Talk:Richard Goldstone

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Goldstone/gold-con1.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - Regarding this edit. Does the inappropriateness of a factoid in lead which is miscited to op-ed piece on Ynet really need to be explained. Really? Rrrrrreeeeeeallly? NickCT (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a point to make, then make it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - I think I've made several points. Care to address them? Let me lay them out for you a little more clearly. Does citing OP-ed pieces in the lead seem appropriate to you? Does Ynet seem like an appropriate source for this kind of content? Does it seem appropriate to you that Ynet presents the factoid not as fact but an attribution to a third party and we're presenting it in an unattributed way? Really? NickCT (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now you've made a point, instead of posting something stupid and snarky. The Ynet piece is not an op-ed, and I don't see a problem with it. The main thing is, I don't think there's any room for doubt about Goldstone having done what our article says he did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - Perhaps if you didn't make stupid and snarky reverts, you wouldn't get stupid and snarky comments? I doubt the source. Can you provide another? You also haven't addressed the third party attribution point. The article is reporting on a piece by Yedioth Ahronoth, which is essentially an OP-ed. A news report about an OP-ed isn't news. It's an OP-Ed. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect: I see no evidence supporting the claim that this source is an op-ed. I don't follow your point about attribution: the article says that the newspaper, via its own investigation, found that Goldstone was involved in 28 capital sentences. It would be odd if they were wrong, and your doubt would have some substance if you produced another source claiming they were wrong. So my revert wasn't stupid at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - Ok. I've read into this a bit more. Apparently Goldstone did in fact sentence 2 black people to death and upheld the sentences of a number of other folks. I think the main issue here is that 28 figure misrepresents (likely intentionally) the number of people Goldstone actually sentenced. Additionally, the positioning of the misleading factoid so early in the lead is pretty obviously an attempt to poison the well.

I'm clearly for removing the material all together, but sensing that you'll likely not support that, we can rephrase it to better reflect the actual numbers -

He is considered to be one of several liberal judges who..... Despite his liberal positions, he is noted as having been responsible for sentencing to death 2 black South Africans while also supporting the upholding of death sentences of many other black South Africans.

Let's also add one additional ref. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Something more specific along those lines seems okay, as long as it doesn't add too much length to an already long lead. "supporting the upholding" is also a bit awkward and imprecise. The additional ref is good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - re " "supporting the upholding" is also a bit awkward and imprecise " - Yeah. I agree. The thing is, most of the sentences he upheld, he upheld with a panel of judges. So in other words, he wasn't solely responsible for upholding the convictions. What's a better way to phrase that? If we just say "he upheld", it makes it sound like he was in essence acting alone. NickCT (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)