Talk:United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict/Archive 3

CAMERA strikes again
Could the editors insisting on including material from the CAMERA website kindly explain the reasons why they feel the material should be on Wikipedia? CAMERA's website is a textbook example of a questionable and self-published sources which cannot be used as a source for "contentious claims about third parties" such as claims that the Klahed Rabbo testimonies would be contradictory. Kind regards, --Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

..and then there's the 'who cares what CAMERA have said?' factor. CAMERA saying 'this is important and notable' doesn't make something important and notable. Where is the part where we are supposed to establish 'a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources' ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said on both counts, Sean.hoy. --NYCJosh (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without going into futile debate about the quality of CAMERA as source per se, it is easily seen with a naked eye that CAMERA's sentence referring to Abd Rabbo incident is absolute and indisputable truth. HRW's report says that: "Afraid to send out any men, two women and three female children gathered at the door, at least three of them holding pieces of white cloth. They stepped outside and saw an Israeli tank about 10 meters away with its turret pointed at the house"..."...Khalid and his brother, who had both remained inside the house...". The same Khalid told Goldstone mission that (p. 29) "So I came out along with my wife and my three children... We were all holding white flags". The Goldstone report says that "the committee found Khaled and Kawthar Abd Rabbo to be credible and reliable witnesses and it had no reason to doubt the veracity of the main elements of their testimony, which it says is consistent with the accounts it received from other eyewitnesses and NGOs". It is up to the reader to decide whether all the inconsistencies of the testimonies (documented in Abd Rabbo family incident) including this one are significant or not, but the reader is entitled to know they exist and that the critics suggest that "Whether or not Khaled was inside or outside the home is not an incidental detail" and that "The case of Khaled and Kawthar Abed Rabbo illustrates this predicament" of doubt concerning credibility of Goldstone's witnesses. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. WP:BURDEN says 'Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.' so 'the quality of CAMERA as source' is rather pertinent. There is no debate because CAMERA are not an RS. That is why people will keep removing 'factual' material sourced to CAMERA. The notability of their info has not been established so it gets zero weight by default and why is it always CAMERA anyway ? It's never people like Hisham Naffa' from the Israeli communist party. Seems unfair. He's also got quite a lot to say, has equally strong views on everything and still manages to get into RS...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Had Hisham Naffa' said anything interesting about Goldstone report? If yes, bring him in. Indeed, why is it always CAMERA anyway? Why nobody challenged Electronic Intifada and some other questionable sources in the entry? I'll tell you more - UN Human Rights Council is not an RS in itself, yet we cite entire paragraphs directly from the Report. Why? Simple: Following WP:RS, nothing precludes from citing some carefully picked info directly from a primary source: "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Citing CAMERA twice out of more than 200 sources falls withing the provision of "being used with caution" (which was a sort of majority consent about CAMERA in the latest RS Noticeboard occurence). Of course, "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context." As said above, in the context of Abd Rabbo incident, CAMERA issued an absolute, indisputable and easily independantly verifiable truth. The already existing contradiction in the HRW's version of the incident and Goldstone's one can not "damage the reputation of living persons or organizations". But I don't argue that CAMERA per se is RS, and the sentence is attributed appropriately. Echoing yesterday's conversation on the Goldstone talk page, what would you say about citing directly from ECLJ report? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, if the information is in-line with what HRW said, then we can cite HRW instead of CAMERA. You haven't yet answered the question at the start of this thread: why do you feel CAMERA should be in? CAMERA is not an RS, the material wasn't picked up by any RS, and this article is too long as it is. This is an encyclopedia, and information like "CAMERA published a letter on their website. Goldstone didn't respond" isn't useful to anyone. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't cite HRW - HRW's "white flag deaths" report was issued in Summer, months before Goldstone, and has no connection to Goldstone report. Citing it here would be inconsistent with the entry's contents and might even amount to OR. CAMERA's material actually was picked by one journalist from Maariv newspaper (he cites another CAMERA's bulletin which deals however with the same case of Abd Rabbo). original Hebrew version and authentic English translation. I don't even have to engage in long debate but simply to replace one with the other. Finally, do you think the following 2 sentences has encyclopedic value: Goldstone ... "invited "fair minded people" to read the report and "at the end of it, point out where it failed to be objective or even-handed" and "Goldstone challenged the Obama administration to identify the flaws the US said it has found in the report"? Best. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the wiki entry of the writer, he's an opinion editor so the case remains un-referenced by WP:RS. A further point is that at least the English version of the text doesn't mention CAMERA at all that I can see (I simply searched the text for "CAMERA") (this text is bizarre, is it some kind of joke?). The two quotes are Goldstone responding to criticism of the report, I agree it's not directly relevant but if this article is going to over-represent the criticism as it does now, then Goldstone's response to it also becomes relevant. --Dailycare (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start from the Goldstone's response to criticism. I actually agree that it is relevant. To seal off the dispute, I'll substitute CAMERA with the Dershovitz's analyses published in JPost. Now back to Yemini. Open original Maariv article published in Hebrew. There shouldn't be any doubt Maariv is qualified as RS, but Yemini will be attributed accordingly. Even a non-hebrew speaker would be able to spot where the article ends. Right after the end there's a line: "תרגום מלא של המאמר לאנגלית", which means "full English translation of the article", which redirects to what you said was some kind of joke. That's an authentic translation of Yemini's article and you can verify it by running through Google translate. Search for Abd Rabbo. It brings you to the following para: "'...In their reduced framework below, let us examine the attack on the Abd Rabbo family. This event became one of the most prominent symbols of Operation Cast Lead, received widespread coverage and was mentioned in many reports. The Goldstone report devotes ten articles (768-777) to this incident.  The mission repeated the claim that family members waived a white flag and that its daughters were murdered in cold blood by Israel.  This claim is not only negligent, it is also a malicious lie.  Thorough checks have shown that family members a gave different and contradictory versions.  One of the claims was that this was cold-blooded murder because there were no Hamas personnel in the area.  It seems that this claim has also been refuted, by contradictory testimony, even byTime magazine, to the effect that there were indeed Hamas personnel in the area.  Moreover, it seems that Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that, ''The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress.'  The testimony is contradictory and the Time and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports were supposed to be before the mission.  But there is not even a hint of them in the Goldstone report, which publishes a libel, even though it has already been contradiced'..." One of the links there redirects to one of the CAMERA bulletins but this is insignificant. I'll make edits so that the sentences in question would be cited by 100% undisputable RS. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Times editorial - on WP and the quality of the Goldstone report
Times editorial. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'll start another section for WP. What's most interesting is the editorial opinion about the report, which it calls "provocative bias": "For an example of such ineffective megaphone diplomacy, consider Judge Richard Goldstone’s report into the Gaza conflict for the UN, released last September. Both dangerously and unreasonably, Judge Goldstone implied an equivalence between the indiscriminate rocket fire with which Hamas bombarded Israel and the steps that Israel subsequently took to defend itself. While he alleged war crimes on both sides, he reserved his strongest ire for Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force and its “deliberate targeting” of Palestinian civilians". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that we should be adding new sections to this article, as opposed to making the article shorter? --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant new section on the talk page - I started another section on a talk page about WP story. Going to delete WP reprimand from the article because the story as reported by all major newspapers (including JPost) is simply untrue, see section below. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP - reprimand story
The IDF Spokesman's Office said yesterday that contrary to the reports provided by the government to the United Nations on Friday, which stated that Eisenberg and Malka were disciplined for using smoke shells containing white phosphorus, they were disciplined not for using the phosphorus shells but rather for giving the authorization to fire regular artillery shells". While the 2nd part of the sentence is true, the 1st part is not. The report provided by the government to the UN never said they were reprimanded for WP use in the 1st place: "100. The special command investigations also uncovered some instances where IDF soldiers and officers violated the rules of engagement. For example, in one case, a Brigadier General and a Colonel had authorized the firing of explosive shells which landed in a populated area, in violation of IDF orders limiting the use of artillery fire near populated areas. The Commander of the Southern Command disciplined the two officers for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others. 108. One of these incidents involved alleged damage to the UNRWA field office compound in Tel El Hawa.102 The special command investigation revealed that, during the course of a military operation in Tel El Hawa, IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of [IDF inner] the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas. Based on these findings, the Commander of the Southern Command disciplined a Brigadier General and a Colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

new analyses integrated in the entry
Richard Landes writes in MERIA. I won't be surprised though that those who uncritically accept the report will outright reject anything that Landes wrote because he is despicable racist and zionist propagandist. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2 more critical studies of the Goldstone report, from the expected pro-Israeli author s :

by Dershowitz and E(or should it be A?)CLJ. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz analyses got a coverage in JPost and in JPost op-ed. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)...and even published in full as HTML, though spelling is horrible. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel's submission to UN: as HTML and as PDF. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC) more info here, here and here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC) and JPost editorial. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another report expert's summary meeting, at Chatham House: Expert Meeting which Assessed Procedural Criticisms made of The Goldstone Report. This analyses should be handled with care - it addresses criticisms made regarding procedural aspects of the Goldstone Report rather than its substantive conclusions. Bottom line - "The meeting was of the view that the Report was very far from being invalidated by the criticisms", though in the document's body there are some critical points raised. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely support inclusion of the Chatham House conference in the article. Chatham House is a pre-eminent institution in the UK with regards to foreign policy issues and the participants were high level international experts in human rights. Pexise (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A reminder of several things: (1) this is not an official report or anything, merely expert's summary meeting. each edit should reflect this. (2) they address only procedural aspects (mandate, Chinkin bias, hearings) and not report's findings. (3) i read it and they say both supportive and critical things. don't forget to be balanced. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hamas' response to Goldstone
Hamas' report will be submitted to the UN later this week. "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly confirmed that they abiding by international humanitarian law, through broadcasting in different media that they intended to hit military targets and to avoid targeting civilians," the Hamas report stated, citing casualties from "incorrect (or imprecise) fire." --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * HRW said that "Hamas' claim that rockets were intended to hit Israeli military targets and only accidentally harmed civilians is belied by the facts". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamas backtracks on rocket apology. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) more here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh ? How did you decide that 'Hamas backtracks on rocket apology' was the salient information in the "Israel 'satisfied' with UN chief's report on Gaza probes" article http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=167920 ? Wrong link ? JPost .NET server still messed up ? It seems to redirecting all over the place.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

→either I confused something or the contents os the site was updated. nevermind. there's another interesting line there: "No Hamas response was included in Ban’s report". back to backtrack: see here and here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PA accuses group of double talk regarding stance on Goldstone report. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IDF legal official: Israel should probe Goldstone Gaza report
This article appears to contain some potentially notable 'with hindsight' statements of interest from Sharvit-Baruch.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Human Rights Council article's 'Gaza report' section
Is anyone interested in ensuring that the Goldstone report ('Gaza report' ?) related section of the United Nations Human Rights Council article is properly aligned with this one ? This article should be the master and that one should be dependant on the contents of this one. I suggest removal of the entire section and it's replacement with a copy/paste of the lead from this article together with a 'main article' link. Some ref details will probably need to be added to the material transferred over. I'm not suggesting this because I think the lead here is great. It isn't. It's just a practical suggestion to ensure consistency between articles. We used a similar approach with the Gaza War article and the int law subsection. Thoughts ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * to ensure consistency between articles - you have a green light from me. thanks for fixing dead JPost links. i found out another way to do it - replace "www" with "fr". regarding the support of the UN Watch petition and a disappointment: a very first sentence from the Canadian letter says that "We wish to express our support for the UN Watch request that you be disqualified from the United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict and our disappointment that this well-founded request was recently rejected by the mission, as reported by London’s Jewish Chronicle." Actually, the UK lawyers' letter is very similar. I'd appreciate that the wording will be fixed appropriately. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the fr site will eventually get upgraded too...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein
Jalapenos, why do you think he's not notable? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He's an undistinguished (ex-)political scientist with no special expertise on any of the aspects of the report. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed also Bayevsky and South Africa's chief rabbi as reactions. The reason boils down to notability and recentism, in the final analysis what's going to be remembered concerning the Goldstone Report is the indictiment of Hamas and Israel, not any propagandist "reactions" to the document. --Dailycare (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the SA Chief Rabbi (I believe I removed it myself a while ago), but tend to oppose the removal of Bayefsky. The latter is a high-profile human rights scholar specializing in the UN. Would also note that crystal-balling and name-calling are unhelpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...if the person whose opinion is being cited is either notable or is considered an expert in the field" - is the bottom line in the answer I got on the noticeboard with which I fully agree. No doubt Finkelstein is notable (i.e. famous) but there are serious doubts about his competency. There's no doubt about Baefsky's competency, see e.g. definition she was entitled in WSJ: The Toronto native is an expert on human-rights law and an accredited United Nations observer. This WSJ piece also refers to her speech dealing with the Goldstone report at the UN, speech that reflects her deleted opinion published in JPost. There's also little doubt that Gregory S. Gordon, an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies, is competent enough to produce a valuable opinion about the legal framework of the report. In the end, I wouldn't object to remove both Finkelstein and Goldstein, but Bayefsky and Jurist op-ed should be restored. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some checking on Bayefsky, and she's more notable in this context than I realized. I'm putting her back in the body of the article, and in the lead with the other notable commentators. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, putting her in the lead is a bit over the top. In fact, having other named persons there who have only commented on the report is, now that I think of it, a bit over the top. I'll come up with a suggestion on how to modify the lead in a bit. --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not over the top at all. Bayefsky seems to be the only established expert on human rights law and the UN who has commented on the Mission and its report. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I had some time to think about this, and the names in the lead are based on the comments by these individuals about the report, in other words according to the present version the comments by e.g. Bayefsky (based on a single article) become one of the key points about the Goldstone report since they're mentioned in the lead. This is not logical, we could say instead of the names, that "commentators" have voices those views. Another issue entirely, is that whoever added the names to the lead neglected to add e.g. Richard Falk to the lead as well, so we'd have "commentators" on the "support" and "oppose" side, which hints strongly that there is little point to have these people in the lead to begin with. Comments? (from commentators ;) --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing, the Bayefsky link doesn't work --Dailycare (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Link fixed; Falk is as competent as Bayefsky, so the same standard should be applied to both. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing which newspapers are "pro-report" and which ones not isn't IMO something that belongs in the lead. And to recap why someone thinks Bayefsky would be more notable than Finkelstein, Finkelstein has taught political theory and specifically the Israel-Palestine conflict in a well-known university, which would certainly appear to make him more notable in the field than Bayefsky, who doesn't even appear hold a Ph. D. yet is listed in her wiki article as "a professor". --Dailycare (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goldstein will follow Finkelstein. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Goldstone - and where will he follow Finkelstein? --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

→btw, you don't have to be Ph.D. to be a professor. no doubt she is qualified enough to produce opinion. writing for Forbes, biography. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC) no, I mean Goldstein, Warren. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead
Jalapenos reverted my edit in the lead, which was discussed under the Finkelstein tab on this page. Objections to my version may be presented here (but do read the Finkelstein tab first). --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There could be just one objection - by keeping pro-Goldstone NGOs and by deleting anti-Goldstone human-rights figures (like Cotler who's neither Israeli nor US) and military commentators it makes a selective dishonest edit. Add Chomsky and Finkel if you wish. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the edit was really done in good faith, so I'm a bit disappointed to see it called dishonest. However content-wise, how about this:

The report was endorsed by a large number of countries in the United Nations General Assembly, the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement. Supporters argued that Richard Goldstone was a credible figure and that the recommendations of the report should be implemented. Critics, including the United States and Israel, argued that the report was factually and/or methodologically flawed and motivated by anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC.


 * --Dailycare (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are inconsistent. To say that "The report was endorsed by a large number of countries in the UNGA, the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement" is tautology. Because that large number of countries in the UNGA who voted in favor of the report WERE the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement. Small number of Western countries voted in favor, more voted against and even more abstained. To flow with your attempt, the more balanced version would be "Both resolutions received wide support among members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, while many Western countries opposed or abstained from the vote. Supporters argued that Richard Goldstone was a credible figure and that the recommendations of the report should be implemented. Critics argued that the report was factually and/or methodologically flawed and motivated by anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC." That said, I like the current version and I guess Jalapenos would not like it at all.


 * I wouldn't call that inconsistent or a tautology, but I agree it's partially repetitive. How about this:

The report received wide support among developing countries in the United Nations, while Western countries were split between supporters and opponents of the resolutions endorsing the report. Supporters argued that Richard Goldstone was a credible figure and that the recommendations of the report should be implemented. Critics argued that the report was factually and/or methodologically flawed and motivated by anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC.
 * This reflects that e.g. among European countries, ten voted for and nine against in the GA. The current wording isn't IMO in-line with WP:LEAD since it effectively makes an article written by Bayefsky one of the key points relating to the Mission. This wording says the actual key point, namely that there were supporters and opponents and also provides a stab at who they were. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest distinguishing between commentators who published analyses of the report and commentators who only voted and/or made brief statements. The former group can go in the third paragraph, and the latter group in the fourth. This will allow for more nuance in the presentation of European government positions, as Dailycare seems to be aiming for. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which analyses do you mean? --Dailycare (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

some updates to israeli response section
Israel has published a 46 page pdf report on its investigations, outlined here. It submitted it to the UN on Friday, and it has already been challenged by a UN mine team regarding the destruction of the flour mill. Would update the section myself now, but too tired, have the flu.John Z (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, John, I wish you be well soon. When you recover, we'll construct a separate subsection as a 5th incident. Indeed, even though there were no casualties in the incident, it became one of the most notable issues of the report. The Goldstone report says that

919. On 9 January, at around 3 or 4 a.m., the flour mill was hit by an air strike, possibly by an F-16. The missile struck the floor that housed one of the machines indispensable to the mill’s functioning, completely destroying it. The guard who was on duty at the time called Mr. Hamada to inform him that the building had been hit and was on fire. He was unhurt. In the next 60 to 90 minutes the mill was hit several times by missiles fired from an Apache helicopter. These missiles hit the upper floors of the factory, destroying key machinery. Adjoining buildings, including the grain store, were not hit. The strikes entirely disabled the factory and it has not been back in operation since.

922. The Mission found the Hamada brothers to be credible and reliable witnesses. It has no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony The Israeli report says: 167. In the course of the operation, IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas positions in the vicinity of the flour mill. The IDF forces fired back towards the sources of fire and threatening locations. As the IDF returned fire, the upper floor of the flour mill was hit by tank shells. A phone call warning was not made to the flour mill immediately before the strike, as the mill was not a pre-planned target. 168. Several hours after the incident, and following a report about fire in the flour mill, the IDF coordinated the arrival of several fire engines to fight the fire. 170. Taking into account all available information, the Military Advocate General determined that the flour mill was struck by tank shells during combat. The Military Advocate General did not find any evidence to support the assertion that the mill was attacked from the air using precise munitions, as alleged in the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report. The Military Advocate General determined that the allegation was not supported in the Report itself, nor in the testimony to the Fact-Finding Mission by Rashad Hamada, who had left the area prior to the incident in response to the IDF’s early warnings. Photographs of the mill following the incident do not show structural damage consistent with an air attack. 172. The Military Advocate General did not accept the allegation in the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report that the purpose of the strike was to deprive the civilian population of Gaza of food. In this regard, he noted the fact that shortly after the incident, the IDF allowed Palestinian fire trucks to reach the area and extinguish the flames, as well as the extensive amount of food and flour that entered Gaza through Israel during the Gaza Operation. 173. Although the Military Advocate General could not conclusively determine that the flour mill was in fact used by Hamas’s military operatives, there was some evidence of such use. The Military Advocate General noted that Mr. Hamada testified before the Fact-Finding Mission that after the operation he found empty bullets on the roof of the flour mill. This could not have been the result of IDF fire, since – as was evident from the findings of the command investigation – the IDF forces which occupied the mill’s compound three days after the incident did not occupy the roof of the mill, where they would have been exposed to enemy fire.

this article could help to provide a pattern for additional incidents. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

→Big answers to big lies: Israel refutes UN's despicable Goldstone Report. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone as a "respected" international jurist
The opening paragraph refers to Goldstone as being "respected." This is an opinion and is not universally held. This word is unencyclopedic content and should be removed as per WP:AWW and WP:NPOV. --PiMaster3 talk 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * totally agree. Stellarkid (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. There are two discussions about this in archive #2. Your position was advocated by Sceptic, Marokwitz and me, while the contrary position was advocated by Sean, Dailycare and Pexise. It seems to me a fairly simple case of NPOV and proper encyclopedic style, and frankly I still don't understand what, if anything, the contrary position is based on. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen this written ("respected") but mainly in blogs and other non-RS. I could go with "distinguished" as he is/was (I think) "well-known" and eminent enough in his field. Don't much like it but it could act as a compromise if yawl agree.  I can find a source for its use in this context. Stellarkid (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any difference between "respected" and "distinguished". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC
 * Could we agree on "prominent"? He had served on a number of well-known international panels, etc. The point is, Goldstone was not just a run-of-the-mill international jurist and the intro should convey that.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Prominent sounds like it could work. Distinguished doesn't sound any better than respected does. --PiMaster3 talk 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to "prominent", since it's a term that has objective meaning, if he is described that way by a significant number of mainstream reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There won't be a problem to find numerous sources that describe him as notable, prominent, respected, etc. I think "prominent" is a good compromise and reflects most accurately what he really is ("respected" is flawed in my opinion because his work was also harshly criticized and we shouldn't disregard it). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[ec]Dictionary def of distinguished shows a big difference between that and respected. One doesn't necessarily respect someone who may be distinguished. But I am happy with "prominent" as well. Stellarkid (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you may want to have a look at the sources that are in this discussions (archived here). "Respected" is a sourced word, which makes it also encyclopedic. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PiMaster3, next time someone reverts you could you please go to the talk page instead of reverting them (per bold, revert, discuss).
 * I'm not fussed over which word is used but we have gone over this before. The reliable sources (several of them academic legal sources I remember) choose to describe him as respected or some variation thereof. I don't know why and I don't care. They are talking about him as a respected jurist (which is what we say). They aren't talking about him as a respected zionist, enemy of Israel, ballroom dancer or some unencyclopedic irrelevant and/or partisan nonsense. The sources have decided that this information is pertinent and notable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ..and thanks to Dailycare for the link to the previous discussions. It was the "respected South African international law expert" according to the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations (in conjunction with UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA Israel Studies Program, and UCLA School of Law International Human Rights Program) that convinced me that trying to argue that this is a non-neutral peacock term was simply wrong.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by the amount of news outlets (e.g. NYTimes or JPost) using the term. UCLA is a different thing, but it makes just one academic source. But even if we assume there's a majority of sources describing him "respected", this article is not the place to endorse just the majority view and dismiss the controversy. And there is controversy, see e.g. RW Johnson criticism. I'd suggest to endorse the term used by one of the most notable critics of the report, Cotler: "distinguished". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily impressions aren't really relevant or else SuicideGirl related articles might become inappropriate fairly quickly. Okay, based on the RW Johnson piece shall we change it to "respected international jurist who has been compared to someone who helped Nazi sympathisers in providing propaganda material for Hitler" then ? Might be undue. It's an editorial bordering on an attack piece about Goldstone, the man. It isn't exactly the kind of measured, neutral, quality, reliable source we should be using to make decisions like this although I'm impressed that he managed to mention Darfur, Mugabe, Saddam, Nazis, 9/11 and Bin Laden all in one article about an apparently respected international jurist investigating whether international law was broken in the Gaza Strip. Why would we "endorse" (huh?) the term used by one of the most notable critics of the report when we have reliable, neutral sources available ? We aren't talking about the report, we're talking about the jurist. Have you seen how many times the word 'expert' is used in the article ? What's the difference ? The source says 'expert' so we use it. The word expert is a peacock term just like respected if it's unsourced or mispresents the balance of opinions in RS. I'm sure there are people that would question some of those expert labels but oddly nobody here brings it up. Why is that ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does referring to him as "an international jurist who is considered by some to be respected" sound like it might work? --PiMaster3 talk 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like waffling, he's verifiably a respected jurist so I don't see any policy-based reasons for not saying that in the article. The Johnson article linked to above doesn't say he isn't respected, to the contrary it says he's an "an icon of political correctness". Johnson does trot out some specific points that he disagrees about with Goldstone, but then Johnson is a person who has been accused of peddling unsubstantiated gossip before, so his views probably shouldn't get as much weight here than the numerous WP:RS we have saying Goldstone is respected. In fact, he's arguably even more respected after the Gaza mission. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he could be considered more respected after this heavily biased and inaccurate report. But referring to him as "an international jurist who was considered respected at the time he was chosen to lead the mission" would probably be the most accurate way of describing him. --PiMaster3 talk 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you base your view that he is no longer respected on? Pexise (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PiMaster3, personal views about bias and inaccuracy in the report aren't relevant here other than in the sense that they give rise to neutrality concerns. The "respected South African international law expert" statement by UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations (in conjunction with UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA Israel Studies Program, and UCLA School of Law International Human Rights Program) was made after the report was published.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission financed by Arab League?
According to this op-ed written by NGO Monitor's legal advisor,  "In fact, according to the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Goldstone’s mission was financed by the Arab League." If this is verifiable it is a big deal, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This document also says "But, he admitted to working closely with the Arab League on the matter, which had helped finance the fact-finding Goldstone mission." It is one thing to be a participant but to actually finance (or help finance) a study like this is another matter altogether. Stellarkid (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Initiated by the OIC and financed by the Arab League ! I think this is not clearly covered by the article, which merely gives the impression of being a United Nations initiative. The bias is there from the start. Stellarkid (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Initiated by Arabs and headed by a Zionist, what a cosmopolitan world we do live in. But what bias are you talking about? By the way, check out where "NGO Monitor" gets its funding from: JCPA and CAMERA... --Dailycare (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Zionist" is a subjective description, not an objective fact. There are many who do not buy that.  Be that as it may, this mission was apparently initiated by the Arabs and financed by the Islamic states.  That is built-in bias from the start of the mission. It should be noted in the article.   As for NGO Monitor, that was merely a jumping off point for the ReliefWeb article, and the one from Al-Jazeera.  Whatever you can say about NGO Monitor,- (and this article is not about NGO-Monitor)- it apparently has its facts straight. Stellarkid (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zionist is a label applied to Goldstone by reliable sources. I'm not versed in how UN operations are normally funded, but the UN as a whole is funded by the member states, several of which are members of the Arab League. And again, what kind of bias are you talking about? Amnesty's investigations reached the same conclusions. What comes to "NGO Monitor", it's my opinion that the raison d´être of that entity is specifically to make sure facts aren't straight. This is a good example, they've apparently on their own initiative moved the wording from "helped finance" to "financed", and you fell for it. --Dailycare (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stellar, we already have a sentence, based on Al-Jazeera, that OIC triggered the chain that lead to Goldstone report. About financed - that is still premature. Daylicare, this is offtopic but I can't help responding. You keep on repeating the same ad hominem argument about Goldstone as a Zionist. In my humble opinion, Dersh responds pretty good to it. Amnesty, HRW, Goldstone - they all interviewed the same people, no wonder they reached the same conclusions. The problem is that no-one cares that each of those stories has so much inconsistenies. I don't know what and how exactly they investigated that Abd Rabbo incident, but I still don't understand whether Khaled was inside or outside when the shooting occured. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For comedy effect, I'd just like to point out that an article in Maariv which has been translated and disseminated by Israel's Government Press Office in an odd move says the mission was established by the "automatic majority of dark countries that controls the “UN Human Rights Council.”"....pardon ? I hope that's a translation error...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have information which people Amnesty interviewed or if they were the same. Goldstone, unlike Dershovitz, is a man who has international credibility. Of course that he is a Zionist doesn't mean that the report has a pro-Israel bias (even though Goldstone's daughter claims so), just like a funding contribution doesn't mean it is biased. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This report is supposed to be unbiased. None of the issues either of you are bringing up are officially verifiable from a credited non biased source. The fact that the UN is financially supported by its member states does not implicate bias. The basis of the UN as the United States' answer to the League of Nations in the times prior to its conception is the formation of a world counsel. All member states, only a handful being within your "definition" of Arab, are part of the counsel. NO member of the UN is REQUIRED to fund the operations and undertakings of the UN or any of its branches such as the WTO, WHO, WCCC, IMF, ect. Instead the funding from its members are voluntary and almost all of the funding comes from the first world nations. THIS is Fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cautionfire (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dershowitz
Dershowitz's bias needs to be identified. I don't agree that he's a fringe figure, but he clearly has a pro-Israel bias which is particularly relevant to this article. Pexise (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You can't identify bias by your own guts feelings. Support your claims with sources.
 * 2. The moment you do this with Dersh, Chomsky and Finkel will have the same treatment. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - but my point was that their positions should be identified regarding their positions on this particular issue - i.e. Dershowitz's vehement pro-Israel position needs to be identified. Of course you could identify Chomsky as being a human rights activist, as being a defender of the rights of the Palestinians etc. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to mention that he's an anarchist (just as it's not necessary to mention that Dersh is a freedom of expression advocate - not really relevant here). Pexise (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Pexise, it is not OK. Either we identify both as having clear pro- or anti- Israeli bias or we leave both alone. You won't deny that Chomsky has clear vehement anti-Israeli views, won't you? Or do you need me to help you with sources? Of course, Chomsky's extreme far-left views and activities are relevant and should be identified. If Chomsky is "a defender of the rights of the Palestinians" than Dersh is "a defender of the rights of the Israelis". btw, I'm not aware that Chomsky is a human rights activist. Sources? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would absolutely contest the suggestion that Chomsky has anti-Israel views and would certainly request multiple sources to back up that claim (one I've never heard before even from more extreme right-wing editors). As evidence of Chomsky as a human rights activist, I could provide many, many sources - as a start, try listening to this lecture at London University in the LSE and reading this article. Pexise (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On a personal level reading Chomsky is interesting, but as a wikipedian to a wikipedian - you will need to cite other notable qualified commentators and sources to support a suggestion that Chomsky is a "human rights activist", you can't say he is just because Chomsky says so. Now about right and left - you know it's all very relative. Have it occured to you that relative to a person who is placed on the extreme left of the political scale, even a moderate center-placed one is perceived as a right-wing? Regarding Chomsky, I'll place below just some opinions about him. Don't bother to dismiss them as opinions of persons on a far right of the political scale - this entry and its talk page is about Goldstone report and not about Dersh or Chomsky. I merely ask you, not for the first time, to stop labelling others as you see fit while dismissing reciprocal labelling. I won't continue this thread - if a problem with edit-warring will not cease, we'll resolve it elsewhere. Best. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I joined in the rvt of DailyCare's version. I don't buy that Alan Dershowitz is "known for his ferocious attacks on those he perceives as enemies of Israel" - that is an opinion dressed up as a fact, not to mention that it is a copyright violation. Just because someone says it, doesn't mean we have to. I think it is a BLP issue. And btw-- Chomsky is every bit as virulently anti-Israel as Dershowitz is pro-Israel. His "critical approach" is no more important academically than Dershowitz's. We don't find justification only for those on one side of the political fence, and popularity is certainly no justification at all. Stellarkid (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course Chomsky has a critical approach to the USA and to Israel, that is an important part of his academic approach. I think the fact that he gave a key note speech on human rights at the Human Rights Centre of the London School of Economics is clear evidence that he has mainstream recognition as a human rights expert (by the way, if you listen to the lecture, you'll see that this was one of the most popular ever lectures at the LSE, filling 3 lecture theaters).
 * Dershowitz is undeniably pro-Israel - is there a dispute about that point? And labeling him a liberal is confusing because of the different interpretations of liberal (in the US liberal refers to the left-wing). Pexise (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To sum it up, Daylicare and Pexise should reread WP:BLP and stop this labelling. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stellar, we use sources in this project, including when writing about living persons. I'm using sources, you may too. --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dailycare, just because we have sources doesn't mean we have to use them. Not everything said by anybody is relevant, neutral, or encyclopedic.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree fully, however some editors have specifically inserted material from Dershowitz, so it needs to be dealt with correctly. --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky
I encourage to read the full text of the articles in the links to see the whole context. Article in YNET: "Chomsky is part of America’s radical left" and a quote from the letter signed by Chomsky: "The political objective of Israeli policy is the liquidation of the Palestinian nation". Do you think it would be appropriate to write the following sentence: "Noam Chomsky, a part of America’s radical left, who said before that the political objective of Israeli policy is the liquidation of the Palestinian nation, said this and that about Goldstone report"? Stefan Kanfer writes in City Journal (New York): "He has long nourished a special contempt for Israel". article from Global Politician: Noam Chomsky is best known for his missives against the USA and Israel. writes Oliver Kamm: Chomsky regards it as an "absurd demand" to require that Palestinian interlocutors recognise Israel's right to exist. not related to Israel, but still - just to echo Chomsky as human rights activist: an open letter from Ed Vulliamy: ... Prof. Chomsky’s role in revisionism in the story of the concentration camps in northwestern Bosnia in 1992, which it was my accursed honour to discover.... --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an opinion that Chomsky "is a vicious anti-Semite, as well. He not only defends Holocaust deniers and Palestinian mass murderers of Jews, but he also promotes every anti-Jewish blood libel to crawl out of its hole..."


 * Steven Plaut goes on to say: ''"Chomsky, of course, has never met an Islamofascist terrorist he did not like. He is recycling his "theories" about the criticism of Syria being all some US-Zionist-Imperialist conspiracy. (See http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node.php?id=12362 and http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/motivations_for_terror/ and http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/state_terror_vs_resistance/.) It is all part of the "Take a Ba'athist to Lunch" campaign being run by the far-left, including the Cockburn crowd." Stellarkid (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * a couple more:
 * accuses C of "Jew Flu"
 * originally in New Criterion "The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky"- Describes C as "an anti-war activist" and "radical left-wing activist." So yeah, if we are going to talk about the bias on one side, we talk about it on both sides. Better just to leave it right out of the article. Both Dersh and Chomsky have their own WP pages and if people want to know more about them they can follow the wiki-links.  Stellarkid (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

→Frankly, I'm tired from non-stop selective one-sided "labelling" activities from some of the involved editors. There's an active edit-warring going on. Enough with this. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, amazingly only the "flu" article comes even close to being a source usable to label Chomsky, especially taking into account the WP:BLP page you kindly directed me to. Concerning Dershowitz, Guardian is a WP:RS so I don't see a problem labeling him using Guardian. That he ferociously attacks perceived "enemies" if Israel isn't my interpretation, but Guardian's. Of course we could use a pro-Israel WP:RS like the NYT: longtime advocate of Israel or prominent defender Guardian also says he is a a passionate advocate of Zionism and Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * missed YNET, Daylicare, and the term "radical left". You should also remember that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper" and that "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from". One source presenting Dersh as an "attacker of on those he perceives as enemies of Israel" wouldn't qualify. How did one of the sources label Finkel? "vehement critic of Israel", wasn't it? I'm sure with your zeal for labelling, you'll be able to find more of such. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. There are plenty of pejoratives available from RS for both sides. If people want to know more about a person they can follow the wikilinks. Stellarkid (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

→Seems like everyone lost interest (thanks the almighty), but maybe if I have time I'll integrate this article in entry about Finkel. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ynet doc looks like an opinion piece ("Point of view"), so I didn't miss it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and your Guardian piece on Dersh is not? You are in violation of WP:BLP, come back when you have "a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources" describing him as "who is known for his attacks on those he perceives as enemies of Israel". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it isn't an opinion piece but an article. Dershowitz isn't a a well-known public figure that BLP refers to, he's just a talking head. But even if he was, there are sources which I've already presented (and here are a few more) that characterize him: While I was at it, I came across a few opinion/blog hits too that I can throw in: --Dailycare (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NYT: longtime advocate of Israel
 * NYT: prominent defender
 * Guardian: well known for the ferocity of his attacks on those he perceives as enemies of Israel
 * Guardian: A passionate advocate of Zionism and Israel
 * LA Times: Alan Dershowitz, the vehemently pro-Israel Harvard Law School professor
 * Times: vocal supporters of Israel
 * Times: Dershowitz’s support for Israel is no secret
 * Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips are two of the most prominent figures sent in to attack anyone who disagrees with the Israeli right
 * One of the most prolific, high-profile and indefatiguable defenders of Israel
 * A former Israeli cabinet member says "Dershowitz's statements border on hate", and that he is a despicable man whose criticism of Goldstone is disgraceful: 1.

→next attempt to use the wording "who is known for his attacks on those he perceives as enemies of Israel" would be resolved on WP:BLP noticeboard or on a 3RR noticeboard. More moderate labelling of Dersh would result in reciprocal treatment of Finkel and Chomsky. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper Editorializing and Rebuttals
Just a note that in the section that clearly is supposed to be a factual summary of the Goldstone Report findings, there are numerous rebuttals of the findings citing the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) as the purported evidentiary source. These clearly belong in a separate section, not in a section that is supposed to be presenting a factual recitation of the findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.30.201 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The 'rebutals' have no place in the summary. There is also a section on Michael Sfard. I will remove these sections that are clearly not part of the 'findings' of the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bas van Leeuwen (talk • contribs) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, see what you think of it. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has become cluttered.
Wiki have issued the following advice: "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." Seems sensible to me.Prunesqualer (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help over at UN HRC
Hi, I've noticed that the section on the Gaza report was horribly POV, I tried changing quite a bit, but basically the whole lot's been reverted back by Shrike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Gaza_report Could someone else help arbitrate/fix the whole lot? Thanks! Lionfish0 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (also I don't want all my effort to be lost into the article "History"!)

Section on the Mandate
I would suggest removing this paragraph from the section on the Mandate - it doesn't add anything and isn't really relevant as the mission investigated violence on both sides:

"However, critics (UN Watch, former Justice Minister of Canada Professor Irwin Cotler and U.S. Representatives Howard L. Berman and Gary Ackerman) point out that despite the agreement between UNHRC's president and Judge Goldstone over widening the mandate, the mission's finding resolution that outlines that mandate was not formally superseded by UNHRC at its June session and the council's president does not possess the powers to legislate such changes on his own. Furthemore, in the response to Justice Goldstone, Berman and Ackerman wrote that the mandate that is formulated in the mission's founding resolution was the only one referenced in the 16 October UNHRC resolution that adopted the Report. In a formal letter sent in July 2009 to Justice Goldstone reasoning Israel's decision not to cooperate with the mission, Aharon Leshno Yaar, Israeli ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN wrote: 'as a matter of law, no statement by any individual, including the President of the Council, has the force to change the mandate of the Mission. Moreover, ... in a press conference on 16 April 2009, Ambassador Uhomoibhi stated that it is operative under paragraph 14 of Resolution S-9/1 which 'spells out the mandate'.'" Pexise (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its relevant as WP:RS report it as relevant to the mandate and the mission.Shrike (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The criticisms of the mandate are covered in an earlier paragraph - this is adding WP:UNDUE weight to a minor procedural issue. Furthermore, the mission did investigate both Palestinian and Israeli activities, so the whole argument is a red herring. Pexise (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it where it covered please quote the relevant part.Anyhow you opinion on whatever is red herring or not it is not important at all.We should only report what WP:RS saying.Shrike (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course - this is the section that covers it:

"Upon being asked to lead the Mission, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson expressed disappointment with the mandate and refused to head the Mission for that reason. She stated that the resolution adopted by UN Human Rights Council was one-sided and 'guided not by human rights but by politics'. She has since stated her full support for the eventual report, and her regret that some have focused on the procedure establishing the mission, rather than on the findings of the report itself. Richard Goldstone initially refused his own appointment for the same reason, calling the mandate 'biased' and 'uneven-handed'. Following Goldstone's objection, the mandate was informally widened on 3 April 2009 to cover activities by Palestinian militants as well, and this was the formulation quoted by the final report."

Pexise (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bar Mitzvah incident
Please stop re-adding material about the bar-mitzvah incident, it never actually happened, this is out of date and of questionable relevance. Pexise (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please bring sources that say the opposite until you do this information should stay.Shrike (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course - see this source. He was never banned from his nephew's bar mitzvah. Pexise (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever arrangement was made to lessen the ban should be added to the article, but the wholesale deletion of notable and sourced content is wrong.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There was never a ban - please read the article I posted here before commenting. Thanks Pexise (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See for example:

"Three weeks ago, Goldstone announced that his family had asked him not to attend his 13-year-old grandson's bar mitzvah because militantly pro-Israel Jews said they would picket the synagogue during the ceremony. The synagogue elders had also expressed concern about the threat of disruption. Although the source of the threats was unclear, they were linked by Goldstone's supporters in the Jewish community to the South African Zionist Federation and the chief rabbi."

Threats to disrupt the bar mitzvah are quite different from a ban. Pexise (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly Biased and misleading
This article is absolute rubbish. It has clearly been written from the USA/Israeli perspective, e.g. a deliberate attempt to diminish and put down the Goldstone Report's findings. For example, the majority of quotations are of countries, officials, and news organizations clearly critical of the Goldstone Report. The Wall Street Journal, The Times, or WaPo are given front and center attention; of course alternate viewpoints by publications like The Guardian, Huffington Post, or The Independent are nowhere to be seen.

This article is absolutely AWFUL, and is yet another classic example of axe-grinding trolls making sure the Goldstone Report is buried, because it dares to be critical of Israel's actions. Just ridiculous, never come to Wikipedia if you want a fair and balanced analysis of anything political in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.18.10 (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be good if you could help improve the article. Thanks Pexise (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New section added: Additional Subsequent Hamas and Israeli response
Here is the text of a newly added section:

"In a November 2010 interview given by Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad to the Al-Hayat newspaper, Hamad claimed that 600-700 Hamas members were killed in the Gaza fighting. This figure is several times higher than the previous number of fatalities that Hamas claimed it sustained during the operation as published by the NGOs’ and Goldstone’s version of events, and is an example of claims that had been used to justify indictments against Israel."

I have a couple of issues: 1) the second source is an opinion piece, which is not ideal for fact-checking. 2)why are we to trust these new figures over the old ones? 3) who has said that the number of Hamas members killed justified indictments against Israel? Thanks Pexise (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * i think the hamas minister is credible, certainly more so than the previously reported numbers which were not really based on much. as for the piece, re-word it, for now - until better sources come along:

"In a November 2010 interview given by Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad to the Al-Hayat newspaper, Hamad claimed that 600-700 Hamas members were killed in the Gaza fighting. This figure is several times higher than the previous number of fatalities that Hamas claimed it sustained during the operation as published by the NGOs’ and Goldstone’s version of events." Soosim (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's better, but I would rather use an alternative source to the JPost Opinion piece. Also, no need to refer to NGO reports as the article is only about the Goldstone report.  A further point: Hamas is a political party, so it is not really a relevant point whether casualties were members or not.  Also, whether people were members or not may be difficult to prove, which may explain the discrepancy in figures. I'm starting to wonder whether any of this section is really relevant. Pexise (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I'm wondering whether any of it should be included in the article as there is no mention of the Goldstone Report or UN mission in the Haaretz article. I'm concerned this is WP:OR - the relevance is certainly questionable and possibly pushing a certain POV. Pexise (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * i found this article in the huffpo by dershowitz which mentions both the numbers and goldstone. whatcha think? Soosim (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with Huffpost to know if Dershowitz is an editor or reporter there. If he isn't then this is a self-published piece/opinion piece/guest column and the content is self-serving to Dershowitz who is known as a public apologist of the Israeli regime (which would disqualify the text as a source). I tried looking for the interview on the al-hayat site but couldn't find it, does someone have the link? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * hi dailycare - i have seen the interview translated into english. it mentions the casualty figures, etc. but not the goldstone report. editors (see above) feel that the numbers alone are not related to the goldstone report if it is not directly linked. fyi. Soosim (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the interview? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need a solid mainstream source linking the interview to the Goldstone report to include it. Was it covered in the mainstream press? Pexise (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pare down lead
I have copyedited the lead so that the facts are less obscured by the verbiage, in keeping with the tag that was placed there, and to allow more visibility to the fact that Goldstone has admitted the report was based on misinformation and reached false conclusions.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited much of the article for endless repetition, poor English, confusing layout and other issues. There is still much to be done to get this article into shape. --Geewhiz (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Namibian Flag
The section on the Non Aligned Movement has the Namibian Flag Attached, Is this as I think it is, a mistake or is the a explanation for it being there?--146.232.48.160 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the Namibia flag, which was mistakenly displayed because Template:Flagicon translates NAM as Namibia. Good catch.—Biosketch (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldstone "Reconsiders"
It appears that Goldstone himself has partially withdrawn support for the conclusion that Israel engaged in war crimes. 

Quotes :
 * Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, 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.
 * We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. 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.
 * The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.
 * The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The money quote is "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document".
 * His reconsidering should have a prominent place in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be mentioned in the lead (as of this writing it is mentioned there). The article could present the various charges somehow in connection to Goldstone's statement to convey which one was being retracted and which ones are left in place. --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If his reconsidering has a prominent place in the head then the views of the other authors of the report should be there as well.They disagree with Goldstones reappraisal. Their views are buried at the bottom of the article. Surely it would be a fairer article if their view was next to his view in the lead.As I see it now it is clearly more pro Israeli than neutral Owain the 1st (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * owain - could you be more specific about what makes it more pro-israel? looks pretty fair to me, but maybe i would get rid of the last sentence about hamas? Soosim (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How can it be fair when the opposing view is not there?Obviously it is more pro Israeli as they are jumping around at what has happened and are ignoring that 2 of the other authors of the report stand by it. This place is supposed to be neutral, so therefore including the thoughts of the other authors in the lead is essential. At the moment their views are buried at the very bottom of the article.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that what has been posted at the bottom of this article or something similar, namely this.

Two of the other four members who wrote the report (along with Richard Goldstone) have repudiated Richard Goldstone's recent statements deviating from the original report the four wrote. Hina Jilani, one of the four writers of the "Goldstone Report", noted when asked if the report should allegedly be changed: ""Absolutely not; no process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN Report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a 'suspect move'." [220] Also another of the four co-writer's (along with Richard Goldstone) Irish international criminal investigations expert Desmond Travers noted: " 'the tenor of the report in its entirety, in my opinion, stands,' Travers said." [221]

Should be included in the lead as it gives the opposing view to Goldstones conclusions by two other authors of the report who frankly disagree with him. Owain the 1st (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Technical comment: Owain, you might be interested in reading the WP:LEAD guideline, which explains how lead sections should be written. Basically, only the most important points worth inclusion, where "importance" is defined by coverage in reliable sources. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So it is important that Goldstone has changed his mind but it is unimportant that the other authors of the report do not agree with him?OG 22:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs)


 * Everything that receives significant coverage by reliable sources is important. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been covered by the Guardian and I consider that a reliable source.It is also in the New York Times,Owain the 1st (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) So I see no reason it cannot go in the lead.


 * maybe something like this: On April 1, 2011, Goldstone retracted his claims that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document", while other authors of the report maintain its validity.Soosim (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it is fair enough, of course we gonna need sources for the second part of the sentence. Please don't forget to sign. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit betterOwain the 1st (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted this in the talk page of the Richard Goldstone article, I can post it here as well: "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. Source in Swedish (audio): ." 80.217.207.79 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with "white phosphorus" image
Forgive me if this has been discussed in the archives already. What source is the article relying on in determining that the object in the sky is spraying white phosphorus over the town below? The caption should be modified if there is no WP:RS to attribute that claim to. Better yet, if there's no RS it shouldn't even be in that section.—Biosketch (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this can be covered by WP:DUCK? Bjmullan (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not likely, as DUCK doesn't apply to actual content in an article. Anyway, upon further investigation it turns out the images are freeze-frames of a video made available by al-Jazeera here. There are descriptions below the video – not time marked but fairly easy to match to what appears in the clip. None of the descriptions mentions white phosphorus. The one most likely applying to our situation says, "Various shots of Israeli shelling Gaza strip with cluster bomb and smoke raising from building." Since there's no RS describing the image as an incident of white phosphorus, and there's nothing in the article about cluster bombs, I'm taking the image out altogether as not within the scope of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's clearly a white phosphorus airburst. It's as recognisable as the objects below it being buildings and the smoke being smoke. The video has been reused by other sources such as HRW (see timemark 06:16). I don't know why the caption says "allegedly used". The IDF confirmed their use of white phosphorus shells as an obscurant. There's no controversy about whether it was used in Gaza.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, there's no dispute about (at least I'm not disputing) Israel having used white phosphorus during its campaign in Gaza. But saying "it's clearly a white phosphorus airburst" is (a) not a verifiable claim and (b) conflicts with the information provided by the RS that is the source of the image. The caption should say cluster bomb, because that is what al-Jazeera identifies it as. And as an image of a cluster bomb, it doesn't belong in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's clearly a 155mm WP shell, I'd suggest to keep it per WP:CK or per WP:IAR, if WP:CK do not apply. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were WP:CK, why would the al-Jazeera people have described it as a cluster bomb? It would be one thing if the image were made available by al-Jazeera without any accompanying description. Then you could say, The source is reliable and it's clearly white phosphorus, so we can create a caption of our own. That is not the case, however. al-Jazeera's credibility is being both relied upon (for the image) and disputed (re the caption) in the same breath. I'm sorry, I don't see how an exception can be made in this case without flagrantly flouting established Wikipedia policy. Which brings us to WP:IAR – but what possible counterargument could be formulated in relation to that policy? I think that in order to invoke IAR, you really need to build a compelling case. What, for example, will replace the Template:Citation needed in the caption as a source? If al-Jazeera isn't competent enough to know the difference between a cluster bomb and a white phosphorus explosion, how can they be trusted to have provided us with a factual context for the image to begin with? These are reasonable questions to ask.—Biosketch (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me put it a simple way: if everybody here agrees that it is a Willy Pete shell over Gaza during Gaza war - there is no need to apply complicated exercises in formal logic over Wikipedia policies, keep it per CK or IAR or whatever. If not - no big deal, remove it, since it lacks proper sourcing. I like pictures of explosions. Am I biased? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to know why the picture says allegedly, the Israelis have already admitted that it was used.I think the word allegedly should be removed as it clearly points to there being a debate if it was or not used but as we know from the Israeli foreign ministry it was used.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably it says allegedly because at the time the image was added to the page Israel's use of white phosphorus was still in dispute. That isn't the case anymore, so the word allegedly is anachronistic. Still, that's a secondary problem. The problem is that whatever caption is under the image needs to be sourced, per WP:V. How would the editors feel about this idea: Leave the image, delete the caption altogether. Or just leave a ref there to the al-Jazeera page with the whole video.—Biosketch (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of the caption or at the least the allegedly bit.I think people would make out what it is about as it is opposite the piece on WP use.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is iconic enough (and I think it is, especially with al-Jazeera logo, which makes the picture a state of the art on it's own), no caption is all right. Btw, I think WP:IMAGE regulates image verifiability rather then WP:V, and after reading it I have to raise a question of image relevancy to the article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With lingering misgivings about displaying the image at all, I've replaced the caption with a simple attribution and ref. ElComandante, I'm now in the position of not quite following your logic vis-a-vis WP:IMAGE, if you'd care to elaborate.—Biosketch (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:V and WP:RS requirement of visual content are as strong as of written material. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The demand to remove the image has been withdrawn. And as you no longer question the relevance of the image to the article, there's consensus that it can stay. There is, however, still a problem – at the level of policy – with using an image provided by a source but denying that same source's explanation for the image. Which is why having no explanation at all is preferable to being selective as to what's reliable and what isn't. I would revert and remove the caption altogether until the matter can be calmly resolved, but I already did and he's not self-reverting despite having been asked to. We should be more adult than to have to edit war over this.—Biosketch (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to call this out as silly. It's white phosphorus. We have an RS that wrote an entire report about white phosphorus usage in Operation Cast Lead using that exact AJ video to illustrate WP usage over Gaza. I provided a link above with the exact timemark of the segment of the same AJ video showing that shell exploding. It's difficult to conceive of a better reference to provide WP:V compliance. Readers can actually watch that shell exploding themselves on the site of an RS discussing WP usage in Gaza. Whether the image belongs in this article is another matter but captions are there to tell readers what things are and in this case we know it is white phosphorus.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Put it back in then just leave out allegedly as we all know they used it, they even admitted it themselves. Owain the 1st (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the word allegedly as Israel admitted it used it.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted to the original caption per 's objection, but the stays because there is still a sourcing conflict: embracing the reliability of the image and simultaneously rejecting the source's description of it is self-contradictory. Also, let's please not start making changes to the caption before consensus.—Biosketch (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem? There is no allegedly about them using WP.they have admitted they used it.I changed it back.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that now you're synthesizing information from other sources with the information provided by the source of the image. If you start playing around with the wording of the caption rather than relying on the source's wording, you're questioning the reliability of the source and, by extension, of the image. This is why having no caption at all – which you initially had no problem with – is the least problematic solution. By removing the word "allegedly," you're introducing a change to the caption that wasn't there before, when the whole existence of the image is in dispute. Please self-revert and wait for consensus.—Biosketch (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is such a big problem with the wording of this image then why not use another image which has a caption saying that they used WP. As the article speaks about the attack on the UN in Gaza maybe that image would suffice, that is if we can use it. I will put the allegedly back into this one for the momentOwain the 1st (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the image in dispute is a still from an Al Jazerra video, Gaza war day 14. Well they have more videos and on the day 20 one it has images of WP shells bursting over Gaza and it states "Various shots of attacks, white phosphorous".Or in another one it says "Israeli Army drop White Phosphorus bombs on Gaza residential areas".We can take a still and use one of them.I believe the 2nd one would be better as that describes what actually happened Thoughts?Owain the 1st (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting. Your suggestion would be fine by me. Again, I'm not disputing that Israel used white phosphorus or that what's in the image is white phosphorus. My objection is policy-based: using a source in one way and then contradicting it in another, or captioning an image without being able to cite the source because the source says something else entirely. If there are other images available without these conflicts, it would definitely make things easier on everyone.—Biosketch (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted a new picture and caption and a link to Al Jazeera video from where it came.I removed the other disputed caption/picture.Hopes this now solves this dispute.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Problem solved. (You may need quotation marks around the caption, because it's verbatim a copy-paste from the source.)—Biosketch (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * added quotations marks.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know the first thing about working with images; but some articles have animated illustrations, and maybe you could do the same for this one, seeing as it's derived from a video. It does make a significantly stronger impression when you see the shell exploding in motion like in the video clip. By the way, I used the image to resolve the same situation that was at White phosphorus.—Biosketch (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is good enough as a picture.There is a link to the actual video if people feel the need to have a look.If someone else wants to upload the video they can.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

goldstone recantation section
can someone clarify the use of mondoweiss - looks like a blog, with no editorial oversight - and the use of middleeastmonitor - looks like many of the other 'monitors' out there, which require (as i have learned) a secondary reliable source to make it wiki ready. Soosim (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced these two sources with better ones. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I added comments from a UN spokesman.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you both! Soosim (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Section name for Goldstone's April 2011 announcement
Hi, all. I saw the news today about Goldstone's April 1, 2011, announcement, and came here to add that to this article. I was surprised and impressed to find it had been added almost immediately. It's my impression that the section is really well written; all of you who worked on it should be proud of your contributions. I do have one quibble, though: The section was named "Goldstone reappraisal" but was changed to "Goldstone recantation" in this edit. But I don't think "recantation" was the best choice. The meanings listed for the word "recant", from the Oxford English Dictionary, are given below, with emphasis added:


 * To withdraw, retract, renounce, or disavow (a former statement, opinion, belief, action, etc.) as erroneous or heretical, esp. formally or publicly.
 * To renounce or abjure ( a course of life or conduct ) as wrong or mistaken. Obs.
 * To withdraw or retract ( a promise, vow, undertaking, etc.); to go back on ( one's word ). Now rare.
 * To go back on an agreement; to renege . Now rare.
 * To renounce, give up (an intention or purpose).

As you can see, the word "recant" has a strong shared meaning element with a notion of morality and religious beliefs. I know many people here probably feel strongly that Goldstone should recant in this moral sense, but it's not really the best choice of a word for what he actually did do. I've revised the section heading to read, "Goldstone's retraction of civilian targeting claim", which avoids the use of the use of "recantation" and accurately summarizes the section's content, as well. I also added an "anchor" for the former section name, of course, so any links to it won't break. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with OhioStandard in that this is a better section title taking into account the scope of the "reivsal". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldstone report: Statement issued by members of UN mission on Gaza war
I have put in a new section covering the statement from the other co authors of the report and also adjusted the lead to reflect this.I have basically quoted most of what their statement was.Discuss Owain the 1st (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be featured in the article, good work. I formatted the ref to make it easier to locate in case the url goes dead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The alleged bias
My edit was removed, which is weird. The claim is stated twice (two paragraphs down). Furthermore, the first sentence (the one I removed) present the alleged bias as a fact. This is totally wrong. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: insufficient support Ground Zero | t 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict → United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza War (2008-09) – I feel not that they are doing a fact finding mission on the new conflict this could be very confusing. The name would be consistent with the main article page as well. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Galatz (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are hatnotes at the top of each article to avoid confusion, the names are similar but not identical . "Conflict", not "War", is used in the official name. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The article names are not identical - one is "Israel–Gaza", the other is "Gaza" - but has an official name been given to the 2014 commission? Peter James (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that we have those, however even still the Gaza War article was moved to Gaza War (2008-09) despite the others not being called Gaza War and the distinguish tab being at the top. I have not seen an official commission name no. - Galatz (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Commission of Inquiry" is often used to describe the new commission, and is likely to be part of its name; the UN site mentions "Gaza Commission of Inquiry" but that may still be only a description. The actual name will probably appear in documents published by the team but I don't know if any exist yet. Names of the conflict are proper nouns but are not official names in the same way as commissions so unless the names are identical (or only differ in capitalisation or punctuation) I don't think this title needs a disambiguator. The new article could probably be renamed, its current title appears to be influenced more by this one than by the sources used there. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would support United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2008-09 Israel–Gaza conflict so as to adopt the same format as United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Of course the current conflict will be the last conflict occur between Israel and Gaza.  Failing that a consistent use of formatting may have use.  Consistency will also help researchers try to deduce what the hell is going on.  This shows no preference for "war" or "conflict".  A grieving part of me would prefer "madness" or similar.  "unnecessarily heated family squabble" lacks brevity.  am currently welling up, :'( Gregkaye (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned, the current investigation isn't commonly known as a "Fact Finding Mission", so if that article is named correctly it will be more clearly distinguished. There isn't a consistent pattern of naming the articles listed on disambiguation pages such as Gaza conflict or Iraq War (disambiguation). Peter James (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120601104355/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254393087797&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254393087797&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)