Talk:Neil Goldschmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Moved from the article (good questions, but the article body's not where they should be asked):

• "Has he committed other sexual crimes against children?"
• " Who were the people who assisted in the Rape cover-up?"

-- llywrch 16:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Removed statuory rape category because he was never convicted. Plus the category states that it is for those who had teacher/student relationships. Davidpdx 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

then the category should be renamed to reflect that. 24.21.186.100 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add the statutory rape category again. While he did admit to the crime, he was never convicted. If you persist, I will ask a adminstrator to semi-protect this page. Davidpdx 09:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A conviction counts but not a confession? Seems clear to me that a volentary confession is more solid a fact than a conviction. What is your reasoning that a confession (reported in a reputable source) isn't good enough to qualify him for the statutory rape category?

Furthermore, statutory rape is a generous lable. She was a babysitter for his children, she wasn't old enough or stable enough for it to be a consenting relationship. Goldschmidt didn't didn't have a momentary lapse of control, he groomed her for the role and then preyed upon her for a long time.

The category should be re-added. 24.21.186.100 16:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did admit to the crime and it was wrong. No one is doubting that. In no way am I defending what Goldschmidt did. However, letting someone's opinion cloud an article by adding things that are bias ruins Wikipedia. The category means "convicted" not confessed.Davidpdx 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The only bias here is your attempt at supressing an appropriate category. 24.21.186.100 05:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think that Goldschmidt fits in that category at all. --Liface 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And why is that, He is most certianly a statutory rapist and admitis it. The only reason I see not to add this category is because of its description (...teachers and students...) But that's a problem with the category that should be fixed too. 24.21.186.100 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory rape is a crime you must be convicted of to but added to that category. As I said previously, what he did is definately wrong. Which is why there is a rather long part of the article dedicated to the subject.

If I murdered someone and admitted it you wouldn't consider me a murder without a conviction? Come on, don't be an ass.

It's OK to cover the material in the artice but not use a category that fits? I think you bias is showing, removing this category is a whitewash. 24.21.186.100 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are stating that the category should be changed so that it fits your description of Goldschimdt. My point is, if you do that everytime for every person you feel should "fit" into a category that will cause some problems. The other concern is that the article needs to be NPOV as much as possible.

No I'm not, you either didn't read and understand my argument or you are being intellectually dishonest. To repeat, I said that if the category is restricted as noted above (to teachers and students) then it should be renamed to reflect that. Then a new statutory rape category could be created for statutory rapists. Alternatively, a restriction placed on a category that doesn't match its description should be removed.

If the category of baseball players was restricted to left handers don't you think it would be idiotic? Such is the case with restricting statutory rapists to students and teachers. 24.21.186.100 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering it is mentioned (actually quite extensively) in the article, it is best to leave the conclusion up to each individual reader rather the forcing one person's opinion. Davidpdx 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I think it is very important (academically) to understand how a venal person like Goldschmidt can be so sucessful. The knowledge of his statutory rape was widely known for decades and was, according to former subordinates, only the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, other people making transgressions orders of magnitude less suffered consequences orders of magnitude worse. This point alone is fascinating and deserves some attention.

Considering that his repeated statutory rapes over a long period of time play a central role in his career and life, the category should be re-added. 24.21.186.100 05:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First, note that the statutory rape category got moved (I believe it was renamed for clarification) to Category:Statutory rapists.

Second, there has been an ongoing discussion on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page relating to this subject. I was part of the discussion at one point, but lost track of it (due to time constraints). In that conversation there were some things brought up that are something worth thinking about. In a discussion about rape categories Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia stated,

"Conviction is a sufficient standard. A lack of a conviction should strong predispose us against listing a person in this sort of category, but there could be other *clearly defined* criteria which would do work for us similar to a conviction.

The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively." [1]

It also might be a good idea for you to look at the conversation that took place on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page here [2]

Also note, that such disputes have been taken before arbitration, mainly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu which looks at dealing with articles listing people as child rapists. One of the tenents of that decision was Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Final_decision.

I would encourage you to look at these listings in terms of precendants set by them which are from Jim Wales and the Arbitration Commitee. These urge caution against doing what you are advocating. Davidpdx 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the thoughtfull response. I agree with your earlier response (a while back) that the topic is well covered in the article. What really buggs me is the lack of logic in this debate. For example, you quote above The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively. As far as calling him a criminal, we aren't the ones that opened that door, WW did, and Goldschmith confirmed it himself. So I don't see were the contention is. Anyway, I still believe it is an appropriate category to use but accept that I'm outnumbered here. 24.21.186.100 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Wales was saying it's better to be safe then sorry in terms of causing a backlash against Wikipedia. The encyclopedia was not started to cause a controversy, but to inform people. In terms of what happens on Wikipedia, Jimbo pretty much has the last say.

Yes, WW did open the door as did Dwight James (of the Portland Tribune) and Vicki Walker. As you may have noticed I put quite a bit of that back story into the article because it gives the reader a good look at how the allegations became public after so many years. Part of the reason for including that in this article and the Vicki Walker article is tied to Walker's now aborted campaign for governor.

One also I think has to take into account that the allegations (you can't really call them charges since he was never charged with a crime) are over 25 years old. I think they still merit mentioning in the article, but to try to put him in a narrow category (other then possibly sex offenders) is difficult to do. The amount of time does have a lot of bearring on the situation as well as whether the victum speaks out. I don't think the victum was identified (it actually sounds like she was paid off).

Anyway, I think the article does have a pretty good balance at this point. Davidpdx 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of this article

This is a warning to User:71.245.108.181, please stop vandalizing this article. You have been warned multipule times by myself and others. If you persist, you will be banned from Wikipedia. Davidpdx 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)