Talk:Richard Goldstone/Archive 4

Poll

 * I've just reviewed the history of edits (article and discussion page) and it appears that the numbers of those favoring inclusion and exclusion of the subject edit are equal or nearly equal.


 * Those favoring inclusion are
 * Jiujitsuguy
 * Wikifan12345
 * Breein1007
 * BrewerScrewer
 * Tallicfan20
 * No More Mr Nice Guy
 * Gilisa
 * Jonund
 * LReit
 * Epeefleche
 * Cptnono evidenced by this comment


 * Those who do not oppose inclusion but in altered form
 * Fat&Happy
 * JGGardiner


 * Those who adamantly oppose inclusion are
 * ChrisO
 * Nableezy
 * Seanhoyland
 * Johnuniq
 * Nomoskedasticity
 * RolandR
 * Greenman
 * Kittybrewster
 * Quantpole
 * Wehwalt
 * Crotalus
 * Pexise


 * Those leaning toward exclusion
 * e. ripley


 * A Possible solution to this standoff would be if one editor from each opposing camp along with one editor straddling the middle line discuss the issue on the talk page without the rest of us cluttering it up and we all agree to abide by their agreement (should they reach one). Apologies in advance if I misrepresented anyone's stance on the issue--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this include people who have expressed an opinion at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN? It appears not, in which case if you want a true accounting of opinions expressed, those two places must also be considered. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me exactly what the proposed edit is so I can add my view without having to trawl through large volumes of comments? Thanks Pexise (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So far the only proposal on the table is one from Noamskedicity:

"The Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot published an article in May 2010 scrutinizing his sentencing record and asserting that Goldstone had been an “apartheid judge”^ref> Yediot Aharonot, 07.05.2010 'Goldstone's death trials' ^ref> http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=174769 ; Goldstone disputed details of the article.^ref>http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/judge-goldstone-responds-death-penalty-story Sasha Polakow-Suransky writing in the Huffington Post accused Goldstone's critics of hypocrisy, pointing out Israel's own close relationship with the South African apartheid regime.^ref>Sasha Polakow-Suransky, 'Hypocrisy Now!: The Pro-Israel Crowd's Sins of Omission', Huffington Post, 12 May 2010" &mdash; e. ripley\talk 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. For the record, I would strongly oppose the suggested edit. We have previously discussed the Yediot article and I opposed its inclusion then. Pexise (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See this edit from Archive 2: "I've been looking for other sources and several carry the accusations, all refering back to the Yediot article. On the other hand, I have found this: .  If the contention is that these are false or distorted allegations, we should not be reproducing them in this article. Pexise (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)" Pexise (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Goldstone defense "Finally, I would say that these events took place 25 - 30 years ago. At that time a number of democracies had not abolished the death sentence." Golly gee, everybody was doing it so why shouldn't I?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Selectively quoting the source I provided is not helpful to discussions. Pexise (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He acknowledges sentencing 2 blacks to death
 * He acknowledges the upholding of other death sentences
 * His sanction against a 13-year old S. African school boy for anti-apartheid activities was reported in the NYT
 * He calls the other allegations against him "distortions" but offers no particulars or specific rebuttals
 * The subject edit is important and must be included in light of Goldstone's own admissions and evasiveness--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly oppose that edit, so please add me to your poll. Pexise (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's more accurate to say that the text is this  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again there is a change of subject from those wanting the POV material, with no engagement with the prior discussion and no attempt to offer counter arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear that there has been some criticism of his history. Even if they are biased it looks like enough to mention. However, it may not be enough for a whole section since that gives it a little more prominence. The best next step would probably be for some editors to work up some alternate drafts. Consider moving these controversies into the existing prose to reduce its visual impact and keep it chronological. There is nothing wrong with simply stating attributed criticism if it is signifigant enough. It might be helpful if editors against inclusion would say if there are any parts of the edit that are less disputed. Are there any sources, quotes, or information that you would consider?
 * Can someone point me to the discussion on the Yediot piece? I am assuming it is fine but there was obviously some dispute. I also would assume that if it is not RS but other RS discussed it then it should alleviate some of the concern but that might have already been discussed as well.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Previous discussions are now linked in talk header.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

'The emergency regulations covered the situation,' Mr. Goldstone said now. 'There was no way out.'"The Times piece later quotes Goldstone as saying "I believe judges have a duty to act morally, and if they're dealing with laws which have an unjust effect, I think it's their duty -- if they can, within the powers they've got legitimately -- to interpret the laws and give judgments which will make them less harsh and less unjust." I think this story would be fine to include, but not just the part about him concurring on that judgment. I think it could be included in the section in the career as a lawyer and judge (which should be renamed to "Career as attorney and judge" instead of the current somewhat silly title). Next, the quote from the Atlantic and the piece from YA. The Atlantic is not "noting" that Goldstone did this, the Atlantic is quoting Ynet, in a piece that has already been discussed ad naseum where there was at the very least no consensus that this piece could be used in a BLP and at most a clear consensus from uninvolved editors that it should not be. This discussion should not be repeated ad nauseum and I see no need to discuss this again right now. That piece cant go in here, it has no place in something that purports to be a serious biography in a serious source. Without the YA nonsense there is no need for the third paragraph. Finally, the Dershowitz quote. To compare Goldstone to Nazi Mengele is absolutely asinine. Alan Dershowitz is in no way qualified to be quoted as a source in a biography of Goldstone. Including that quote is unacceptable. We would be willfully propagating a libel against a living person, it doesn't make it all right just because we can see "so and so said that such and such". I can find countless quotes comparing Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Avigdor Lieberman, and any number of other Israelis to Nazis that were published in so-called "reliable sources". It does not mean that I should put those quotes in the articles of those people. I truly cannot believe that I even have to argue this point.  nableezy  - 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An English version of the YA article can be found at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3885999,00.html The many attempts to insert a four-paragraph edit shown by two editors above never gave a URL, so I haven't had a chance to read the actual article yet, just the additions made to WP.
 * I'd say the RS situation is more the reverse of your understanding. YA is considered a RS, but the other cites, in general, are blogs and other opinion pieces relying on YA for their facts, so tertiary sources at best.
 * There was some discussion in the previous section as to what a couple of us consider appropriate additions. Generally, I'd say it is Jiujitsuguy's first three bullet points, as well as his fourth bullet point without snarky comments on lack of specific rebuttals. But the inclusions, as you seem to understand, should not give undue weight to this single source. My opinion still is that criticism occurring prior to April 2009, as well as incidents confirmed by Goldstone or neutral third-party sources, should be worked into the section on his career as a judge in SA; those without confirmation and only made more recently in an attempt to discredit the Gaza report should be included in the section discussing that report. And basically, any treatment of these allegations should be made in neutral encyclopedia phrasing, not the "Extra! Extra!! Goldman an Apartheid Monster!" tone of the prior edits. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That Ynetnews piece doesn't even pretend to be objective journalism. The very first sentence reads: "He asserted that Israel committed war crimes  and came out against the Israel Defense Forces, whom he claimed violated basic human rights." So we get a clear picture up front that this is about the Goldstone Report, and not a reputable historical account of Goldstone's career. This tabloid journalism is a violation of WP:BLP and should be excluded. *** Crotalus *** 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At best, the YA report can be *covered* (as in my suggested edit above), but certainly not used as a source for anything actually about Goldstone's work as a judge.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I wanted to avoid. Editors blathering on and on and battling it out to stalemate on the discussion page. Clearly, I and like-minded others have one position and ChrisO and friends have contrary positions. It's obvious that we don't play nicely together in the sandbox. I suggest that we allow Fat&amp;Happy and Cptnono to work on the disputed edit in question as both appear to have a reputation for neutrality in this area and we all agree to abide by their understandings, provided of course that they are willing to shoulder the responsibility.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is that nobody wants to craft some actual compromise language. Of course, unless the veracity of Yediot's original reporting can either be refuted or confirmed, there may be no compromise position. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ynet, which is owned by Yediot, republished its findings.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Other aspects of the Yediot article, specifically the detention of the 13-yr old anti-apartheid activist, have been corroborated by the NYTimes. As far as the executions themselves, Goldstone, as a lower court judge admits to handing down execution sentences for two black men and does not deny upholding death sentences for other blacks while sitting as an appellate judge. Nor does he deny the accusations alledging that he acquited four white cops for burglarizing a women's house on suspicion of having relations with blacks and does not deny the allegation that he sentenced four black men to lashings. He calls many of the allegations against him "distortions" but does not deny them outright. Perhaps we can include something about him referring to the allegations (that he did not admit to) as distortions of his record. I'm trying to find a compromise. Work with me people--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with including certain things, but not they way they were presented. The issue with jailing the child would be fine to include. The NY Times source says the following about this:"He established a reputation as legally meticulous and politically astute judge who could not throw out cruel laws, but sought to temper their effects. ... But he distressed civil rights lawyers by concurring without comment in a 1986 decision to allow the jailing of a 13-year-old boy for disrupting school.

Jiujitsuguy, since this steers clear of the Yediot source, perhaps you could propose some language related to the NYT source on the child jailing? A specific textual proposal would probably be helpful for steering discussions. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rip, I'll come up with something. Nab referring to articles published by YA, Israel's largest daily, as nonsense is, "asinine." As for Dershowitz, you are deliberately misconstruing what he says. He's not comparing Goldstone to Nazis. He's saying that Goldstone's excuse of "just following orders" is precisely the same excuse the Nazis gave. He's saying that there are some orders you just don't follow and enforcing Apartheid rules is one of them.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jiu, he explicitly compares Goldstone to Mengele. Next, the YA source was discussed at both the BLP/N and the RS/N. Nearly every uninvolved editor agreed that it should not be used in a BLP. You cant just ignore that. My suggestion for including the NYTimes source would be to place the info in the paragraph that begins Some of South Africa's laws and emergency regulations mandated particular penalties. I would phrase it as "In 1986, Goldstone concurred without comment with a decision that allowed the jailing of a 13 year old child for disrupting school. Goldstone later remarked that he was constrained by the law, that "the emergency regulations covered the situation."(ref NYTimes)  nableezy  - 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "liberal"
i have read the previous sections and see that the yediot aharonot material was questioned very extensively. i do not see a final 'decision' or consensus about it. without needing to reference the hangings, it is clear from the article that judge goldstone did sentence more than 25 people to be hanged. i think it is proof enough of someone not being 'liberal'.Soosim (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apartheid South Africa was a very strange place, and "one of several liberal judges" is a highly accurate and NPOV statement. Editing this article will require reading more than attack pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yes it was. and regardless, "liberal" is an opinion. not a fact. see "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and other points under "Explanation of the neutral point of view" Soosim (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * and i wanted to add that i did read more than 'attack pages'. for example: JC article 1 and JC article 2. he says what he did, and he wrote what he wrote. not sure why this is even controversial? Soosim (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly you are interpreting "liberal" as what it has come to mean in twisted U.S. politics. I don't have time to look for some background now, but a "liberal judge" in apartheid South Africa was a different animal—a citation would be useful but the term is extremely accurate and not at all POV in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * while i love "twisted US politics" and liberalism, i also researched all of the articles on the liberal party and liberalism in south africa as well. sorry, no liberal would stand for sentencing a person to be hanged, and/or not overturning the sentences presented to him/her as well. citation for liberal will then bring a citation for not-liberal. best to leave it out altogether. Soosim (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The contents of the lead are governed by WP:LEAD. It's a summary of the article. Goldstone is classified as "liberal" in multiple places in the article body. The question is whether the lead complies with WP:LEAD rather than whether Goldstone was liberal within the context of apartheid South Africa. The latter question is relevant to proposed changes to the article body first and then the lead if necessary later. I will say this though, the fact that a tiny minority of commentators with bizarre fringe right wing views about all sorts of things like international law, who attack human rights groups on a regular basis, the UN, anyone who dares to investigate human rights violations by the State of Israel have decided to attack Goldstone is irrelevant. It's a question of due weight. If the consensus view amongst sources without an axe to grind is that he was liberal within the context of apartheid South Africa than we can say that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed this discussion and wanted to observe (as someone familiar with apartheid-era South African politics) that a liberal, in those days, was defined as someone who opposed the principles of inequality that underlaid apartheid. "Liberalism" has a very specific meaning in this context. I suggest you read The Liberal dilemma in South Africa by Pierre L. Van den Berghe (1979), in which he comments: "Liberalism ... adamantly rejects all forms of state recognition of groups and advocates incorporation of citizens into the state on the basis of equality of rights" (pp. 7-8). That is the context in which someone in South African public life was described as a "liberal". It has nothing to do with someone's position on the death penalty, though I note that the article says that Goldstone was personally opposed to it. Prioryman (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

UN fact finding mission on the gaza conflict - comments regarding south african jewish community
hi fat and happy - not clear why you feel that the chairperson of the largest jewish organization in south africa is not 'notable', but you do think that the Union for Progressive Judaism and the South African Association of Progressive Rabbis are. (they represent only one slice of life there), whereas the South African Zionist Federation represents the entire jewish community.

also, both Former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, and Albie Sachs are notable, but both only represent one point of view. why not include the opposing point of view to give a balance? something with your 2nd revert with 24 hours doesn't sit right. simply claiming that the chairman of the SAZF is not notable nor noteworthy is insufficient (particularly since the SAZF is mentioned in the next sentence or two as well!). help...please explain your edits and actions. thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we are talking about this edit which has a quote from Avrom Krengel, Chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, "responding to" some comment. The problem with such quotes is that they have no end (will we add a response to the response?), and they are non-encyclopedic (it's an editor cherry picking comments to highlight some issue). This article needs to say that Goldstone produced a report, and that report led to a controversy. If the controversy were really notable (it's not), a separate article should be written about it. Trying to incorporate pro/con commentary in this article is just point scoring. I think it would be possible to mount a case for trimming the current text, but adding commentary where someone justifies calls for a protest is not helpful to an understanding of the subject of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * actually, Johnuniq, the more i read this section, the more i agree with you! can we "vote" to remove these few paragraphs from the entire section? Soosim (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * -(semi) – I typed this before Soosim's response to Johnuniq...
 * I actually agree with User:Johnuniq that a case could (easily) be made for trimming some of the existing commentary on the Bar Mitzvah incident (which apparently eventually turned into a non-event). But even if we all think the existing content should be cut back, a major difference is that the other comments were reported in the usual set of reliable sources, which at least argues for them being noteworthy even if their inclusion is possibly undue or unencyclopedic. The same cannot be said for a quote directly from an interview the person did with an apparent affiliate of his own organization. Perhaps we should transport the two paragraphs about the Bar Mitzvah here to the talk page and see if a consensus on how to tighten it up a bit can be reached. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding: reading Soosim's reply, I would say I have no objection to removal of the two Bar Mitzvah paragraphs (and I don't recall if there's a remaining mention earlier in the article or not – I think I merged one to here a week or so ago, when updating it to say nothing happened.) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * go for it! (starting with " He rejected these claims, stating: "I would have been acting against [my] principles and" in the middle of the 3rd from last paragraph of the section.Soosim (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, we're down to one sentence of partial disagreement. I'm fine with deleting from "His position was supported by the former South African Chief Justice..." on. I think he's entitled to have some response to what are not merely criticisms but charges; the current quote strikes me as a bit over-the-top to keep though. How about a paraphrase along the lines of "Goldstone denied these accusations, saying he felt that being a Jew increased his obligation to participate in the inquiry." using the existing ref [58] (The Canadian Press article) as the citation? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * the first three sentences talk about criticism of the report. the 3rd reads: "Goldstone himself came under sustained personal attack, with critics accusing him of bias, dishonesty and improper motives in being party to the report." ok, so what? there is no need for him to 'defend himself'. it is just a statement of fact that there were those who felt he wasn't being fair and honest, or whatever. it would only be newsworthy if he had said 'yes, you're right. i was biased and dishonest.' - it has NOTHING to do with his being a jew. in fact, there are many news articles out there that say he took the job because he was jewish, but when i added them in, i was told it was not relevant! anyway, i think you can just leave the facts in. people are allowed to be criticized. Soosim (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know your time zone... in mine it's past my bedtime. Based on the tentative discussion progress so, I went ahead and deleted the 2½ paragraphs we had both agreed on, and trimmed the remaining sentence as I had proposed with a note in the edit summary that it might not be in final form. I figured that was an improvement over the previous state.
 * I think we should leave it that way for now, and see if anybody else has an opinion. While it would certainly be more newsworthy if he didn't respond to the attacks at all, the fact is the common practice when publishing accusations and criticisms is to include some sort of explanatory statement or rebuttal when available. I think my change pretty much trimmed that part down to bare bone.


 * (By the way, I may be remembering wrong; I don't think I'm the one who reverted your addition of claims he was chosen because he was a Jew, but either way I recall thinking at the time that the claim itself could probably be justified, but either the placement, the exact phrasing, or both seemed a bit off. I'll try to check back and refresh my memory tomorrow.) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Report Aftermath
I think it is very much worth mentioning later thoughts that RG had published about the report - such as, for example, from this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html made on April 1, 2011, in which Goldstone practically changes his view on things discussed in the report, and here are a few notable quotes that maybe someone more eloquent in English editing than I am, can add to this Wikipedia entry:

"While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

"I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes."

"Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing."

Another interesting quote that certainly deserves to be added to this entry, though not directly reported to the Report aftermath, is taken from the same article above. It says: "I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

I'd thank anyone who would see how to edit some of this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoMI (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 195.70.21.193, 3 April 2011
To be added to the "UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" section:

"Goldstone has retracted the central and most explosive assertion of its report - that Israel intentionally killed Palestinian civilians there. according to the International Herald Tribune. (Article: Head of U.N. Panel Regrets Saying Israel Intentionally Killed Gazans. April, 2, 2011).

The reception of this mea culpa in the Israeli press was nonetheless pronouncedly polarized. Indeed, Yédiot Aharonot praised Goldstone for "finally seeing clear" while Maariv's editorialist posited that the judged did not "deserve pardon", as he acted in a "miserable and shameful way, contrary to the most fundamental moral norms of justice and common sense." The Jerusalem Post, for its part, went as far as to say that he put Israelis' life in "jeopardy presenting [them] as immoral" and that "this man's excuses [were] insufficient." According to Haaretz, Goldstone's revocation was a "formidable mediatic success for Israel" as "Richard Golstone had ended up embodying more insistently than anyone else the efforts targeting Israel's legitimacy in its quality of civilized, law-abiding State."

(Note: These sources can be found on "Le Monde.fr" http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2011/04/03/guerre-de-gaza-les-regrets-du-juge-goldstone-agitent-la-presse-israelienne_1502426_3218.html)

Thank you for adding these comments.

195.70.21.193 (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:I'm sorry but I can't find the article you cited in the first paragraph and my French is SO bad that the La Monde link doesn't help much. (We can't use a French ref in the English Wikipedia, anyway.)


 * Can you supply reliable sources (see WP:RS) for the text you want inserted? If so, please reactivate this request by changing the "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template at the top of this section. Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 21:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much a moot point. The sections immediately before and after this one are variations on the same theme. The information has been added to both main text and lead. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Head of U.N. Panel Regrets Saying Israel Intentionally Killed Gazans
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03goldstone.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.48.37 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mis-use of source
Goldstone gives a fairly balanced interview at but we seem to keep selecting the bits about his acceptance of previous UN bias, his repetition of the outcome of the Israeli investigation and the extent to which he would have written a different report with all evidence now presented, slightly slanting it as though he has withdrawn more allegation than he has, and ignoring the bits in the interview about the original report being hampered by Israel's failure to co-operate, which in the article seems to be why he says it would have been a different report with evidence since published. I don't quite understand why this editorial rework by Wikipedia is needed: the washington post is not very neutral sure but the interview seems to contain quite a lot of Goldstone's own words? And if we put in the crit about the UN history why not the crit about Israel's investigation not being public for example? I think we should stick to his balance. --BozMo talk 07:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In case I don't remember to follow it up, this subsequent talkpage comment is relevant to this question. --BozMo talk 14:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've amended my edit to the Lead in a way which I hope satisfies you. Something important which I think you should note is that the Washington Post article is not an interview of Goldstone, but is actually written by him.      ←   ZScarpia  14:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as balancing material goes, I think that the following gives some useful pointers (though it isn't a reliable source):
 * Antiwar.com - Jonathan Cook - Goldstone’s Rethink, 6 April 2011:


 * His original conclusion drew in part on public statements by Israeli military commanders that in Gaza they had applied the Dahiya doctrine — an Israeli military strategy named after a suburb of Beirut that Israel leveled during its 2006 attack on Lebanon. In his article, Goldstone cast no fresh doubt on his earlier premise that such a strategy would by definition endanger civilians.

Other material includes:
 * UNISPAL - Committee responsible for following up on 'Goldstone Report' on Gaza Conflict to meet in Geneva, 24 January 2011.
 * The Jerusalem Post - Jordana Horn - UN panel to follow up on Goldstone meets in Geneva, 25 January 2011.
 * Haaretz - Natasha Mozgovaya - What made Goldstone change his mind about the Gaza war report?, 3 April 2011.
 * The Guardian - Aluf Benn - Despite its flaws, the Goldstone report has changed Israel's behaviour in Gaza, 3 April 2011.
 * Al Jazeera - Noura Erekat - Goldstone: An act of negligence, 4 April 2011. (note: an opinion piece)
 * Ynetnews.com - Alon Liel - Goldstone won’t help us, 4 April 2011.
 * The Guardian - Owen Bowcott - Richard Goldstone: the judge who 'regrets' his Gaza report, 5 April 2011.
 * The Guardian - Ed Pilkington, Conal Urquhart - Goldstone's Gaza report stands, UN insists, 5 April 2011.
 * The Independent - Campaign to annul Goldstone report, 4 April 2011.
 * The Guardian - Kenneth Roth - Gaza: the stain remains on Israel's war record, 5 April 2011.
 * The Independent - UN jurist to review Gaza war criticism, 6 April 2011.
 * New Statesman - John Dugard - Where now for the Goldstone report, 6 April 2011.
 * The New York Times - Roger Cohen - The Goldstone Chronicles, 7 April 2011.
 * Haaretz - Gideon Levy - Goldstone has paved the path for a second Gaza war, 7 April 2011.
 * Haaretz - Barak Ravid - Goldstone, Yishai in spat over whether judge will take new Cast Lead view to UN, 7 April 2011.
 * The New York Times - Dan Bilefsky - Warning by Israeli on U.N. Nod to Palestinians, 7 April 2011.
 * Ynetnews.com - Attila Somfalvi - Goldstone to face libel suit, 7 April 2011.
 * Arutz Sheva - Eve Harrow, Hezki Ezra - EU Ambassador to Israel: Goldstone Report Still Stands, 7 April 2011.
 * Haaretz - Shlomo Shamir - UN chief to Peres, I will not retract the Goldstone Report, 8 April 2011.
 * The Guardian - Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin, Desmond Travers - Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war, 14 April 2011.
 * Haaretz - Gaza war report co-authors reject Goldstone's retraction, 14 April 2011.
 * Breaking the Silence, Occupation of the Territories -- Israeli Soldier Testimonies 2000-2010

On the personal campaign against Goldstone:
 * Ynetnews.com - Aviel Magnezi -  'Goldstone's road to atonement long' , 3 April 2011.
 * Foreign Policy - Sasha Polakow-Suransky - Gold stones, glass houses, 10 May 2010.
 * Huffington Post - Sasha Polakow-Suransky - Hypocrisy Now!: The Pro-Israel Crowd's Sins of Omission, 12 May 2010.
 * The Jewish Daily Forward - Josh Nathan-Kazis - Dershowitz Explains Critical Goldstone Remark, 3 February 2010.
 * The Jerusalem Post - Alan Dershowitz - Goldstone backs away from report: The two faces of an international poseur, 15 October 2009.
 * The Jerusalem Post - Alan Dershowitz - It is Goldstone who is politicizing grandson's bar mitzva, 29 April 2010.
 * Tikun Olam (Blog) - Richard Silverstein - Alan Dershowitz Accuses Rabbis Supporting Goldstone of Being ‘Anti-Israel,’ Pro-Hamas, Guilty of ‘Blood Libel’, 29 April 2010.
 * Taki's Magazine - Charles Glass - Goldstone’s Guide to Gaza, 11 April 2011.
 * Gush Shalom - Uri Avnery - The Gold and the Stone, 9 April 2011.
 * The New York Times - Ethan Bronner, Jennifer Medina - Past Holds Clue to Goldstone’s Shift on the Gaza War, 19 April 2011.

   ←   ZScarpia  15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (Last amendment: 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC))


 * The Swedish Radio (national public service radio broadcaster) reported today that the sources Goldstone referred to as cause for his change of position have been quite wrongly misinterpreted/misused, according to one of the authors of the source report. Goldstone referred to the Aspergren-Davis report which was a follow up on Goldstone's own report. Author Lennart Aspergren said in an interview today that Goldstone has referred to unverified material (ie interviews from the report, not the result itself) from that report and used it as if it was verified material. Seems like a grand error. Source in Swedish (audio): . 80.217.207.79 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.      ←   ZScarpia  01:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else finds it interesting, here's a link to a PBS Bill Moyers talk with Richard Goldstone done in October 2009.    ←   ZScarpia  02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

YNet article by Tehiya Barak
Editor Lev Reitblat (LReit) just contacted me on my user talk page to ask why I edited text sourced to a YNet article by Tehiya Barak, Judge Goldstone's dark past,  the way I did:


 * "Why have you decided to delete the description of the case with forbidden (according to the SA law) sex of white woman and black man? It seems very impressive."

The following is my reply:


 * "[Diffs] I began re-working the section because the source, YNet, didn't support what the article was stating about what had been called Goldstone's acquittal script. While I was doing that, I added detail about the point the YNet article was trying to make, that "even when it came to far less serious offenses, Goldstone sided through and through with the racist policies of the Apartheid regime." Having done that, I thought that the resulting text (a statement of YNet's point and a listing of several, fairly trivial, examples) was giving way too much weight to what the YNet article had to say. Therefore, I removed the example listings, leaving just the statement.
 * "When it comes down to it, I don't think that the source should be being used except as an example of the vilification that Goldstone was subjected to after the report was being produced. I'm sure that, as far as dealing with Goldstone's legal career in South Africa is concerned, far better sources are available. I think that the YNet article probably resides in BLP-concern territory. Here's what Richard Silverstein in the Tikun Olam blog has to say about the YNet article."

I do think that what Richard Silverstein has to say about the "Goldstone smearmeisters" (which uses what Sasha Polakow-Suransky wrote in Foreign Policy and Huffington Post) is worth reading and that consideration should be given as to whether Barak's YNet article should be being used as a source for anything except an example of the campaign of vilification directed at Goldstone after the Report was produced.    ←   ZScarpia  23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say your opinion above is pretty close to the resolution reached – though not necessarily by clear consensus – a year ago when the edit wars about the YNet article peaked. You might want to review the several noticeboard discussions linked in the second warning box at the top of this page, as well as previous discussions in the archives here. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a timely reminder to someone new on this article to read back through the archives. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "rather than delete the selected material, it would be better to include that which balances it" - is it your words? :-). Now seriously:
 * 1. Goldstone himself hasn't denied the facts about the case of police interference in sexual relation between a white woman and a black man, so there is no reasons to consider this information as nonreliable.
 * 2. More commonly. Like you I can say many critical words about a from of the cited YNet article but I can't accept a situation when the central Israeli newspaper isn't considered as "reliable source" for Wikipedia while the central newspapers of other countries have this status.
 * So my suggestion: let's return facts mentioned in YNet (I have nothing against your first correction) and you can add a couple of sentences to balance them if you think it's nessasary --LReit (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably you're aware that I was applying the edit summary "rather than delete the selected material, it would be better to include that which balances it" to my re-instatement of text summarising what Goldstone had said about the UNHCR (which had been deleted on the grounds that even more negative statements about Israel needed to be added as a balance before it was included) rather than to the edit currently under discussion, which I applied on other grounds entirely (as explained)?
 * I have nothing in general against YNET being used as a reliable source. However, in the current case, other sources which may be regarded also as reliable say that the article under consideration is inaccurate (meaning that, without corroboration from elsewhere, we cannot regard the disputed material in the YNET article as factual) and part of a smear campaign (meaning that, without very good corroboration from elsewhere, we need to treat its contents as having BLP problems).
 * The YNET article presents the case of the acquittal of the policemen accused of the break-in at a house where a black woman and white man were suspected of having sex as an example of Goldstone's petty collaboration with the Apartheid regime ... but without explaining either why it is a significant example or why the policemen should not have been acquitted. In the absence of any explanation, I don't see why the case is notable enough to be included. Perhaps you can change my mind?
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  00:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the only correction Goldstone made to the facts mentioned in Yediot Aharanot was that “he sentenced only two people to death directly, but upheld a majority of appeals in the Supreme Court, as one of three judges on a panel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/richard-goldstone-i-have-no-regrets-about-the-gaza-war-report-1.288535. Tehiya Barak wrote about 28 sentenced people. From the answer of R.Goldstond I can understand that appeals of 26 people sentenced to death people were rejected.
 * Other facts from Barak’s article were not contested by Goldstone. And the case of ruling against an appeal by a 13-year-old boy who had been sentenced to jail for disrupting school was approved in article published in 1993. So I don’t see any reasons to say that 2 remaining cases mentioned in YNet: whipping of four blacks found guilty of violence and acquittal of the policemen accused of the break-in at a house where a black woman and white man were suspected of having sex are inaccurate. None of the sources criticizing Baraks’s article don’t have any other interpretation of the mentioned cases.
 * Now, why I think that mentioning of the policemen case is important. The death penalty is not considered as something unusual even in democratic countries (US, Japan) and it’s impossible to accuse a judge applying it according the law. Decisions made by a judge in a totalitarian or an apartheid country are something different. Each person make his own choice if he wants to be a part of the system of not. I don’t think that BLP involves understatement of immoral decisions made by a person under such conditions.
 * LReit (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I, and other editors, believe that there are BLP issues associated with the Barak article, which has been shown to misrepresent. Therefore, I don't think that any statement of fact should be presented in the Wikipedia article which uses the Barak article as its sole source of verification, which includes the one which described the acquittal of the policemen accused of breaking-in to the house where it was suspected that a mixed-race couple was having a sexual relationship. Barak was using that incident to support his assertion that Goldstone supported the apartheid state in minor, as well as major, ways, but without explaining why the episode was significant or why the policemen shouldn't have been acquitted. In fact, as the articles by Sasha Polakow-Suransky referred to above argue, Goldstone had a major influence on the ending of the apartheid regime. The critics:
 * ... fail to acknowledge Goldstone’s crucial role in facilitating South Africa’s transition to democracy by chairing the investigative Commission on Public Violence and Intimidation from 1991-1994. Among other things, this commission exposed the apartheid government’s links to a so-called Third Force–made up of government security and ex-security operatives seeking to derail peaceful democratic elections. The Goldstone Commission’s revelations outraged Nelson Mandela, leading him to conclude that F.W. de Klerk’s government had organized covert death squads. Goldstone’s work earned him Mandela’s respect and, in 1994, South Africa’s first black president appointed Goldstone to the Constitutional Court…
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  02:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need any additional explanations why the story of policemen is so important, this means only one thing: our understanding of what is moral and what is not is too different (and in any case I don’t want to say that yours is illegal).
 * I contacted you in a hope to find some kind of a balanced editing which from one side mentions controversial episodes from Richard Goldstone biography and from the other side gives explanations of his behavior.
 * For me Richard Goldstone is a brilliant example of a conformist. He acted as a conformist at the time of the apartheid and when he signed Gaza’s report and even when he wrote the last article in Washington Post (undoubtedly under his community pressure). The facts published in Yediot Ahronot are a good confirmation of my option.   LReit (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The facts published in Yediot Ahronot are a good confirmation of my option." Obviously, I wouldn't personally regard anything in Barak's article as a fact unless it was confirmed elsewhere. Nor would I be using it to confirm my opinions, even if I was interested in having any opinions I might have about Goldstone confirmed. As to whether Goldstone is a brilliant example of a conformist, I suspect you could well be right, but, of course, in the absence of notable sources saying that, it's neither here nor there as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Since we're talking about the confirmation (or otherwise) of opinions, does the account of the visit paid to South Africa in 1985 by Aharon Shamir, the then editor of Yediot Ahronoth's weekend magazine, given here, where he told his hosts that "you have to be hypocritical to survive," affect how you view YNet?
 * Without an explanation being given of why Goldstone shouldn't have acquitted the policemen, we have no reason (other than prejudice, at least) to accept it as an example of petty collaboration with the apartheid regime. I'd say that the probability is that South African law and the evidence dictated that the case should go the way it did. Nothing is presented which indicates that non-collaborationist-minded judges would have done anything else, though, perhaps anyone minded to be a non-collaborationist would have chosen not to become a judge in the first place. In post-apartheid South Africa, Goldstone seems to have survived with a good reputation, which tends to refute what is being alleged.
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  16:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The source for supposed death threats against Justice Goldstone for his Gaza commission is a book written in 2002, years before his commission was conceived. I for one have no been able to find credible reports of death threats against him. Can anybody find anything concrete on this, or should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiems (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 9 November 2011
Done

Replace term "four-man team" with "four-person team." Two of the four principle co-authors of the report -- Hina Jilani and Christine Chinkin -- were women. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict for cites:

The UNHRC appointed a four-person team,

67.250.51.204 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2012
✅ Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an error in one of his book titles. What is listed as "Goldstone has written forewords to books including Martha Minow's Beyond Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (ISBN 978-0-8070-4507-7)" should be "Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence.

The word Beyond in the title should be Between. http://www.amazon.com/Between-Vengeance-Forgiveness-Genocide-Violence/dp/0807045071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332952899&sr=8-1

Lawlibrary1234 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)