinion of Jalapenos. (Side remark - Eye On the UN is clearly less notable org, would it be standing alone I could have easily lost case in defending it. However, given the fact that the very same concern was raised by another critic, rabbi dr. Goldstein, makes hypotethitcal dispute about it quite futile). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

UN Watch looks like a Zionist "astroturf" organization, so using it in this article at all is questionable. The uses are not correctly attributed, since in several instances the appearance is created that UNW would be a neutral organization, like the aforementioned Amnesty or HRW. In detail, quoting Neuer as a source on logic and impartiality is a clear violation of WP:RS and should be removed. --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue was already dealt with above. UN Watch and other NGOs are not being used as RS, their opinions are simply being stated. The relevant question in this case is whether UN Watch and others are overrepresented in the article, in that their views are not sufficiently prevalent in reliable sources to warrant being included. That is not the case here. Sstr (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Daylicare, can you pls come up with more constructive arguments, and not ad hominem statements like "UN Watch is Zionist "astroturf" organization", "Amnesty or HRW are neutral organizations", "Goldstone is a respected jurist"? Because, you know, I can play this game too, saying that "UN Watch is highly respectable organization", "HRW is fixated on indicting Israel", "Richard Richard Goldstone is arrogant self-promoter" and so on. But this won't take us far.

"quoting Neuer as a source on logic and impartiality is a clear violation of WP:RS" - it is not. Seems like you simply do not understand both the text and the RS policy. Let's start with RS policy. If RS (Times for example) would write as a fact that the committee's answer defies logic and morality, than we can reproduce it as a fact without attribution. But this is not the case. The source is UN Watch's site - and the statement is not presented as a fact, but as the opinion of its director. Moreover, this opinion comes as a direct response to the answer he received to the petition submitted; moreover, 2 groups of lawyers from UK and Canada expressed their disappointment with the committee's answer (but they do not invoke Neuer's argument). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

SfA, there is a key difference between the statements I forwarded and the apparently speculative statements you describe, namely that my statements are accurate and the speculative statements (e.g. HRW is biased or UNW is neutral) are simply not true. There still exists an objective reality, even though in certain circles it's considered taboo. One purpose of the WP:RS policy is to keep Wikipedia anchored in this objective reality. Imagine now, that for example an NGO called "Armenian Human Rights Defence League (AHRDL)" would have issued in 1915 a statement to the effect that Turkish policy toward Armenians is "neutral". According to your logic, that statement would be okay to include in an article about the Armenian genocide, despite the fact that Wiki editors know the AHRDL is a Turkish front organization created specifically to issue bogus statements like that. Now we have the groups of laywers saying something very similar, and don't need this fake source to parrot them. UNW has been characterized as a "front group for the American Jewish Committee established to pressure the United Nations against a critical stance on Israel" 1 --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the objective reality where I live, Daylicare, a terrorist group (as recognized by US and EU) Hamas has come to power (actually elected in democratic elections by Palestinian people who's supposed to be a peace partner) of the strip of land situated less than 40 km from the place where I live - the group whose ideology is eradication of the Zionist entity and extermination of all the Jews living in Palestine. But neither Goldstone not this article never mentions it.

In the objective reality where I live, UN - its General Assembly and Human Rights Council - are strongly biased against Israel. Since 2006, Human Rights Council has issued 26 resolutions condemning Israel, out of total 32 - more than on all the other countries combined (and you are welcome to verify numbers on UN-dedicated cites). I don't know who this "spinwatch" is, but the fact that UN Watch has ties with American Jewish Community is not a secret; it is also not a secret that much (though not all) of its efforts are dedicated to fight the unfair treatment of Israel by UN - but this says absolutely nothing about the quality of their work. However, their work received much recognition and respect from some notable figures.

In the objective reality where I live, Human Rights Watch MidEast department employs personnel with strong anti-Israeli background. Before joining HRW, Sarah Leah Whitson was on the steering committee of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an organization heavily involved in pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activity. She was also active in supporting the “Caterpillar” boycott campaign. Joe Stork, the man behind "White Flag Deaths" report, was a founder and editor of the radical and postcolonial MERIP (Middle East Reports). In 2008 alone, HRW used the term "violation of human rights law/International Humanitarian Law/" with respect to Israel more times than on any other country in the MidEast - still, with all this bias it says nothing about the quality of each of their reports.

The logic about wiki policies is not mine - but of wiki establishers. Wiki is not about truth - but about verifiabilty. It is conceivable that wiki coverage of the current events is far from perfect, but it has to take into consideration numerous sources (based on their notability, relevance, etc.). I don't wish to explore your genocide analogy further because it depends on many unknown factors. Back to our business, it was exactly other way round - UN Watch issued a petition and then groups of lawyers supported it. Using your language, those lawyers parroted UN Watch. Since UN Watch's petition received coverage in the press and recognition in the world (as "parroting" by those lawyers groups demonstrate), there should be no problem quoting their response to the committee's reply to the petition, especially taking into consideration that Neuer's response explores aspect that is uncovered by the subsequent text (i.e. that fact-finding mission, regardless of their legal status, should not be exempt from impartiality).

I don't think there's any way I can convince you in something - you simply don't like pro-Israeli advocacy and seems that you're not ready to look at the case from the standpoint of the neutral wiki editor who is supposed to cover up the story. Your only argument so far is that Goldstone is respectable lawyer and UN Watch is "fake", "parroting", etc. etc. You don't understand that from the standpoint of wiki standards, UN Watch's bias is irrelevant in calculations whether to include them in the article or not. It is enough that they followed the mission closely and it was reported in some RSs - that is enough for the qualification. I don't see point in any further dispute on the matter - if you wish you can seek opinions of other editors with whatever tools that wiki provides. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate that since you live in the area, it requires extra effort from your part to retain NPOV when editing Wikipedia articles relating to the Middle-East conflict. Since you choose to edit these articles, it is however incumbent on you to expend this extra effort. The comment on Goldstone's respectability was lifted verbatim from the BBC source. WP:V doesn't mean that we include in articles everything that Neuer can verifiably be quoted as having said, but that we include what verifiably is the neutral/respected viewpoint. Neuer is not useful in establishing what that is. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Goldstone's respectability was lifted verbatim from the BBC source" - even most of the critics (not all though) agree that he is a respectable lawyer. That's fine. But what does it actually mean with respect to the mission or the dispute concerning Chinkin? That he is inherently right and his critics are wrong? That he is beyond criticism? The reader must be presented with all the pros and cons with respect to each dispute and decide for himself. Unfortunately, so far I havn't seen any other reasoning from you other than ad hominem labelling - "he is respectable", "she is biased", "this is good" and "that is bad". This is not a serious discussion.

"WP:V doesn't mean that we include in articles everything that Neuer can verifiably be quoted as having said" - right, and this is why I didn't include a dozen more statements that he issued in the course of the mission. You keep on ignoring the fact that Neuer's petition to disqualify Chinkin is "respected viewpoint" since it was picked up by media and received support by groups of UK and Canada lawyers. Moreover, his petition was not ignored by the Mission itself - they found time to respond to it in a formal letter. Neuer submitted a petition - the Mission rejected it outright - Neuer issued a response - 2 groups of lawyers published disappointment the petition was rejected. These were the 4 steps of the process and I believe the reader is entitled to know them without censoring. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - it probably won't convince you in anything but maybe it will make it easier on you to accept the reliance on UN Watch in the article: In a joint report, UN Watch and Freedom House, which champion human rights worldwide, lamented that Gabon and Zambia were guaranteed seats on the council because ..., and I can produce dozen more instances when UN Watch was dubbed notable org. in media. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying he's a respected lawyer means just that, nothing more and nothing less. I'm sure the readers aren't stupid enough to think that respected people couldn't make mistakes. When operating in their own field, sure, they're less likely to make mistakes than people whos speciality it isn't. Concerning Neuer, that's precisely my point: we have RS making the same point, so there is no need to cite Neuer saying the same thing. I've said this now repeatedly. Of course concerning the quote we're discussing ("inquiry is somehow exempt from the impartiality rule defies logic, morality and established international law"), no RS that I know of has said it, we have just Neuer. --Dailycare (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Resepected" is a non neutral and subjective word, clearly violating WP:PEA. It doesn't matter if it's sourced. The BBC is a reliable source on news events but cannot be reliable source on matters of personal opinion. We cannot bring such words into WP except when in a direct quotation by an unbiased person in the law world. At WP we cannot be seen as biased especially in such a controversial issue. I vote to either remove this word or turn it into a direct quote by the person who said he is respected. Marokwitz (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEA applies to unsourced terms. This is sourced, the BBC article states it and in the same article a "legal adviser to the Israeli military during the Gaza war" is quoted saying of him "He is one of the major figures in international criminal justice today". If you prefer the wording the legal adviser used, I'm OK with that as well but I feel it's too expressive for the lead so I'd prefer "respected". Concerning direct quotes, this article (and others) IMO suffers from excessive "he said, she said" writing which isn't very encyclopedic. --Dailycare (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

→Below are 2 articles regarding the Goldstone vs Gold debate. Note that JPost reproduce words by Neuer who says that the fact-finding mission disregarded a set of standards applicable to such committees. I guess it removes completely the dispute surrounding Neuer's quote. Whenever I have time, I'll substitute ref to JPost. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The first one doesn't appear to be RS. The second one does regrettably re-cycle Neuer's ranting. If you insist on including it, in the form cited by JPost, I'll also enter Goldstone's response to the student question on the issue. However the end result is only that the article gets longer, with the boring "he said, she said" format. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gold vs Goldstone vs UN Watch

Gold vs Goldstone

Gold vs Goldstone part2. "...according to Hillel Neuer of the Geneva-based UN Watch. "Goldstone has consistently evaded any accountability under the law applicable to international fact-finding missions, by repeatedly declaring that his panel was 'not judicial,'" he wrote in an opinion essay after the debate. "But this is a red herring. The simple truth is that his fact-finding mission was legally subject to a well-established set of standards. Sadly, however, these were ignored." --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)