Talk:Arthur A. Goldberg

Which one is the subject?
Due to this edit, I would like to clarify which Arthur Goldberg this article is supposed to be about. While some of the information was removed (the conviction and disbarment), it was definitely Arthur Abba Goldberg who served as Deputy Attorney General of NJ (see STATE v. CHUN, 58,879 (N.J. 2-13-2007)), married Jane Elizabeth Gottlieb in 1968 (New York Times, page 15, July 13, 1968), was Vice-President of Matthews & Wright and convicted of fraud and conspiracy, and disbarred in 1995 (see 142 NJ 557 (1995)). There were not two NJ Deputy Attorneys General named Arthur Goldberg. So either these are both the same person, or Arthur Avrum Goldberg was not an NJ Deputy AG. This should be cleared up so that we can either include all of the appropriate information, or separate these two people into two different pages.  Jim Miller  See me 17:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article started of about the JONAH/NARTH guy so probably should stay that way. The earlier information confirmed that the Abba guy got in trouble in 1991 but doesn't link it to this guy, nor do any of the others sources and they don't mention his middle name either. So while these two people may well be the same, there's not enough info from reliable secondary sources to confirm it (even the information on his education and previous careers are primarily unsourced). Well the German source may help, but it's dead. Given that it's not clear at the moment what his full name is whereas it appears to be clear what the other guy's middle name is Abba so the best bet for an article on the Abba guy would be Arthus Abba Goldberg for disambiguation purposes if there are two people so another reason to keep this about the JONAH/NARTH guy. However from the little I've read so far, I'm not convinced there is any merit for an article on the Abba guy his he doesn't seem particularly notable. Actually I'm not convinced this guy is either there's very little biographical info in the sources available and only two of them are secondary sources and they're primarily discussing his book or organisation rather then him. However that's for AFD to sort out I guess Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The BLP issues are too great if they are different people. I have a lot more info on Abba, so I will work on a separate article aout that one, unless more research gives sources to state that they are the same person.  Jim Miller  See me 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Effective "deletion" of this article
I reversed the edit by User:THF, which effectively deleted the article by redirecting it to the related JONAH article. The reason given was that it was "largely unsourced," which is untrue. The article is better sourced than most BLPs of this length.

I did not include the recent allegations against Goldberg, as they will probably require firmer sources to confirm that both Goldbergs are the same person. David L Rattigan (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it was "thoroughly sourced". The redirect was discussed at WP:BLPN. THF (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me everything was sourced appropriately except the most recent allegations (which are now removed). The only dispute as to his name is whether he is the same Arthur Goldberg convicted of fraud in 1989. Everything else in the article is consistent and sourced. David L Rattigan (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nearly everything is WP:PRIMARY sourced, except for two quotes.
 * Analysis of sources
 * WP:PRIMARY
 * WP:PRIMARY, dead link, and, according to the talk page, a different Arthur A. Goldberg
 * Article about Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality
 * Dead link, WP:PRIMARY
 * One quote in Washington Times from his role in Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality
 * WP:PRIMARY, not clear if same Arthur A. Goldberg
 * I don't call that appropriately sourced for a BLP, and see no loss in content if it ends up as a redirect. I'll make an AFD nomination, unless you're aware of other sources. THF (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll do what I can to update the sources. Most of the primary sources fall within acceptability, however, according to the link you provided:


 * Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.


 * I think a link to NARTH to establish that he has a position with NARTH, for example, qualifies as a "descriptive statement that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."


 * On the second (dead) link, even the URL confirms it is talking about Arthur Goldberg of JONAH. I think you might have misread the statement on the talk page, as I don't see there's any dispute over whether Arthur Goldberg of JONAH was District Attorney etc, just over whether there could have been another person of the same name in the same position. The dispute (which I have been following closely) is over whether he is the same Arthur Goldberg convicted of fraud - which allegation I removed until it is properly sourced. David L Rattigan (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against the use of primary sources; my point is merely that this fellow doesn't currently meet WP:BIO with the sources in the article, as there is no significant secondary coverage. NB that the talk page section immediately above us has an editor who disputes that this Arthur A. Goldberg is the one described in footnote 2.  I further repeat my rule of thumb: when elementary biographical details cannot be sussed out, it is a very very good sign that the subject is not notable.  THF (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, see http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/supreme/d-146-94.opn.html for the same person referenced in the conviction and disbarrment of this individual. Unless the name can be shown to be non-unique, it seems they are the same person. Also, note the articles in NY Times mentioning his connection as a founder of the Jersey City Credit union used in the fraud, tying him back to the original subjects area. Forgive the lack of proper etiquette, this the first discussion I have joined.GeekyDee (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the following citation makes it clear that these are the same individual, http://thejewishstate.net/nov9JONAH.html which states: "Goldberg, a former law professor at the University of Connecticut and past deputy attorney general of New Jersey, has a list of about a dozen events or recurring events in childhood that can derail the development of a child's sexual identity and cause him or her to pursue a homosexual lifestyle for any number of reasons."


 * There's nothing in the two links that says they're the same person. The disbarment opinion says only that Abba was admitted in 1965: it doesn't say he went to Cornell, doesn't say he taught at Connecticut, doesn't say he was a deputy attorney general.  I'd say there's a strong chance they're same person, given the 1965 bar admission date and the New Jersey location; it's just not beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. What NY Times articles are you talking about? THF (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On my own research, this google search shows that Arthur Abba Goldberg has the biographical details of the JONAH co-founder, which now moves it beyond reasonable doubt for me. THF (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations
The recent allegations against Arthur Goldberg have been removed temporarily until it is established that Arthur A Goldberg of JONAH is the same Arthur Abba Goldberg jailed in 1989 for fraud. I personally know this to be the case, and don't doubt that verifiable sources will be forthcoming, but until they are, adding/deleting/reverting will only be a futile user war. David L Rattigan (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the allegations, as I see they have now been picked up by The Advocate, which I believe is acceptable as a secondary source. David L Rattigan (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why -- it's plain that The Advocate is simply repeating the earlier story without any independent reporting, and it says as much. Either the first source is sufficient, or it's not, but the bootstrapping doesn't turn it from insufficient to sufficient.  There's certainly a strong argument that it is insufficient given the partisan nature of the source. THF (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The guidelines for sources, as well as the specific BLP guidelines clearly favour a publication such as The Advocate (a respected news source with editorial oversight, albeit targeted at a minority) over a purely partisan activist organization as a secondary source. If The Advocate can be considered reliable, it is no less reliable simply because it is repeating information first announced elsewhere. They're a reliable news organization with editorial oversight: I assume they would not have published it if they didn't think the story had journalistic integrity. David L Rattigan (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NB that it's an Advocate.com blog post, not The Advocate, and all it says is that the first source said what it said. But I won't argue the point -- though I continue to be amazed how easy it is to get controversial information about living people in to articles about religious leaders, but try to insert a single sentence from a best-selling book into Bill Moyers, and watch the BLP sparks fly. THF (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't reinstate it if you don't think it belongs there. I don't intend to get into an edit war over this, as should be obvious from my update history (I've only added the allegations once, and then only because in good faith I thought it was sourced according to Wiki guidelines; and I haven't since attempted to revert it). I'll happily hash it out in discussion with you and/or others until it's resolved one way or the other. Think "it's an Advocate.com blog post" is a bit of a cop-out. It doesn't describe itself as a blog, per se (bearing in mind that many news outlets use a blog layout and invite comments), and Advocate.com, so far as I can see, presents itself as basically the digital edition of the publication. David L Rattigan (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations of a conviction" are per se a contentious claim. Considering the current discussions about immediate removal of any such claims (per WP:BLP) unless the allegations can be more strongly linked to the person, the source is insufficient to allow the claim to remain. If the conviction can be specifically shown to be the specific person, that is a horse of a different color, but if there is any dispute about it, the "allegations of conviction" can not remain. See also the discussions about deletion of BLPs which contain such material. Collect (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This google search shows that Arthur Abba Goldberg has the biographical details of the JONAH co-founder, which now moves it beyond reasonable doubt for me. THF (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Benjiboi provided reasonable wording for the material. Collect (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Activism section
I have added a sentence on CASE, a Soviet immigrant assistance organization founded by Goldberg. Those seeking additional items for expanding this article should search for information on CASE, the Museum of Soviet Art in Exile (later renamed as the Museum of Russian Contemporary Art in Exile), and New American Federal Credit Union - all organizations founded by Goldberg in this cause. I plan to add more myself, but will not be able to do so for a little while.  Jim Miller  See me 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM
The article and lead is written as if his current gig is the most notable thing in his career, which it clearly isn't. It needs a total rewrite. THF (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The details of his past, I'm guessing at least 40 years, needs to be worked through and added accordingly. I do note however that he has played a major role in the ex-gay movement if nothing else for founding and maintaining a Jewish focussed ex-gay group when all the others cling to a charismatic Christian tone. As his past activities are unearthed they should be integrated with due weight but I see no evidence anyone was suppressing this other information just that it simply wasn't seen as notable until the fraud case was reported. Now that reliable sources have connected those dots so can we. -- Banj e  b oi   16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the ex-gay movement isn't especially notable; it's the subject of fun in Bruno movies and whatnot, but it's a pretty minor movement, dealing with a small fraction of the small fraction of the population that are gay and religious. We judge notability by what secondary sources say, and it's pretty plain that this guy's 1975-1990 activities are far more notable in terms of press coverage. It merits one sentence in the lead, and a short paragraph elsewhere.  THF (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that the ex-gay movement itself "isn't especially notable." There are tons of secondary sources discussing it in the past thirty or forty years, including scores of books, and newspaper and magazine articles. As a journalist who has investigated the ex-gay movement and written about it in both religious and secular publications, I assure you its significance goes far beyond its mention in "Bruno movies and whatnot."


 * I agree with Benjiboi that the article needs to be reordered now that Arthur A. Goldberg of JONAH has been identified as Arthur Abba Goldberg. It is clear the previous confusion come solely from Goldberg's own (successful, for a long time) attempt to reinvent himself as another "Arthur A. Goldberg," following his conviction. David L Rattigan (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ex-gay is actually pretty profound and have been inserted into US politics and religious culture wars as a wedge issue, particularly with elections. That it is parodied in mainstream pop culture is an indication of how mainstream the concept is which was rather unknown even a decade or so ago. And due weight suggests that what the BLP is most notable for the last twelve years, actually the last twenty years or longer, would certainly be the most prominent as that's what our readers are most likely to be interested in. A good article would of course cover the whole subject and there is a lot of content available. The lede would overview it all and highlights as we are aware of them would certainly be included. I'm not convinced Goldberg was reinventing himself as much as simply being a (very) old man who no one would blame if he didn't even know how to do an email. In a quick survey of sources I saw at least three other groups and businesses he established so those too should be included. It's a process and will take work. -- Banj e  b oi   17:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Name
I recommend we change the article name to Arthur Abba Goldberg, since that's the most common use in press accounts. Also, given felony history, it would be good to distinguish from other Arthur A. Goldbergs out there. THF (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What other ones would be a concern? There is an appropriate redirect in place from the full name to this article, and the only other Arthur Goldberg with an article is not going to be confused with this one. Unless there is a reason for the move, I see no reason to do so.  Jim Miller  See me 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A. Goldberg (JONAH) is Arthur Abba Goldberg
Most people are by now convinced, but here's some confirmation from Ex-Gay Watch. Basically, David Roberts from XGW contacted NARTH directly and they confirmed immediately that Goldberg was Arthur Abba Goldberg, and that it was common knowledge. Since XGW is a website with which I am heavily involved, I won't post it in the main article. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's a reliable source. David L Rattigan (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-organization of the article
I reorganized the article to reflect chronology and the importance of Goldberg's business career (and conviction). Added a few sources.

There was a lot of added stuff about the dangers of reparative therapy which seemed unnecessary. They didn't address Goldberg specifically, and just a brief note that reparative therapy is disputed, with a link to the relevant article, seemed sufficient. David L Rattigan (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tended to notice the same trend to WP:COATRACK a lot of sexuality-related articles. Conversion therapy is thataway. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually if a subject's notability rests in fringe theories we state that to remian NPOV, X believes Y but these ideas have been rejected by mainstream experts, or similar. -- Banj e  b oi   02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If people want to know about whether the theory has been accepted or rejected by mainstream experts, let them read the main article itself. I don't see a legitimate reason why that particular characteristic deserves special mention. BabyJonas (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a NPOV issue. It doesn't have to come off as subject is a nutter but as their notability is tied to a fringe theory we do need to note the theory is discredited. There are many ways of doing this but I would prefer it be tied to when the theories themselves is brought up. As a key member and founder of several conversion therapy groups, the best known groups BTW, and as it's not a well-understood topic, and as that article itself has been a target for POV editing for ... quite a few years.  We should serve our readers. How exactly that is done is of course in process. I also note that the article is needing still a lot of work and what exact wording maybe can wait until a lot more earlier life material is added, the lede adjusted accordingly and then see where things are.  -- Banj e  b oi   04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Benjeboi, we do not. What you're describing is called WP:COATRACK.  We describe a topic fully in one article, which has an NPOV name and an NPOV balance to its content, and then we just link to that article.  Instead saying e.g. "Conversion therapy, roundly rejected by the psychological establishment..." is itself a POV.  We don't need it, since the linked article describes it and explaining the pro v. con arguments gives UNDUE weight to that discussion when a wikilink will suffice. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, from [WP:Coatrack] - "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." No one is suggesting we mainly or extensively talk about other subjects. What a good article would do is explain what conversion therapy is and that it's generally rejected by mainstream medical professionals as dangerous, discredited, etc. In the same way if someone was known for Holocaust denialism we would give a cursory explanation what that means and that the practice is widely condemned and why. Each article should be a well written and neutral piece unto itself. The wikilinks provide more information in hopes it will benefit our readers but the editors on this article are not responsible for every article that this one links to. -- Banj e  b oi   14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Banjeboi it's like going to a surgeon's article and saying "Oh, by the way surgery is a widely accepted medical practise by mainstream medical associations." Or going to a child molester's page and saying "By the way, child molestation is rejected by mainstream society." - Unnecessary, irrelevant, and at some point becomes POV due to it's forced inclusion. Personally, I'm just finding it icky that an article goes out of it's way to disparage or criticize someone over anything and everything, particularly in a BLP. He was called a con-man in another article, and was labelled a felon in his own lede. Why are people so eager to disparage him? BabyJonas (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only imagine why anyone wants to disparage him but it really doesn't matter as we are to remain neutral and follow reliable sourcing. As to your examples I think I've already answered those questions so will leave well enough alone and simply support anyone who wants to improve this article regardless of why their working on it. Do note I removed everything about Goldberg from the conversion therapy article due to BLP so suggesting I wish to do anything but follow BLP is misplaced, I don't. -- Banj e  b oi   17:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates removed
I removed the AfD, Rescue and Bio templates. Following the discussion on here, the discussion at AfD (which ended in a consensus and a SNOW, whatever that is) and the improvements made to the article and sources, I think I was right to do so. If I was mistaken, feel free to revert it. David L Rattigan (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things, one is allow someone uninvolved to do the close. The second is that on the article talkpage we have to note the AfD. I've asked for someone to have a look so I imagine it will be closed shortly. -- Banj e  b oi   14:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Goldberg resigned from NARTH
Goldberg resigned as a board member of NARTH. The relevant info is here. I didn't add the info myself as I wrote the source; so I'll leave that to an impartial user. David L Rattigan (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Business Activities" and "Conviction for Fraud" Should Be Two Seperate Sections
These two points are thematically and chronologically distinguishable and should each receive a seperate header. Considering, however, that the only point related to business activities refers exclusively to nicknames and that Goldberg was "well known", perhaps that line should just be eliminated and not receive a dedicated header.

It seems to me like 18 months in prison is substantial, especially for someone otherwise known for lawyering and activism. Details related to his conviction, including the name of his partner and more information about his time in prison, are warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.173.224 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One section is sufficient. We do not have hard and fast rules about themes and chronology. The conviction is a result of his business activity--so the flow of the section is fine. It doesn't matter if we think 18 months is substantial or not. All that matters is do reliable sources place weight on this item. I think the amount of space given to the conviction is adequate: it is comparable to the weight given by reliable sources. – Lionel (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Arthur A. Goldberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624102722/http://thejewishstate.net:80/nov9JONAH.html to http://thejewishstate.net/nov9JONAH.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624102722/http://thejewishstate.net:80/nov9JONAH.html to http://thejewishstate.net/nov9JONAH.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310143928/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/115/115.F3d.722.96-70037.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/115/115.F3d.722.96-70037.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810140848/http://www.romingerlegal.com:80/new_jersey/supreme/d-146-94.opn.html to http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/supreme/d-146-94.opn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)