Talk:Amiram Goldblum

the page is back, with proper RS

your comments are welcome. thanks, Soosim (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

goldblum trashing his own article

really prof amiram? i will get back to this in the next few days, but you can't just add material without citing proper sources. and, more importantly, you can't remove material that was there which included proper sources. Soosim (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim makes a few mistakes and unblanaced editing

Please specify which sources have not been properly cited....

question, please: are you or are you not professor amiram goldblum? if yes, then your involvement is invaluable. if not, please explain your relationship to prof. goldblum, since apparently you have information that no news agency, article, etc. has. thanks. (and i will answer your other questions as well) Soosim (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A & Q: The person who responds to Soosim knows about Prof. Goldblum much more than Soosim can find from "reliable sources". Soosim is the one who needs to explain why he insists on producing smears of Goldblum with the rediculous accusation of a public opinion poll, that is as it name suggests, not reflecting any personal opinion of those who comissioned the poll.. Also, Soosim seems to spend a lot of energy on Goldblum, trying heavily to distort the story of that poll for that sake. I suggest to bring into this clear and crucial dispute a senior editor of Wikipedia to find out who is trying to distort the truth here.Rastiniak (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Yes, User:Rastiniak is Amiram Goldblum. I'm not sure why he is obscuring that now, when it was not a secret in the past, when the first version of this article was deleted. I nominated the first version for deletion, and I'm quite concerned that within minutes of creation, this article has become a target for violations of the neutral point of view policy. Professor Goldblum, only information that is verified in reliable sources can be included in this article, which means that it is unhelpful for you to add information that isn't available in such sources. I'm sure you'll agree that, given the number of people who want to add to this article, it's important to prohibit any information that isn't verified to be accurate in reliable sources. Thank you for you help in pointing out incorrect facts, and helping us find the sources that verify the correct facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the identifications. even the previous connection of Goldblum to "rastiniak" became an issue

for political smearing by that steven Plaut extreme right wing watchdog on his website Rastiniak (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

named chair issues

There is a mistake in attributing to Goldblum a second chair, in pulmonolgy, as he is not a MD or a Biologist and it is a mistake at the level of Hebrew University, however, being both a computational chemist and a pulmonoogist is an impressive achievment, unfortunately not of Goldblum

wikipedia is all about reliable sources (RS). one would think that the university which employs him, knows what he is, who he is, etc. but, after you answer the question above (is this you?), then we can decide how to write it. Soosim (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This just proves the relative lack of understanding of a person who thinks that everything on the internet is without mistakes

and is reliable sources.... Rastiniak (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

founder or not of peace now

Goldblum was not one of the founders of Peace Now, he joined PN only in 1980 and left the movement in 2000.

so why does almost every news agency and reliable source say so? the other option i found is "one of the first Peace Now activists" in a ynet article: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3163833,00.html - again, if you are he, then please let me know if this is a better phrasing. thanks. Soosim (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for Goldblum not to be considered as a founder of Peace Now, quite the contrary. However, when Peace Now

began, Goldblum was in postdoc studies until 1979.... He later became one of the three leaders of Peace Now together with Janet Aviad and Tzaly Reshef. The current wording in the last edit by me reflects the exact position of Goldblum, as all his Peace Now colleagues would testify Rastiniak (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

RS for spokesman role

The two references introduced for Goldblum as a spokesperson have nothing to do with that role of Goldblum, thus deleted.

but both sources say goldblum is/was spokesman for peace now. one says 15 years, one says 20 years. how is that not relevant? Soosim (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The two articles, one dealing with the poll that took place 12 years after Goldblum left Peace Now, and the

other piece about Ariel, in which Goldblum appears in a tiny part of the story, were replaced by clear cut presentations of Goldblum as the spokesperson of Peace Now. If you wish, I replaced sloppy or unrelated citations by relevant ones Rastiniak (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

acs prize with student

Goldblum won the ACS prize alone, for work achieved together with PhD student Meir Glick (mentioned in the article)

yes, and that is what was written in the article and in the source. so why remove it? Soosim (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit suggested that Goldblum and Glick got the prize together. This is incorrect and was thus changed. Your reading is problematic Rastiniak (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

dialog poll

The attempt to smear Goldblum's name in the false story of poll was predicted in a previous edit of this article. First, Golbdlum had nothing to do with the performance and publication of the poll known as the "racism and apartheid poll". Second, the group that organized the poll included Dr. Alon Liel, former head of the Foriegn Ministry and ambassador to S. Africa and to Turkey, Ambassador Ilan Baruch (S. Africa/Zimbabwe 2004-2008) human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, Prof. Menachem Klein of Bar Ilan University Political Studies, Liutenant Colonel Mordechai Bar-On former head of IDF education, MK (Meretz) Mossi Raz and others. Third, The poll was performed by one of the prime pollsters in Israel, the DIALOG company surveyed by Professor Camil Fuchs, a prominent statistician at the University of Tel Aviv. The poll was published with a mistaken title in "Haaretz" (people were asked about the future possibility of refusing Palestinian votes if Israel annexes Judea and Samaria but the title announced that Jews are for an apartheid state already today). The story was taken up by hundreds of papers around the world. Fourth, Gerald Steinberg is a local Daniel Pipes, a vigilante right winger who attacks human adn civil rights organizations adn NGOs because of his extreme National-Religious politics. He failed to attribute the poll to the New Israel Fund that indeed had nothing to do with that poll. This is why he needed to use Goldblum in order to connect to the NIF.... His article was published in a right wing paper, Israel Hayom, a new publication in Israel financed by US billionaire and controvertial right winger Sheldon Adelson who recently lost many million USD in supporting Romney against Obama, and constructed that paper to support right wing policies in Israel. The paper has become Netanyahu's "his Masters Voice" and reflects Netanyahu's thinking adn that of his entourgae, attacking his political rivals. Needless to say, Israel Hayom refused to publish a response to the smear by that Steinberg. Fifth - it is rediculous to introduce 6 lines about a poll in which Goldblum was not involved but by finding the financial resource to pay for it. Yisraela Fund did not comission the poll. It was comissioned by the above group of prominent Israeli academics and politicans. A poll that was "alive" for a few days gets more attention by this editor than 20 years of serious activities in Peace Now, hundreds of which had much more importance than that poll and were not mentioned. In particular, the continued activities by the most important body ever to be constructed by Goldblum, the Settlements Watch Team of Peace Now, that continues to be active since its inception in 1990 and to be effective in blocking the extreme National-Religious right wing intentions in the Occupied Territories. Finally, the new book by Omri Issenheim about the trauma of Sayeret Matkal in the Tseelim Bet disaster in which Golbdlum's son was considered initially to be the worst wounded, has at least 6 pages in which Goldblum's son is interviewed and cited. This is considered to be one of the most traumatic military accidents in Israel, and the one with the most far reaching implications. What could be the reason for taking off that part which has a most crucial importance to understanding who Goldblum is ? 132.64.165.121 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

i will try to answer based on what you wrote above:

1st - "Golbdlum had nothing to do with the performance and publication of the poll known as the "racism and apartheid poll"." - again we have the same problem as some of the other issues you raise. several reliable sources say that goldblum was directly involved in the funding and commissioning of the poll. in fact, goldblum himself (you?) send a press release discussing the commissioning of the poll, and its results. why would you say otherwise?

2nd - we know about the group that organized it. you can see the article about the poll for details. but, we are only discussing goldblum's role in it here. not theirs.

3rd - and yes, all of that information is in the article about the poll. not related here.

4th - gerald steinberg - ok, so you say what you say about him. but his is a dissenting voice, showing criticism. what's wrong with that? and what did you mean about steinberg and the nif and the poll? he didn't connect them because they denied being involved. were they? steinberg can be corrected, if that is the case. and you can also say what you want about yisrael hayom, adelson, romney, obama, trump, winston churchill and moses. not relevant here. Soosim (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

5th - those items which goldblum (you?) did for peace are mentioned here, and in detail on the peace now page. and if goldblum found the financial resources to pay for the poll, and did in fact, pay for the poll, then didn't goldblum pay for the poll? (surely you are not suggesting that he just channeled/funneled/laundered money from a donor just to get the poll commissioned and paid for? that would be illegal, right?) Soosim (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

finally (6th?) - goldberg's son military injuries - i will try to find the source you mentioned, and if so, will add it back in to the article. that's all, and that's easy. (and if this is you, prof. goldblum, i wish your son a speedy and complete healing). Soosim (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll dispute with Soosim, please intervention of a senior editor, thanks

The information presented by Soosim is one single article by an extreme political rival of any left wing politics in Israel,

an extremist called Gerald Steinberg whose main intent in the piece he wrote for the right wing paper of Sheldon Adelson in Israel was to attack the New Israel Fund, which is one of his main vocations. That is why the name of Goldblum was introduced, as Goldblum used money from a memorial fund of his wife to finance the poll, a fund whose assets were held by a "sister organization" of the New Israel Fund (NIF) while NIF or that org had nothing to do with the poll. moreover, Soosim claims that Goldblum paid for the poll. But it is a FAMILY fund, in which Israela Goldblum's brother, Mr. Ami Weinstein, his children, and Golbdlum's children (including the one who was very badly wounded in Tzeelim Bet) were all involved. It is not Goldblum who paid but the Family fund who paid for the poll.

Goldblum did not pose the questions, did not perform the poll and did not publish it. In other words, the piece by Steinberg that was cited here and deleted by me is a nonsense piece, in teh style of Daniel Pipes accusations. It is only one of hundreds of pieces in the Israeli and International media about that poll. Moreover, that right wing paper Israel Hayom refused to publish a response by Goldblum to the Steinberg stupid smear. And now Sossim wishes to take this single quite lunatic piece to center stage, again for the sake of political (and possibly legal) smearing (as in August 2012 when Wikipedia editors blocked the smears by deleting the article on Goldblum) It is suggested that Wikipedia senior editors would intervene and make a decision about eother blocking this article to the smearing attempts by Soosim, or delete that article entirely, as they did before in August 2012.

Politics section: No sources for any of the claims

There are no sources for any of the following claims "Goldblum was in the front line of the demonstration when Peace Now protestor Emil Grunzweig was murdered by a right wing religious fanatic, Yona Avrushmi, a settlers supporter who threw a hand grenade at the demonstrators and wounded a dozen, among them Knesset speaker Avraham Burg. Goldblum is on the list of the Meretz party for the January 2013 elections. Goldblum initiated the Settlements Watch activities of Peace Now in 1990". and i'm not sure that the details about the murder are WP:ROC for an article that is neither about the victim or the perpetrator or the event. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If scarletfire2112 is indeed interested in reliable sources for the issue of the front line as well as for the opinions of goldblum, he may use the source of Iton Yerushalaim, a large interview with goldblum which was published June 8 2001 and excerpts of it were translated in published on many sites. One of them was added to the political section in the article. The original interview is over three pages with a large photo of the front line and a clear identification of Goldblum in that photoרסטיניאק (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Sources for claims

1

The photo showing Goldblum on the front line has become the icon photo for that demonstration, the first demonstration in the history of Israel in which a murder was committed by a political rival . It is shown on the article page of Emil Grunzweig. Goldblum is first on the right side with Emil in the center. The Emil Grunzweig page has been referenced for that sake. The story of that murder also appears on the Emil Grunzweig page. As it was the most important political murder before that of Rabin, since the creation of the state of Israel, It is worth a repetition as a warning against political murders, that are directed in israel, together with other violent actions, only by right wing against the left wing.

these are very worthwhile goals, but i'm pretty sure they have no place on wikipedia. also, there is no reliable source provided that identifies Goldblum in that photo. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

2

The injury of Avraham Burg who was later the Knesset Speaker and the head of the Jewish Agency is mentioned under "political career" on the Avraham Burg page. This is another mention of that murderous action that clarifies how traumatic, painful and crucial was this murderous action, which could easily end with many more dead bodies.

see my comment above. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

3

For the list of Meretz for the elections: This is very recent, 3 days ago, the lists will be published next week, it may thus be deleted until next week....

4

Thanks for the comment. Proper sources (2 books) were introduced as references for the role of Goldblum in constructing the Settlements Watch Team(sometimes against the will of many others in Peace Now.. a fact that is described in the book by Reshef..) Rastiniak (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

a continuing vandalization

Now the issue is the wounding of avraham Burg as I find comments that a citation is required while the article about him includes a clear reference to his being wounded in that Peace Now demonstration. I have also added a citation from the Jewish Library for the CV of Burg (citation no. 14) but the claim that this is not correct continued. I deleted it for now but it may be returning as probably the same persons who vandalized the article are "trying their luck" in small steps. Please protect this article from further editing by those vandals, thanks. Rastiniak (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Rastiniak, you need to calm down a bit. The important part of that sentence that the reference does not support is the claim that Goldblum was in the front line of the demonstration. Here's the deal: people are trying to draw you into behavior that will get you blocked. You are rising to the bait. If you edit-war in removing maintenance tags of the sort I added you will end up blocked. Don't be a sap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you user:Nomoskedasticity for your suggestions. I apologize for considering this an attempt to test the ability to vandalize. It could help if the tag would have identified the issue at the exact position of the problem, while it was added at the end of the sentence which is why I had mistaken it. What may be difficult to believe is that those who vandalize the Goldblum article are aiming to use it as they already did in a legal process that takes place these very days. That is why it draws some nervous reactions on my part. As to the required reference for being on the front line of that demonstration, I clarified that the photo on the page of Emil Grunzweig who was murdered in that demonstration has Goldblum on the right side of the photo. I do not think that it is worth to add that photo to the Goldblum article, but if you consider that useful, it may be easily done Rastiniak (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

No, that photo would not be appropriate here -- and it wouldn't be a usable source anyway. WIkipedia has some rules that are difficult to understand at first -- the relevant one here is WP:OR, and the point is that a Wikipedia editor would not be allowed to look at a photograph and draw the conclusion that a person in that photograph has a particular identity. (Any connection of that sort would have to be drawn by the source itself, say, a reporter writing about the photograph.) I'm not going to re-add that template -- but if someone else does, just let it be, it's not vandalism, it's part of the normal editing process here. Apart from that, you really need to pay attention to WP:3RR -- that's where you can end up with some real trouble. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again User:Nomoskedasticity . There are references to the walking of Goldblum in the front line with Emil Grunzweig in articles in Hebrew. Do those qualify ? I also wonder about two issues: 1) why is it that only political content is contested and requires reliable sources, while many other biography issues (no one requests to see that Goldblum was indeed born in Rosh Pina, asking for his birth certificate....) pass uncontested. 2) Why is it possible that vandalism might be successful by applying this WP:3RR rule to the editor whose article is attacked ? the vandalizers might be a host of wolves while there is only a single person to expose their lies and delete them. Or am I wrong on that ? thanks for explaining or directing Rastiniak (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

The Burg CV does not mention Goldblum's presence at the rally. What are the Hebrew sources that reference goldblum in the front line? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rastiniak, Hebrew references are fine, as long as they meet the basic requirements for sources here, WP:RS. The usual practice is to post the relevant portion of the foreign language text here (only a sentence or two; start a separate section) and then your own translation. (I speak Hebrew as well, but for the sake of other interested editors...) As for your other questions: editors can insist on sources for anything. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ratiniak - you mentioned above "a legal process that takes place these very days", is this what you are referring to? http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.amiramallah.blogspot.com/ - since i see that the website is officially legally unaccessable: http://amiramallah.blogspot.co.il/ Soosim (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Apartheid Controversy

The current text is another attempt to smear Goldblum by inapropriate citations

Why delete crucial information abour the attempt to murder Goldblum and his friends in a demonstration ? Why is the deleting person so alarmed by the description of the murderer (who never expressed any remorse and sat 27 years in Jail...) ? Could it be because that person is a settler or supports settlers ? Isn't it correct that all political violence in Israel and by Israelis is only by the right wing, mostly settlers' violence and threats ?

As to the lack of RS for Goldblum being in the first line with Grunzweig (and thus, being in direct danger due to the thorwing of the hand grenade) : here is an excellent description of the first line of that demonstration: חברי אמיל גרינצווייג, עופר אבני ועמירם גולדבלום יצרו "שרשרת ידיים" להגן על המגפון ועלי צילום שרשרת הידיים הפך להיות הצילום האחרון של אמיל גרינצוייג.

Translation: "My friends Emil Grunzweig, Ofer Avni and Amiram Goldblum created a "chain of hands" to protect the megaphone and myself. The photo of that chain of hands turned to be the last one of Emil Grunzweig" (The writer Naftali Raz is seen in the photo (see Emil Grunzweig) with the megaphone behind the first row with Grunzweig, murdered a short while later, in the center, ofer Avni is next to him on the right, and Goldblum is at the right end of that chain). Is that enough as a WP:RS ?

The issue of the "apartheid poll" in the "politics" section of the Goldblum article is clearly not balanced with the rest of the information about the "politics" of Goldblum = 2 lines describing 20 years of activities while 6 lines deal with a poll of opinions of the Jewish population. Even if Goldblum helped realize that poll with the family fund, he can not be criticized for the opinions of the Israeli public: a poll that has been performed by a major polling company, DIALOG, that would not dare distort any poll that it performs, surveyed by a major Israeli academic Prof. Fuchs, one of the 3 most prominent ones in this field in Israel, who would not risk his career for an inappropriate poll, and published by the prominent journal "HAARETZ". At most, Goldblum was one of the 8 who comissioned the poll and suggested the initial questions, to which DIALOG and Prof. Fuchs made the proper changes in order to be most professional:

The two sources in the following edit are thus inappropriate and seem to be again an attempt to smear Goldblum: 1) The JC report (Reference no. 18): Jewish Chronicle is the paper of the Jewish Community in the UK, It has commitments to the Jewish Community and can not be considered to be a neutral source, in particular in this case in which Jews may feel threatened by a poll taken among Jews which reflects much racism and possibilities of future apartheid. The correct sources for this survey are the original piece (after correction of a wrong title) in Haaretz: Or the Globe and Mail, a paper that is not considered to be "antisemitic" as some might characterize the Guardian or the Independent:

2) The second source (Ref. 19) is an opinion blog by Elhanan Miller in an internet site. There have been many opinion articles in the papers due to the shocking results of the poll. However, the wording "press release from Goldblum" is incorrect, as it conveys a press release done by Goldblum, which it is not, only SENT by Goldblum to Miller.

3) Anyone who wishes to read the detailed poll questions and results, by sectors of the Jewish community, may find it here

4) There is already a very wide article on WP under October 2012 Haaretz poll so this could be referenced here.

My suggestions for a compromise text: Goldblum was one of the group that organized the controversial October 2012 Haaretz poll about attitudes of Israeli Jews to arabs and to Palestinians. The questions and answers were published only in Hebrew.

The above lines are suggested instead of the following inappropriate text: In October 2012, Goldblum and his family foundation, the Yisraela Goldblum Fund paid for and "was instrumental in commissioning" a controversial poll regarding Israeli attitudes towards prejudice. In a press release from Goldblum, he said that he stands by the orginal version of the results as published, stating that “a large part of the Jewish population (58%) accepts the application of the term ‘apartheid’ to the current state of affairs in Israel.” Goldblum also acknowledged there were problems with a question used on the poll.

What Citations are needed ?

There are 3 requests for citations in the Goldblum article:

1) In the biography section, following Dan Meridor: Both Goldblum's mother and Eliyahu Meridor had died, and there are no sources from those times (1930's) except for the living testimonies of Dan Meridor and his mother. Or is the citation required for another issue ?

2) At the end of the Biography section, what is the citation requested for ? is it for Mrs. Amihai being the head of the Museums and Galleries section or for the marriage certificate from Camden City hall .... both can be produced...

3) Military Service section: If the request is to supply reference to the participation of both Goldblum's children in Sayeret Matkal, than it is impossible to supply for his daughter, however for his son, Dan, the book that came out recently is the best and only source. Had it not been for this terrible military accident, it would not be possible to expose his name as being in that unit, as they keep the names of their soldiers secret for obvious reasons. Rastiniak (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

If it is impossible to have a reference for something, then it should be taken out. References that are supplied must meet WP:RS; primary sources such as public records are not allowable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I have performed concerning the above required citations: deleted part about Golbdlum's mother being an instructor in Beitar, changed the sentence on the participation of both Goldblum's children in the commando (no citation for his daughter's military service there..) and added citation for the government position of Goldblum's new wife.

Question: How can one get to the Washington Post citation (current no. 18) which was added December 4 in the morning.... - payment seems to be required.. Rastiniak (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

You'd have to pay, or consult an archive that has a copy. A source without on-line free access can be used (WP:SOURCEACCESS), but there's no way of making it easily accessible here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i have copied it here. enjoy. (fyi, you can have free access for 7 days)

Israeli Cabinet Panel Approves Major Expansion of Settlements The Washington Post January 26, 1995 | Barton Gellman

A special cabinet committee today approved the construction and sale of more than 4,000 new homes at Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank nearest Jerusalem, a move seen as a significant test of Israeli intentions in that area.

It was the first decision of a top-level panel formed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to review settlement plans in light of continuing self-rule talks with Palestinian leaders, who oppose any such expansion.

The panel, which is chaired by Rabin, voted to press ahead with nearly all existing expansion plans in what Israeli officials refer to as "Greater Jerusalem" -- 1,877 apartments in Maale Adumim to the east, 1,026 in Betar to the south and 1,140 in Givat Zeev to the north.

From those three outlying points, each five to eight miles from this disputed capital, settlement leaders have long sought to expand "until one continuous municipal entity is built up to Jerusalem," according to Benny Kasriel, a resident of Maale Adumim.

Rabin and his government are moving smartly in that direction, despite opposition from the left-wing Meretz party, a coalition partner of Rabin's Labor Party. But in a concession to Meretz, the review panel stretched some of the building plans into 1996 and made no final decision on 900 more apartments planned for Betar. Both moves prompted outrage from settlement leaders.

"This is very typical of Yitzhak Rabin to make half-decisions, and then he's going to be beaten up from both sides," said Yisrael Harel, chairman of the council of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. "This is a time in which you cannot drink half tea, half coffee."

Finance Minister Avraham Shohat, one of the cabinet's settlement backers, noted in the prime minister's defense that Rabin's government is far outpacing housing construction in Jerusalem's environs by the conservative Likud bloc government. From 1979 to 1992, when Likud dominated, the government built only 4,000 new apartments in Maale Adumim, he said, but the present government would add 2,000 in just four years.

In Washington, the State Department mildly criticized the Israeli decision. "It complicates the negotiating process," spokesman Christine Shelly said.

Palestinian leaders reacted with dismay today, and there were predictions that Arab resistance to the building plans could grow fierce enough to halt the peace talks.

Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat criticized the Israeli action, saying, "We had agreed that they would not expand settlements or increase their number," the Associated Press reported.

Some prominent Palestinians in the peace camp, including at least one top official in Arafat's limited self-rule administration and senior figures in his Fatah political faction, have already proclaimed a new intifada -- or uprising -- against the settlements.

"We believe that this decision is going to bring a tremendous clash with the Palestinians," said Amiram Goldblum of Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement group.

Saeb Erekat, who heads one of Arafat's negotiating teams, called the decision "really a severe blow to the peace process" and a "calculated plan" to create irreversible facts before Israel must negotiate Jerusalem's permanent status in 1996.

"We thought the peace process was about the gradual termination of occupation, and if they think otherwise they are mistaken," he said in a telephone interview.

In fact, while the issue of outlying settlements has split Israeli voters and their political representatives, Israel's claim on largely Arab-populated East Jerusalem and its satellite settlements is often said to form the core of a "national consensus." Several cabinet ministers, some openly and some in private, have said flatly in recent interviews that Rabin's government will never consider returning any part of "Greater Jerusalem" to Palestinian control.

The emotions stirred up by that debate were exemplified by a melee in parliament today. Acting Speaker Esther Salmovitz, an opposition member, called an unscheduled vote on a bill to annex a chunk of the West Bank into Jerusalem, beginning the electronic countdown just after Rabin and many members of his government had left the session.

Rabin and the cabinet ministers charged back, lunging to reach their buttons in time to vote. At least a dozen outraged members of the governing coalition then swarmed toward the speaker's podium. Energy Minister Gonen Segev was caught on camera leaping toward Salmovitz -- with whom he has had a running feud -- and swiping toward her head before being pushed away by ushers.

"What a disgrace," Salmovitz shouted from the podium. "Out! You should be ashamed, you should all be ashamed."

The status of Jerusalem -- a city which is historically holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims and which Israel has declared its capital -- has been in dispute since the founding of Israel in 1948. The United States, along with many other countries, has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital on the grounds that its permanent status was left in abeyance pending a final Middle East peace settlement. The United States has considered East Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967 and then annexed, as occupied territory also subject to a negotiated settlement. Many countries have called for internationalization of the city.

The peace accord signed with the PLO requires Israel to negotiate, beginning in 1996, the future of Jerusalem and the permanent fate of all the territories seized from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East War. For that reason, the government opposes any change in the territories' legal status now. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres declared recently that "Greater Jerusalem" is nothing more than "a literary concept." But Peres, too, supports it in practice. He is a member of the special panel on settlements, and aides said he fully backs today's building decisions.

Copyright 2009 The Washington Post. All inquiries regarding rights or concerns about this content should be directed to Customer Service. For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.

The apartheid controversy

Who sent the press release

The press release is the common work of the whole group that comissioned the poll. Goldblum may have been instrumental in commissioning it and in requesting the support from the family fund, but all questions and press releases were written and confirmed by Dr. Alon Liel, Ambassador Ilan Baruch, Leut. Col. (Res) Dr. Mordechai Bar-On, Human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, Prof. Menachem Klein, former Meretz MK Mossi Raz, Ami Weinstein (brother of Yisraela Goldblum) and Amiram Goldblum. Therefore that sentence was modified, to be in line with all publications on the poll , including the one in Wikipedia October 2012 Haaretz poll.

Critism of the poll

Most of the criticism was politically motivated. JC is cited for the first part of information about the poll, I cited JC also for the response to the criticism reflected in both JC pieces Rastiniak (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

A right wing lunatic is attacking the talk page - pease interevention of senior editors

Hidden under "anonymous" the right wing lunatics try again to defame and to vandalize, starting with the talk page and probably trying at the main article soon Rastiniak (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

reading reference 23 in full ( a blog....) requires a modification

Senior editors please note that "anonymous" or "Soosim" or someone close to them (there are many Jewish right wing extremists in Israel and the US...) will try to erase my addition of the comment of Professor Camil Fuchs (one of the prime pollsters in Israel who performs all the elections analysis for TV channel 10 and for the libral "Haaretz" newspaper) He spoke to the same blogger Elhana Miller who quoted him, in the same blog as the comments cited from Goldblum under reference 23. Prof. Fuchs' words are somewhat balancing the citation from Goldblum Rastiniak (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

The addition about Fuchs looks fine to me. I've only reworded it because it was incorrectly portrayed as a direct quote from Fuchs. But I agree that it was an important addition to balance the critique. This sort of thing is essential per WP:NPOV, and another editor who deleted it would be on thin ice in light of that policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The attempts to single out Goldblum in order to smear him

Senior editors please pay attention to attempts to vandalize 1) The "aparhteid poll" questions and press release were written by a group of 8 academics, peace and human rights activisits, and 4 more of those 8 were reported in reference 21 (Jennie Frazer, The Jewish Chronicle) , but ommitted by whoever introduced this piece. However there is an attempt in that part to single out Goldblum as the only one responsible in order to put some "blame" which is any way rediculous because the poll did not reflect Goldblum's opinions but the Israeli Jewish public opinion which was surveyed by the DIALOG company, that can not afford to hold an unprofessional poll. 2) The journalist and blogger of The Times of Israel Elhanan Miller wrote that Goldblum sent the press release (" a press release sent to The Times of Israel by Amiram Goldblum...") not that it was HIS press release. Rastiniak (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

The current text about the press release seems to be okay in these terms. I've added to the sentence about commissioning the poll to reflect your concern, which seems legitimate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and a bit more: it is also not found anywhere on the "Times of Israel" reference 23 that "he (Goldblum) said that he stands by the original version of the results as published, stating that" - this was erased and a proper connection was inserted Rastiniak (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Sorry, I don't follow. Is there a current issue that needs addressing, or are you pointing out something that has already been fixed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for not being clear - I already erasewd that part in parenthesis following (5 lines above) reference 23 that "....." was already erased, and replaced by "it was stated that" thanks. Rastiniak (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

further attempts to vandalize the Goldblum article will increase in the next few weeks

Attempts to vandalize this article will become more frequent the closer it gets to the first legal meeting on the libel suit of Goldblum against a group of right wing extremists in Israel. The first legal meeting is projected for January 28 2013. It is important to keep an eye on some of those vandalizers who will try and retry to forge "evidence" from wikipedia to the court until that date and probably after too,as the process will take some time. The technique of the vandalizers is to add smearing materials, print immediately and "use" for legal purposes. One of those accused by Goldblum, Steven Plaut has already presented to the court a page printed form wikipedia which was erased by WP senior editors in August. It is wonderous how that person is the only one who used that page, if he was not the one to write it to begin with Rastiniak (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

The information about the current step in the legal process of Goldblum against Plaut and others may be found here

a real bio of goldblum

i can't find a real bio of goldblum online - not via hebrew university, the companies he is involved in or elsewhere. (i found one rather short one, with no info that is needed here - http://selectbiosciences.com/conferences/biographies.aspx?speaker=31218&conf=ADMEPT2012 ) there are several "facts" in this wiki article that could should be referenced properly - personal bio, academic and professional bio, and military. can anyone help find a bio? rastiniak, can you upload one somewhere? Soosim (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, it's an interesting notion -- you "can't find a real bio" of him, and yet you were so keen on recreating this article. I find myself wondering why that might be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

quite simple - i came across his name and role in regards to the haaretz poll. i googled him and his foundation. found very little about the foundation, but quite a bit about him. i checked wiki again and found that an article was previously deleted. as i wrote here earlier, i contacted the deleting editor to ask if i can try again and to share with me what was wrong with the old article. so i wrote a new one, 90% positive or neutral, 10% criticism based on his role in the poll. ok?

oh, and that still doesn't solve the bio problem. there is lots of info about prof goldblum, just not some of what is in the article (none of which i added, which was all sourced. rather, it is all info added by rastiniak - who claims to be AND not to be prof goldblum.) Soosim (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question of User:Nomoskedasticity - it is quite clear that user:soosim is one of those Jewish right wing extremists in Israel and the US who are making all efforts to smear Goldblum sometimes under several alterantive user names, all for political rivalry. They feel that Goldblum has such a solid Zionist background that can not be shaken, so they try anything possible, and present themselves as if they are "neutral".

I will not be surprised if User:soosim is one of those who were charged in the courts by Goldblum or close to one of them. However, there is no problem in bringing citations to all three issues that were raised. User: soosim himself was "kind" in bringing about a citation for the education part. But he demands payment for that "kindness" by contesting Goldblum's military service - and his participation in the 1973 war. What exactly is the User:soosim question about ? why is he so alarmed by the military service of Goldblum ? is that because it negates his attemtps to portray Goldblum as an "enemy of the people" ? and what is the request for citation about the personal life ? Is it required to scan a marriage certificate ? or, is it just added in order to create a seemingly "neutral" nature of requests for citations, so taht the military one and others that will emerge will seem to be neutral, not motivated by extreme political rivalry of user:soosim and his right wing allies. My suggestion is to follow closely User:soosim because he is a seriall vandalizer. Rastiniak (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

This article requires protection against the serial vandalizer please block that person

The serial vandalizer reverted a well referenced piece of information, clarifying that there is no such entity as "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" as he wrote, but only a "Yisraela Fund". I am reverting this back to the correct and referenced version. If he has an official reference to his vandalizing information, from the source of the fund, he is most welcome to present it. Rastiniak (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

That NIF source says Yisraela *Goldblum* Fund. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. The page says that the Yisraela Goldblum Prize is supported by the Yisraela Fund. So I am reverting to Rastiniak's edit. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry -- yes, Roland is correct -- I didn't read closely enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

New attempts to introduce false information, not clear for what reason

The new information (with no backing in this talk section) by Soosim stating that Goldblum is a member of the Board of Peace Now is based on a piece by a journalist from an unrelated event, certainly not an event of that movement, and the piece does not add any backing for that incorrect information. I am sure that Goldblum has no problem in identifying him as a member of the Zionist left wing Peace Now Board, in which he served continuously until the second intifada and quit at that time due to differences of opinion because of Goldblum's support for the construction of the wall and for unilateral retreat from the territories [1] , somewhat similar to the positions of Maj Gen Ami Ayalon and Colonel (Res) Gilead Sher which were not acceptable to PN at that timeרסטיניאק (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

Soosim introduced a seemingly "neutral" sentence in order to direct to an article concerning the issue that he wants to smear Goldblum with.... and in particular, the only sentence mentioning Goldblum in that piece that focuses on a completely different issue is also false...I am going to delete the incorrect information about Goldblum's membership in the "board" of Peace Now as Soosim purports. As clarified above, Goldblum indeed participated in the secretariat (and previously, in the "upper forum") of PN for more than 20 years (1979-2001) and has not been active in PN ever since then. Therefore, that information is false רסטיניאק (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

Normally we would not accept an anonymous editor's assertion that a source is false. Does the Peace Now website list its board members? If so, it will be easier to verify that the article is incorrect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1)peacenow website>Leadership=not listed
Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I did see that -- but I didn't go with it, because it seems to be for Americans for Peace Now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I dug as best I could to verify. FWIW I found

• a profile possibly his That declares he's on the Watch Team and the aformentioned National Secretariat. So with what's available the change proves true. Whether he is or is not a guiding force is another question, but the by-laws of PeaceNow.org would have to have him listed as a board member, which it does not.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

as usual, rastiniak seems to know everything there is about goldblum, has admitted in the past that he is indeed goldblum, and then has admitted that he is not. so, i really don't know if goldblum is or isn't a member of the board. it seems so because of the RS and because of the source provided: http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=20140757&targetid=profile - and so, i will revert goldblum's (uh, sorry) rastiniak's revert. (it would be a lot easier if rastiniak said he was goldblum and then we could have a first person dialogue). Soosim (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, don't. If there are concerns about the information, leave it out until those concerns are resolved. I'm sure I don't have to cite the policy for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

oops. just did it and then saw this. i can self-rv if you wish. though it does seem strange if there sources for, and none against? Soosim (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course you should self-revert. And stop making snide comments about other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted again from the article the attempt to introduce the same non reliable source of information for the "service" of Goldblum on the board of PN. I suggest to direct the question about the reliability to the journalist who wrote that line in a piece that was completely unrelated to the PN board (in fact Americans for PN have a board, while PN, to my best knowledge, never had a "board' but an "upper forum" or "national secretariat" on which Goldblum served until ~2001). I suspect that Soosim has a different goal which is to bring the issue of the journal piece title to attention, not the issue of the board Rastiniak (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

nomo - what are you talking about? what snide remarks? how dare you insinuate that i would be anything less than nice and sincere. you can check every edit i ever made and every comment i ever wrote: snide is not there. never. oh, and i guess i don't need to revert just now since rastiniak has violated the 1RR rule and is sanctionable, right? but we can let it slide since he has only been warned a dozen times. Soosim (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please, do make a complaint somewhere. I'd love to have your editing practices get some more scrutiny. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

sorry, nomo, i don't run and complain. you can check that too. and please, feel free, to scrutinize my editing practices. i always appreciate any help and advice i can get. (ask sean, malik, dlv, etc.) Soosim (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed two remarks that are not only unnecessary but lack civility.

1)as usual, rastiniak seems to know everything there is about goldblum,
2)(it would be a lot easier if rastiniak said he was goldblum and then we could have a first person dialogue)
I feel another quote coming soon for my Famous last words section Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 11:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

not sure what you are reading into this, but i meant it quite straight and honest. rastiniak speaks in goldblum's voice saying what goldblum is/isn't, etc. - it is a fact, not a crticism, not a complaint, not a lack of civility. (if it came across that way, i will apologize now to the entire wiki world. not my intent to by uncivil. i don't do that). and the part about 'easier', is also true, straight and honest. if indeed rastiniak is goldblum, then it would be so much easier to have this whole discuss,as per wiki policy. but as long as rastiniak waffles between yes/no s/he is/isn't, then it is not easy. hope this is clear... Soosim (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Made a few changes to the paragraph about the meeting in Jerusalem in order to be correct and more exact than 2 former references which included an extremely sloppy and mistaken google translation of the original article from the Hebrew internet journal called "On the Left Side" (only a few articles there are translated by the editorial board to English) and replaced the reference to a secondary source of the Academia Monitor (which is an extreme right wing site, highly unreliable as it is focused on reporting about left wing academics in Israel and introduces irrelevant titles and wrong information)by the original source (which, in itself, has quite a few mistakes as the journalist seems not to have understood some of the Hebrew in that evening) רסטיניאק (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

From what I found the proper title of the meeting is

3rd Conference for the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samari
I've seen two alternative wordings

• "Is there Israeli Apartheid?"
  
• Is Israeli Apartheid possible ?
  

The above two I believe are titles of the article discussing the meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also please find a definition of NGO for use in the article or a wikified link to help people understand.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

no, geremy, that title was from the 'other guys', not goldblum and friends. and since the times of israel article keeps getting removed, there is no proof of the title at all.... Soosim (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be removed altogether until the title of this contentious item can be resolved.Otherwise I label it NPOV violation.Figure it out or get it out.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 12:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

but rastiniak says it is correct. and geremy, do you have any problem whatsoever with the timesofisrael source? it seems that only rastiniak does. so, what do you think we should do? (contentious? to whom? everyone agrees that it took place, and as it is currently written it is almost 100% accurate.) Soosim (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is contentious because it's been edited no less than 2 times by 3 editors, me included. It is also contentious insomuch as the article lists Amiram Goldblum as a member but evidence points to the fact he is currently NOT a board member. Amiram Goldblum is mentioned but one time in the article, not counting the photo caption, and even then has zero substance so it's not even relevant to the article in my eyes. Just name dropping to propound someones agenda. Do I have a problem with the source? No it's a newspaper that's fine but even newspapers can be wrong. What I do have a problem with is what's being done with the source in regards to a living persons bio article. From what I see The event, entitled “Is there Israeli Apartheid?” is the title given by the author in the source. I stand corrected it was NOT 3rd conference.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

geremy - i think you are mixing up two edits. one is the issue of goldblum's being a member of peace now's board. two sources point to yes, none point to no. only rastiniak objects. the second edit is about the conference goldblum put together with friends. no one is arguing that the conference happened, or what it is called. it would just be better if there was an official name as per RS. (in this case, the times of israel). Soosim (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mention him as a board member anymore so I guess that's over with. Remaining is the title, just like you mentioned per RS. I can't read hebrew so is it a translation issue? I ask because the article currently uses to discuss "Is Israeli Apartheid possible ?". I would go so far as to call that POV as it's pretty far away from what the english source says.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 16:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

what is "it" in "it doesn't mention him as a board member anymore"? if you mean the article, i want to put it in, complete with both RS. just because rastiniak doesn't like it, is not a reason to leave it out. as far as the name of the program, the hebrew, based on goldblum's own article, is roughly translated as "Is there Israeli Apartheid?" or anything similar. waiting to hear about board membership. i was asked by nomo to wait, i am waiting. but for what? Soosim (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The story of the "3rd conference" etc. is brought in Ahren's piece in the times of Israel as an example of a very different conference than the one on February 20th.....Here is a much better account of that event organized by the to-be NGO, that has no official name yet. The name requested at the registrar's office is OPAI - The Organization for the Prevention of Apartheid in Israel. See http://jfjfp.com/?p=40161 clarifying what the title of the evening was. This account, by one of the speakers, criticizes the organizers for not having any Palestinian speaker. Goldblum is mentioned as "introducing" that evening. For the other issue, there is indeed no known mention of Goldblum as current member of the PN board, as it was clarified several times that he has left PN in 2001. Again, in the past, he was member of the "upper forum" and of the national secretariat of Peace Now (may be regarded as analogs of the idea of a board) due to his roles as the spokesperson of PN and as the initiator and leader of the settlements watch of PN. רסטיניאק (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

POV material

Ok, are you seriously telling me that there is no problem with someone putting
In September 2011, Goldblum, writing in an opinion article in Haaretz, asserted that Israeli Labor Party chair Shelly Yachimovich was "slinging mud at everyone who thinks we should put an end to the occupation," which advances the cause of "the settlers and apartheid," and suggesting that she was not a "humanist."
It is an opinion article suggesting she is not a humanist. It's the same as if you wrote to the paper saying Geremy is a jerk and then using it as a reference. It is being used as a soapbox to insult someone. I've found a large amount of incredulous and debatable material attached to this individual during a fact check mission but I'm going to start with this remark that's an outright attack on someone named Shelly. Properly referenced or not it's blatantly hostile and POV material.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove this? This page is about Goldblum, not about Shelly Yachimovitch. Goldblum wrote that article, and it reflects his worldview and political outlook. POV would apply on Yachimovitch's page. But it's not relevant here. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's cherry-picking, designed to make him look like an extremist. Goldblum's views on Yacimovich are not significant, and anyway to the extent that it reflects poorly on Yacimovich then Yacimovich is relevant here as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that per WP:ARBPIA editors may not perform more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period on this article. I have added the relevant notice to the top of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

These are new arguments, which were not introduced by Geremy who originally pulled the quotes. There's "no consensus" because nobody had responded to my objections, which indicates that nobody disagreed. In terms of cherry-picking, it's presented in a neutral fashion. If you think that makes Goldblum look like an extremist, that's your opinion. Others will concur with his assessment of Yachimovich. If it can be made more neutral, then please help do that -- don't just revert, it's disruptive editing.

Given Goldblum's extensive experience at Peace Now and being on the Meretz party list, coupled with Yachimovich's leadership of a major political party, means that his take on her role in the occupation is important. These comments, in particular, reveal Goldblum's political outlook. It's Goldblum's POV. But that is sort of the point. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

ben dror yemini

ben-dror yemini, who writes for the major israeli newspaper, maariv, has made some comments about goldblum. here is the link to the original hebrew, and i have copied the few paragraphs in (awful) english from google translate. i would love your opinion as to including a sentence or two from this. whatcha y'all think?

http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=f2b4c1b55be76d1e6d7b777256ea0370&id=4378

Association for the Advancement of apartheid

And the march continued. Amiram Goldblum, who commissioned the Survey "about Israeli attitudes regarding annexation, managed to make headlines in the newspaper" Haaretz "that most Israelis support apartheid. lie has been refuted. even "country" published denial, even if it is pushed to the back. But Goldblum is not ready to give up. Now he establishes a new organization. He did not struggle against apartheid. On the contrary. He tries to cultivate the plot that Israel is an apartheid state. " Israeli control in all areas from the sea to the Jordan, with or without formal annexation, is an apartheid state de - facto ". Really? Well, Israel's control of the territories is a result of Palestinian rejectionism. Forget the three no's of Khartoum, the Arab countries want to destroy Israel and went to them. We probably need to apologize that they have failed. Go through history near future. Palestinians received from Bill Clinton proposal to the state. Noncompliance and violent intifada. They received came from Ariel Sharon the strap. They responded to Hamas and Qassam rockets and industry hate. They received came from Ehud Olmert proposal also limit from the perspective of the Israeli left, Olmert himself admitted, after consultation with the left. It did not help. They chose to insist on the "right of return". But Goldblums eyes and he did not see. Ears they do not hear. Instead of struggling for peace, for mutual recognition, for reconciliation, they drafted another spot to catch the Zionist state.

Israel has ugly side of racism and discrimination. Against the Ethiopians, against blacks, against Arabs, here and there even, still, against Mizrahim. But such effects do not make Israel as racist, unless all companies worldwide are racist. survey published recently in France reveals high rates of hostility, very high, foreigners in general and Muslims in particular. 74% believe that Islam is not suitable in France, and 62% nested they already do not feel at home in France. In addition, 87% think S"tzrft needs a strong leader to restore order. " UK survey indicates similar findings. Majority believes that Islam is not suitable for British values, and the majority of the opinion that Islam is a danger to Western culture. There are also serious consequences. Most hate crimes on religious grounds against Muslims in Britain are made. survey research institute in Germany reveals similar results, moving the Turks hostility toward all Muslims. All of these surveys were published in 2013, and all point to the deepening hostility to foreigners in general and Muslims in particular. Can be added to the declaration of the French Interior Minister, Manuel Valls, the "Islamo - Fascism" , to understand the spirit of things.

What was happening in Israel with such surveys and declarations? Our Goldblums were served a claim to the International Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity. Now you should wait a bit. France, Britain and Germany would not get up any new body to fight racism or apartheid. The situation there is worse, without any conflict, without Hamas, without terror and without inciting non-stop. Regard to the circumstances, Israel is a more sane, much more from Europe. But facts do not matter. The main thing is we have to fabricate their own Goldblums "danger apartheid." Budgets will come. Perhaps the European Union. Perhaps the countries in which the dimensions of hostility to foreigners higher.

Lie of "apartheid Survey" disproved the point and factual . But lie has legs. The Survey is a global success. Because they engaged constantly in search for more evidence that Israel is a monster, do not give up on any route. Budgets are guaranteed. So no need illusions. The new body, as part of the entities in the same industry, do not promote human rights, and not engage in legitimate criticism. It will be another addition to the campaign of demonization against Israel.

Soosim (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how long we would have to find attempts to bring bits and pieces of opinions by journalists in order to smear Goldblum

by Soosim. Yemini writes for the extreme right wing paper MAARIV which has been recently taken over by the editor of the Jewish Settlers newspapers and journals. I suggest that some senior editors here will discuss and do something about that continuous smearer, about whom I warned already long ago רסטיניאק (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

rastiniak - again you are commenting about me and not about the content. you were severely warned about this a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rastiniak#January_2013 - please remedy this, so we can continue to discuss the content and not the editor. thank you. Soosim (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If goldblum on Shelly Yachimovich as published by Haaretz is out, then ben-dror yemini on Goldblum as published by Mariv should probably also stay out for consistency. I seem to remember WP:BLP stating that we should write the article conservatively and that claims/allegations should only be included if they are published by multiple third party RS. Dlv999 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the connection between the Yachimovich issue and the apartheid poll question? You're not suggesting that Maariv is not a RS, are you? Or that Yemini is not a major Israeli columnist? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that bit of logic is required here: If an opinion by Goldblum about Yachimovich is presented in the article about Amiram Goldblum, than the opinion of Ben Dror Yemini about Goldblum should be presented on the page of Yemini... However, the translation of Yemini about Goldblum presented by Soosim is part of an opinion blog of Ben Dror Yemini who writes in Maariv, but this has nothing to do with Maariv as a RS because the issue of RS has nothing to do with opinions and blogs but with information and facts. In that blog, Ben Dror Yemini justifies the separation in buses between settlers and Palestinian workers from the territories.... Here is the translation of that part of the same blog presented above...:

".....The chances for harassment of an Arab in Israeli bus lines is one to a thousand. However, the chances for violence against Jews in Palestinian lines is about one to one. There are Arabs, Righteous Gentiles, who saved Jews that entered accidentally an Arab village ….But the chances of Jews to get out safely from wandering into some villages in the occupied territories is close to zero. Experience shows that there is concern that only one out of a hundred, or one in a thousand, of (Arab) work permit holders could initiate a terror attack. Therefore there is no apartheid in the separation of buses (between Palestinians and Jewish settlers). This is not racial or ethnic separation (indeed…. it is National…). Hamas supporters who might get on such a bus are not Rosa Luxembourg or Martin Luther King. They are the ones who are obsessively racists against Jews. ...... it is not only allowed to defend against their evil, it is a Humanitarian obligation to defend against them. In general, French citizens in Mali, where France is struggling against Islamists, do not travel together, joyfully and happily, with workers coming from side al Qaeda., and Americans who come to Afghanistan or to Iraq do not share buses with locals….the dangers are known. they create separation........"

Here is what Prof. Yedidia Stern said about the separate buses about that separation in buses between Palestinian workers and settlers (main morning talk on the Military station Galei Tzahal, 0900 on March 7 2013:

http://rr-d.nsacdn.com/aod/aod/g1-130307-09/300/200

And for the Hebrew readers, here is how Goldblum responded to Yemini in a "blog" which is, of course, not facts but an opinion: Seems to me that publishing opinions of others about a person is not the normal manner of writing an encyclopedia רסטיניאק (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)rastiniak

Military activity

The deleteion by user:scarletfire2112 of Goldblum's military activity has no basis and was not explained. Sources for Goldblum's military activity are going to be presented in the armored corps museum at Latrun, "Yad La'shiryon" and can be easily validated with Goldblum's fellow military leaders such as the commander of his unit during the war and later, Dr. Nachum Baruchi < ref>[2]</ref> as well as many others. So what was the purpose behind that deletion ?רסטיניאק (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

The section on military activity was not sourced, which is what the edit summary clearly states. If RS exist, then please provide them. Are the Latrun documents online? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Scarletfire, don't be dense. There's a link directly above, which you surely saw when you opened the edit window. (I've now made it more accessible.) Not that it matters: make sure you're acquainted with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, that link is just about Nachum Baruchi and doesn't reference Goldblum, and I don't think Rastiniak was suggesting that it was. And on personal note, there is no need to be abusive. Make sure you're acquainted with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The new citations do not mention Goldblum at all. I am once again removing this information. Back in December, I tagged this as needing a citation. Over 4 months later, still no RS has been provided. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletions of "unsourced material"

The activity of the editor who deleted recent correct information from the article raises serious questions as to how wikipedia allows editors to operate. An editor first marks whatever he wishes in demand for 'reliable sources', that are mainly issues of political dispute. Then, he also adds a few "side requests" for other citations, to create an impression of objectivity. Then, gets back after a while and deletes the "unsourced materials" that was marked only by him as requiring citations. What makes me wonder is why doesn't that editor demand a citation for the the very name of goldblum, a birth certificate for his age, a marriage document for his marriage to his first wife ? The death certificate of his first wife ? a source for every other sentence ? If that kind of editing is commensurate with the rules of wikipedia, than it is remote from a normal encyclopedia, in which most facts do not require "citations". My suggestion to remedy that type of "wild demands" is that the introduction of "citation needed" will be only in the hands of the most senior editors, and so each request for a "citation" by any opinionated editor will be examined and introduced only by a senior one, who will evaluate the type of edits of the editor who pushes for "citations"רסטיניאק (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

RS of list serve quoting memri quoting a hebrew local newspaper

i am having trouble using this as RS: http://list2.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0106b&L=fofognet&P=1216 - opinions please. Soosim (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

..would you kindly state your problem ? there are several translations of this interview, this is just a more comprehensive oneרסטיניאק (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Soosim just doesn't like the link. But it's not a problem -- all we have to do is reference the interview. I've fixed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

nomo - that is not an acceptable wiki fix (see wp:offline sources). a scan of the article itself would be best for now. to rely on 4th or 5th hand information is not really encyclopedic (it was an interview published in hebrew. who translated it? and then it is being sourced to memri. nomo - memri is an acceptable RS to you? and then the memri piece is being sourced to a canadian university listserve. way too far removed from the original. Soosim (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't used a reference to MEMRI; I've referenced an interview in Iton Yerushalayim. You could ask רסטיניאק about it, but I see no reason to worry about that newspaper as an RS, particularly in connection with an interview to reference something Goldblum himself said. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a direct translation by MEMRI, which is what they are famous for. It has been quoted by far less reliable sources than McGill University. See http://israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type=large_advic&advice_id=4398&page_data%5Bid%5D=699&userid=&cookie_lang=en&BLUEWEBSESSIONSID=ca857175f39b8da57ee04777644acc52 and others.רסטיניאק (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

In truth, though, it doesn't matter (though it's no doubt helpful to other editors who want to see the text). All that's needed is the reference to the interview itself. (If you have further details, such as the title and page number, feel free to add them to the reference). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

in truth, it does matter. you referenced a non-existent item. and because it has made the rounds, does not mean it is any better, since they all trace themselves back to the same source. some reputable example would be more helpful than something less reliable (why would you bring that?). it is not acceptable as is. Soosim (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-existent? How so? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

it is pages 16-18 in that edition of Iton Yerushlaim, 8 June 2001. Obviously is does not help Soosim in his attemptsרסטיניאק (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENG - amiram, can you please scan the article and post it? that would help solve lots of issues with this. Soosim (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS indicates the opposite of what you appear to think it means. Rastiniak is welcome to provide a scan (though he has already provided a link to a translation), but if that isn't feasible then Soosim you might want to consult a library that has an archive of this newspaper edition. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you nomo for the suggestion, but you are a bit late. couldn't find it in the library. it might not even exist, for all i know. ne'er a trace. Soosim (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You've already been to a library, in the 2.75 hours that we're discussing this. And it works out that an article that was translated by MEMRI and has been discussedon several different email lists "might not even exist". Right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

like prof goldblum, i might have easy access to a library. duh. Soosim (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

it is interesting that quite a few right wing sites mentioned this interview, starting with MEMRI itself, and quite a few others. So all of them cite a non-existent source ? If Soosim is so keen, as he seems to be, to refute the existence of this interview, he could make the effort and check the original translation by requesting it from MEMRI. If he has difficulties with finding their address, it will be easy so supply it. It is also possible that the National Library has either the original or a microfilm. However, is what Soosim suggesting, to scan and post, a wikipedia acceptable procedure ? is it posted like a photo ? isn't this discussion becoming ridiculous ? רסטיניאק (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטי

If you had posted a reference to a source not available on line and there had been no other evidence of its existence, then it isn't unheard of for another editor to request a scan, or some other way of knowing that it hasn't simply been invented. But here, with other evidence of its existence, there's really no need. Perhaps Soosim's library skills will have improved by the next time we need to consider an issue of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the very clear identification of a source and quite a few of its quotings, Soosim deleted this RS. As that is not acceptable, it was reversed by me.רסטיניאק (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Yes, re-adding it was fine. The only basis for Soosim's concern is that he can't find it in the library he went to. That's not a problem that has to detain other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

prof. rastiniak: your most recent edit, on april 24 at 09:47 (where you reverted scarlet) was probably in violation of wp:1RR since you had recently (on april 24 at 04:50) made a change to the page by editing/changing information on the page. you have been warned several times about 1rr. the basic idea says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." do you understand the issue? i am not sure you do, so i want it to be clear, ok? please let us know. thanks. Soosim (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That first edit doesn't "reverse" anything. FFS... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

really nomo? i don't think you would make a good defense attorney. the change from "That group plans to found a new NGO called "The Organization for the Prevention of Apartheid in Israel" to "That group founded a new NGO to expose and fight against trends of racism and apartheid in Israel." sure looks like a "reversal" to me. don't you agree? Soosim (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Darling soosim -- your post fills me with wonder and joy, as I have never in my life aspired to be a defense attorney. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

glad you agreed with me, nomo, both about the edit and the profession. Soosim (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please raise the protection on this article

There is a serial vandalizer who uses sockpuppets to write nonsense on this article's page. I suggest that senior editors will consider a higher protection level and possibly identifying the IPs and warning the vandalizing maniac רסטיניאק (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

At the moment, it seems under control; User:Materialscientist in particular is very quick to revert vandalism here. If it gets worse we might go for semi-protection again, but I doubt the admins would agree to it at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have much tolerance for User:Runtshit. Semi'd for 3 months. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Need to stop unjustified reverts

There have been several reverts recently on this article in the "politics" section, on the issue of an interview of Goldblum with the Jerusalem weekly Iton Yerushalaym. The exact original reference has been given, but is not easily accessible (but now has become available in a scanned version...). The English translation by the most reliable source for such translations, the Middle East Media Research Institute was rejected by one of the reverters, while it is cited by a few websites. These should conform with WP:RS. If there is any further doubt, an administrator or senior editor may request the scanned original. I hope that this will serve to block the reverters. רסטיניאק (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC) רסטיניאק

hi rastiniak - as per the discussion above and the very lengthy discussion on the RS noticeboard, a scan seems to be the way to solve the problem. but why is it a secret that only an admin or senior editor can see? strange, no? Soosim (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A proper consideration of WP:SOURCEACCESS suggests that a scan is not necessary. Further, WP:NOENG suggests another option: within the reference, quote the Hebrew portion and then one's own translation. The "mechanics" of providing a scan are not clear to me, but it shouldn't matter, my suggestion is surely sufficient for any reasonable editor who genuinely wants to follow policies here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

nomo - please discuss this at the RS noticeboard, because you know there it it was said that sourceaccess says exactly the opposite of what you are saying here. Soosim (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Said by you, perhaps. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

actually said by most of the editors who commented there. Soosim (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What Soosim says is not what is written in the relevant WP:NOENG or WP:NONENG two paragraphs. Since Middle East Media Research Institute is a highly reliable source, their translation (which was cited by 3 different websites that may be compared for validation)to the Iton Yerushalaim interview should have been acceptable to anyone.According to WP:NOENG,"As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." And as the interview description includes a quotation by Goldblum, the following is applicable: "a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". I am not sure if Soosim read this before writing the above. However, it is not too late, and he is free to use the request quotation template to ask for the relevant Hebrew text to be presented on this talk page to satisfy him רסטיניאק (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

thanks prof - but memri is not RS according to wikipedia. not to mention, what is the link to the interview on the memri website? Soosim (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter -- the reference is to the interview as published in the newspaper, not to MEMRI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

nomo - exactly. glad you understand what the problem is. that interview published in a newspaper might not exist. and if it does exist, what we are seeing might be pieces of it, and not the whole thing. or mistranslations. or edited versions of accurate translations. who knows? and that is why there is no consensus for including it. Soosim (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop fucking around here, Soosim. "Might not exist"? When there's a MEMRI translation that has circulated widely? The reason you want to try to stand in the way of this is that you're a dedicated POV warrior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

nomo - i am shocked by your use of language. really? very mature. now, back to the other real issue regarding this interview (already discussed at the RS noticeboard, but sure, let's keep discussing it here, too. maybe it can be resolved):

argument "it might not exist" - has anyone seen it other than the one editor who introduced it to the article?

argument "memri translation widely circulated" - is it on the memri website?

argument "memri translation is accurate" - is it on their website, endorsed by them?

argument "memri translation is acceptable" - do you even have the full interview? the mcgill u link clearly says 'excerpts'. sounds like cherrypicking the cherrypicked.

argument "widely circulated" - since when is this a wiki rule?

argument "widely circulated" - sent around on various email lists, maybe those emails were edited along the way?

argument "iton yerushalayim is RS" - no consensus for that in general, though it probably would be if anyone could verify what they print

so, nomo, i am not a dedicated POV warrior. (is that an insult or a compliment?) show me (and the wiki public) the interview (in hebrew or english) and i will be happy to have it included. Soosim (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

and now let's add roland's "perfect valid and reliably sourced" - roland, what is valid about it? and how is it reliably sourced? please explain. thanks! Soosim (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Was just studying old WP:AE cases and noticed issue about an editor happening in this article so wandered over and now see this debate. It seems to me there have been various cases where a source which is not reliable for its own writings is considered reliable for reprints. In other words, they aren't going to just make something up cause it would hurt their reputation. So if MEMRI still has the article there, why not just link to it? Filling out ref a bit would help too.

I've never heard of the guy myself so it would be interesting to see a few more details as to what he means by disillusionment and how that applies to his new views. It sounds like they are disillusioned with the possibility of peace so they are saying, grab what we can and the hell with it? If that's not what he means, hopefully a better interpretation can be made. Just my 2 cents. CarolMooreDC🗽 23:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

carol - you raise a key point. you wrote "if MEMRI still has the article there" - they don't. not a single article archived from iton yerushalayim. not a single article archived with goldblum in it. and so, my points above. now, what do you really think about including it? Soosim (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Soosim: I said if it is there is should be linked, not that if it is not there it should not be used. Read more carefully. WP:SOURCEACCESS reads: Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material. It would be nice if Wikipedia was allowed to have a research section where scans like the below could be posted for verification, but obviously there are copyright problems with that. I do think it would help to just quote his whole relevant statement in the footnote and that would solve the problem. It certainly would not be the first time a real long quote was used in Wikipedia! CarolMooreDC🗽 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ok carol,see below. nomo says he has seen it. (no one else has). now, every reference to it online says 'excerpts'. would you allow that? Soosim (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Scan provided

I have now seen a scan of the source in question. Soosim's assertions that the source is "non-existent" were always ridiculous; at this stage if they are repeated they can be dismissed out of hand. This is a perfectly good source, especially for supporting a quotation from the subject's own words. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

how interesting. ok, so, the scan has been seen. nice. now, how about the full interview and not excerpts? no cheery picking, right? Soosim (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling reasonably cheery tonight, actually. You? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is realluy tendentious editing. The relevant policy states "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries.". Unless you are claiming that Rastignac is not telling the truth about the source, then that is the end of the matter. The statement is reliably sourced, and there is no reason except for ideological hostility to continue this edit war for its exclusion. RolandR (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The funniest thing is I can't even figure out what Soosim's POV is. :-) CarolMooreDC🗽 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, Soosim's POV is to be a pain in the ass. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

to CarolMooreDC: Soosim's POV ? he feels threatened by not being able to continue smearing Goldblum as the enemy of the Jewish people, if Goldblum's quote is accepted. He will fight about any half of a word to reduce the credibility of Goldblum because he is politically motivated. Quite a similar story with the other reverter. רסטיניאק (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Thanks. Since I was a bit confused about the subject of the bio, didn't make sense. But now it fits into a pattern. I just discovered Special enforcement on biographies of living persons and perhaps there is a way of dealing with editors who constantly want to put poorly sourced material into articles - or to keep what (from some perspectives) looks like positive material out, based on flimsy and POV basis. There may be hope for a certain range of bios yet. But this is not one I'm too interested in; I like defending against WP:BLP violations the more hard core Israel critical Jewish activists/etc. who are always getting smeared. So shall cease watching in a day or two. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Come on. Really?? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is an autobiography

This is a follow up on the discussions above. This article was mostly written by User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק: see this. These two accounts belong to the same user: take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Apart from this, there is another major problem: like many other users I have a bunch of reasons to believe that these two accounts belong to Amiram Goldblum himself. We all know that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If this is true, we have to take action against this person. We have more than enough reasons to challenge the neutrality of the article.

Here are some reasons why I believe these accounts two belong to Goldblum himself:

1. He basically admits this on his user page: "This user is an Israeli. ... Lived in Paris for two years, speaks French."
2. Initially the article was created by Rastiniak. (It was later deleted by User:FisherQueen.) Nobody would be interested in creating an article about some obscure chemist other the guy himself.
3. The article reads: "Goldblum is an activist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." His user page reads: "Interested mostly in Politics." And the user's contri butions confirm this.
4. User:Soosim is right, the user seems to "have information that no news agency, article, etc. has."
5. Amiram Goldblum has had problems with Steven Plaut. That's why he of course would like to make the article on Plaut look bad. This edit is an example.
6. A couple of other users also believe the accounts really belong to Goldblum, e.g. User:FisherQueen and User:Soosim.
7. Rastiniak called Soosim "one of those Jewish right wing extremists in Israel". He also called him a "seriaLL [sic] vandalizer [Is this even a word?]." These are personal attacks.
8. User:RolandR, a self-admitted Marxist, has been helping the guy a lot. Both RolandR and Rastiniak/רסטיניאק hate Professor Plaut.
9. The guy successfully fought to have the page protected.
10. The issue has been discussed outside of Wikipedia: 1, 2, and 3.

I propose we use Wikipedia:CheckUser to determine whether these accounts really belong to Goldblum. I also propose we unprotect the article. Of all people, why should the guy himself be allowed to edit the article? I personally believe he should be the first one to be banned from editing the article! Nataev (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a single word here has anything to do with how we might edit the article. It is entirely ad hominem (with some gratuitous bullshit like "self-admitted Marxist" thrown in). But by all means, if you think it should go to checkuser, off to SPI with you. Have fun there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't say anything about how to edit the article. I simply indicated the article is extremely biased. Don't get fired up. No need to use strong language. Nataev (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence of WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." You are approaching WP:NOTFORUM territory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the article is not neutral. It is an autobiography. This is very relevant to the associated article. Nataev (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"The issue has been discussed outside of Wikipedia". Yes; in two ad-hominem defamatory pieces by Steven Plaut. Both Plaut, and the Isracampus blog in which these appeared, have been repeatedly rejected as acceptable sources for biographical information. Is that the best you can do? RolandR (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Isracampus is just a blog. You wouldn't expect to read about people like Goldblum in, say, Encyclopædia Britannica, would you? Nataev (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor about Steven Plaut. What was your point again? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We're discussing Goldblum here, not Prof. Plat. Prof. Plaut has done far more than Goldblum, believe me. I just added another source! It is not a blog. So, it's an improvement! My point is simple: Goldblum wrote an article about himself and when people started to add material to it, he didn't really like it and got the page protected! Therefore, in your terminology, the article is bullshit. Say, since you're so smart and know all Wiki policies, why don't you clean up the article a bit? Ever heard of using bare URLs? Nataev (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This really gets interesting. Seems that the next step of Nataev might be to get Interpol involved in this case...He also seems to know a lot about Steven Plaut - could he be one of Plaut's employees, on Plaut's website ? Does Nataev have any new information about Goldblum that he can find in respectable sources, or all Nataev can propose is Plaut's website ? The beginning of an article about Goldblum is the work of Soosim so maybe Nataev could check with that user רסטיניאק (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC) רסטיניאק

I took two classes with Professor Plaut. As I wrote above, it is not possible to find anything about you in respectable sources. And stop talking about yourself in the third person. Nataev (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC) P.s. This is an article published on an online journal.

As you have previously been informed on the reliable sources noticeboard, Frontpage magazine is not remotely an acceptable source, particularly for information regarding its ideological opponents. And you should note that creating autobiographies, or editing articles about yourself, is not forbidden on Wikipedia, and cannot be grounds for deletion of an article. You should also note that two of the three smear articles that you rely on above repeat a libellous allegation for which several journalists and bloggers in Israel have been obliged to issue public apologies to Goldblum. I hyope that you are not intending to use these sources in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A PROD that has been declined may not be replaced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Nataev, do you read English? "If this template is removed, do not replace it." There is no requirement that one be an administrator to decline a prod. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Not only are you not supposed to not replace it -- an article that has previously been kept at an AfD may not be prodded. You really don't know what you're doing here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not convinced. We need the opinion of impartial users. I have provided new evidence to support the claim that the article is an autobiography. Let's wait and see what others have to say. By the way, there is no need to use fancy abbreviations. You can use simple language. Nataev (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you not convinced of -- that you don't know what you're doing? It's pretty obvious to me. "do not replace it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I just think the article is grossly biased. I'm going to be fine with the opinion of any other user except for Nomoskedasticity, RolandR, and obviously רסטיניאק. These users are really biased. This is also obvious. Not only to me, to everyone. Nataev (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No no -- what's obvious is that you are unwilling to edit according to Wikipedia policy here. Your own view of bias counts for precisely nothing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way -- what happened to your intention of trying to get checkuser involved? Lose your nerve, did you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just have far more exciting things to do. I'll start a checkuser investigation when I have nothing better to do. Nataev (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev discloses his relation to Steven Plaut which might be related to the immense attempts on that person's website to smear Goldblum. This clarifies the meaning of Nataev's words above: "Prof. Plaut has done far more than Goldblum". So who is the biased person here  ? This also clarifies the issue of the "non balanced" article. Check with Soosim and with Scarletfire2112 whose edits are leading the lack of balance.. רסטיניאק (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

רסטיניאק, you're pathetic. Everyone knows that you're talking about yourself in the third person. You're a joke. To hell with you and this article. P.s. I didn't "disclose" my relation to Prof. Plaut. I never tried to hide it. He was my professor. He is one of the best professors I have ever had. I personally took the picture of Plaut that's being used in the article about him. Nataev (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article has been disputed by a person who expresses animosity, as shown in all his recent posts on this talk page. Now it turns out that he is an admirer of the person who smears Goldblum constantly on his website. My request to senior editors is to remove the "neutrality box" on the Goldblum article and repost it to that editor's page רסטיניאק (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Haha, keep on referring to yourself by your name. You amuse me. Nataev (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is indeed problematic. The subject is not notable: there is no article about Goldblum in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and it seems that very few Israelis ever heard this name. Why is it even here? Was it nominated for deletion before, and if not, why not? Yuvn86 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

without sources, assertions of this sort are BLP violations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article was already deleted once and then it restores, perhaps by the Goldblum=Rastiniak team. In any case, as an autobiography it has no place on WIkipedia. Attempts to add a Goldblum article for the Hebrew wikipedia were always rejected. The English article intentionally leaves out serious discussion of the two real things that Goldblum is known for in Isreal, namely his having produced a biased anti-Israel pseudo-survey supposedly about "apartheid," a survey for which he was universally condemned in Israel, including by the leftist Haaretz newspaper, and the other matter being his role in the hiring of a convicted Palestinian terrorist to work in his chemistry lab. Goldblum is determined to prevent any mention of his that incident in Wikipedia, but it is without a doubt the thing for which he is best known. There is also no reference to the report in the Los Angeles Times about Goldblum/Rastiniak's own neighbors throwing rocks at his house due to their rage at his anti-Israel activism during the Guld War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtov6 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC) If this article is to be anything other than a planted autobiography by Goldblum=Rastiniak, that is if it is to really discuss Goldblum's public role and activities, then it should mention the criminal indirctment that was filed against him for his violation of Israel's campaign finance laws. Not just pretty comments about how please he is about his own research and his own family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtov6 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This article was started with an attempt to smear Goldblum, by Soosim who probably thought that Goldblum is notable enough. It is rewarding to learn that Yuvn86 keeps statistics of notability among the Israeli public. רסטיניאק (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניא

Request to block a user and to delete a section that he introduced

Nataev has just disclosed his very close relations and associations with Steven Plaut who heads an extreme right wing website that constantly smears Amiram Goldblum. Nataev's claim of non-neutrality of the Goldblum article, and his section purporting that the Goldblum article is an autobiography are without minimal basis and his real motivations have now been revealed. Senior editors are requested to delete the whole section introduced by Nataev as well as to delete his post on the article page about non-neutrality. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Nataev has never hidden his relations with Prof. Plaut. He simply noticed that רסטיניאק wrote the whole article about himself and thought it was funny. He couldn't care less about Goldblum or the article on him. He doubts anyone will be interested in taking part in this discussion. Toolserver shows that few people are interested in reading about this "prominent" pseudo-scientist anyway. It will be quite OK with Nataev if someone deletes the POV tag. Nataev (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I request the protection of senior editors against the edits to this page by Nataev who does not hide his malicious intentions and animosity. רסטיניאק (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

רסטיניאק, no need to cry crocodile tears! Nataev is not interested in editing this article at all. Nataev (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

LA Times article which includes info about goldblum

it seems that editor rastignac simply didn't read the article. how is he not connected when he is mentioned in the article, his house, his neighbors, his comments in response, etc. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-23/news/mn-2971_1_peace-activists -- prof rastignac, please self-revert. Soosim (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no basis in the LA Times piece for what Soosim requests to revert to, what he wrote is pure imagination. רסטיניאק (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

I am confused, רסטיניאק. The LA Times article reports on an incident where people threw stones at Goldblum's house. The article also include's Goldblum's response. Are you saying that it didn't happen? It didn't happen that way? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

no need to be confused, just to read information properly. רסטיניאק (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) רסטיניאק

So, what is inaccurate about the way it is currently presented? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

please learn to read... a house has more than a single apartment.. רסטיניאק (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

here's an excerpt from the LA Times article, which uses both "home" and "apartment," much in the same way that Soosim did: "The group then turned to the home of a well-known peace activist. "PLO supporter!" one yelled. "Leftist!" A few of them picked up stones and hurled them at the man's second-story apartment until police intervened, arresting local residents who tried to stop them and sending the rest on their way." You initially removed this edit because "there is nothing in that citation related to Goldblum", then you called it "pure imagination". Which is it? Why don't you stop edit-warring (especially on an article where you've been accused of having a conflict of interest) and work cooperatively? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Transforming the NYT and LAT content into "terror attack" presented using Wikipedia's narrative voice is certainly inappropriate, inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and something that will get Soosim removed from the topic area if he makes a habit of it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there are better ways to present the information. If that's what רסטיניאק is objecting to, then he should have edited that part, not revert the entire passage. I'm sure we can work together on language that does not violate Wikipedia policy. Personally, I was focusing more on the specific topic of this page, Goldblum, which as far as I can tell is presented accurately and inline with what's in the LAT article.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

sean - so sorry. with your (and the other editors' permission) I will adjust the text from 'terror attack' as per ny times, to the actual LA times article language: "Palestinian had stabbed and killed three residents" - ok? Soosim (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Senior Editors, there is nothing in that LAT piece cited (ref. 21 in the article) by Soosim that agrees with his edit saying that "A group of local residents went to Goldblum's home and called him a "PLO supporter" and a "leftist" and then threw stones at his apartment". This is pure imagination and false connections, typical of the edits by Soosim. The only mention of locals in that piece is in their attempt to stop the stone throwing. Both stone throwing and calling names were a provocation by extreme right wing demonstrators in the street who came from other parts of Jerusalem and were led by one of the right wing MKs, Geula Cohen. That information may be found in one of the Israeli Newspapers at the National Library archives. Also, There is no "then" because stone throwing was not related to swearing. Finally, according to LAT, Goldblum responded to the reporter, while the Soosim edit purports that the response was to the demonstrators. Please fix accordingly, at least until the proper source is found, thanks. רסטיניאק (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

WP:BLP suggests: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. The following appears in the reference for the edit of Soosim: "PLO supporter" one yelled, "Leftist"..a few of them picked stones..". "One yelled" and "a few picked stones" are the focal points of the Soosim erroneous edit and should be reverted to the 13 May 08:05 version רסטיניאק (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

sean - sorry again. I went now to replace the terrorism wording with the actual wording from the RS, but alas, the page is protected. so, either someone else can do it, or we wait a 10 days. Soosim (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection doesn't prevent edits from happening. If you guys can agree on a change, then use the {{editprotected}} tag to propose the change for an administrator to make. If you can't agree, I'm fine with extending the protection beyond 10 days until agreement occurs. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

But leaving it as it is is exactly what Soosim has introduced in order to throw mud at Goldblum. Isn't there someone who could read the LAT text and find that Soosim provided an imaginative synthesis of non-related items ? רסטיניאק (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Here is what is wrong and imaginary with the Soosim edit, who wrote:

Following the 1990 triple stabbing Palestinian terror attack[20], leaving three Israelis dead in Goldblum's Jerusalem neighborhood, a group of local residents went to Goldblum's home and called him a "PLO supporter" and a "Leftist", and then threw stones at his apartment. Goldblum responded by saying, "We are being made a scapegoat. It's madness, sheer madness."[21]

1. "Goldblum's Jerusalem Neighborhood" - This is an attempt of Soosim to associate the murderous Palestinian action with the presence of Goldblum in the neighborhood. LAT mentions the name of the neighborhood, which is Baka, a few times in that piece. Nowhere does it say what Soosim purports in order to vilify Goldblum.
2. "A group of local residents went to Goldblum's home and called him a "PLO supporter" and "leftist" and then threw stones at his apartment". Another imaginative association of Soosim, who wishes it to be so. LAT text is : " A group of enraged Israelis... then turned to the home of a well-known peace activist. "PLO supporter !" one yelled "Leftist!". A few of them picked stones and hurled them at the man's second story apartment until police intervened, arresting local residents who tried to stop them and sending the rest on their way... This LAT text is a far cry from the text that Soosim pushed in order to sling mud at Goldblum. This LAT text clarifies that a single person, not any "group of locals" called Goldblum names, no locals are mentioned to be involved in that action or in stone throwing.
3. As the LAT text mentions one who yelled and "a few" who stoned, this is clearly a text that should be deleted based on WP:BLP - bringing the viewpoints of a miniscule minority, albeit provoked and incited by the terrible murder and by MK Cohen. Since when do a few lunatics entitled to be mentioned on wikipedia ? רסטיניאק (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

additional arguments for modifying the Soosim edit:

Soosim writes that "Goldblum responded by saying.... etc. " - However there are several quotations of Goldblum in the LAT piece, in response to questions of the reporter.

1. "The hostility is the product of the right" is the most appropriate response to what happened on that day.
2. "We need a partner for talks, terrorist or otherwise. I don't have any illusions that the Palestinians love us. I'm not looking for Peace Now among the Palestinians. I just want two states and separation". is another appropriate one.
3. All three are "responses" by Goldblum, but Soosim picked the one to fit his imaginative theories.רסטיניאק (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

First of all, it seems that your concerns could have easily been addressed by some small edits in what Soosim originally posted. not sure why you felt the need to revert the entire text, especially since it's relatively sympathetic to Goldblum.

More importantly, רסטיניאק, other editors have suggested that you are in fact Amiram Goldblum and that your heavy editing of this article is problematic, per WP:COI. Your long rant here seems to demonstrate just that. Somehow you know that Geula Cohen and non-Baka individuals were involved in the protests/stone throwing, two highly particular details that are not in the LAT article, from an incident that happened 20 years ago. You also refer to "several quotations of Goldblum in the LAT piece, in response to questions of the reporter." How do you know that his statements in the article were in response to a reporter's questions? Maybe Goldblum/Peace Now put out a statement? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Scarletfire2112 attempts to change the subject of the discussion. LAT has several quotations of Goldblum, and the one edited by Soosim is meaningless in terms of the issues. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

רסטיניאק, so you're saying you are Amiram Goldblum? Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for how to edit this article. If anyone has concerns about COI, there's a noticeboard for that. Repeated digressions into whether an editor is or is not Goldblum are not constructive in discussing how to edit the article. I intend to remove any posts that do not conform to the purpose of talk pages. Don't like it? Take it to ANI. Again, though, if you want to discuss COI take it to the COI noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That is fair. I got a bit carried away. But, the issue is certainly relevant in the context of how to edit the article regarding the rock-throwing incident, especially when an editor is raising objections and making suggestions (and writing long rants) based on personal knowledge. Specifically, רסטיניאק has raised the issue of which quote from the LAT article to include. The quote that's currently in use seems highly relevant to the incident, namely of protesters turning on a Peace Now representative after a terror attack. רסטיניאק appears to be arguing based on his own experience during the incident and what is "most appropriate" in his eyes, not policy concerns. It's not clear that COI can be easily untangled from the conversation that has been happening about how to edit this particular article. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from protecting administrator: I see no arguments supporting a wholesale reversion of reasonably sourced text added by Soosim, but I do see plenty of reasoning above to support modification of that text. I see plenty of complaints from רסטיניאק, but so far, no one has advanced a single proposal about what, exactly, should be changed and how it should be phrased or cited. Until that happens, I see no reason why the protection of this article should be allowed to expire. Somebody please propose something and discuss. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is in line with WP:BLPREMOVE. We should only have text in this BLP that gets it right. If it needs to be modified, then it needs to come out and then be re-added only once there is consensus for it. Basic WP:BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the following: Following an incident in 1990 when a Palestinian stabbed and killed three residents of Goldblum's Jerusalem neighborhood, a group of local residents went to Goldblum's home and called him a "PLO supporter" and a "Leftist", and then threw stones at his apartment. Goldblum responded by saying, "We are being made a scapegoat. It's madness, sheer madness." - ok? Soosim (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not okay -- it violates WP:UNDUE. Amatulic, this article was previously deleted at AfD; Soosim subsequently recreated it, expressly for the purpose of loading it up with smears of this sort ("Goldblum is a a PLO supporter"). It's time for this shit to stop. There is no consensus for including material of this sort in the article, and it needs to come out until such time as there is consensus for it. Basic WP:BLPREMOVE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

nomo - your use of abusive language continues to be conduct unbecoming of an editor. just today (and there are many more examples), at 06:21 your edit summary comment and now the language in the comment above. between the language and the violation of NPA, it is hard to take you seriously. (just my opinion). anyway, the paragraph inserted, with my revision (as per sean's comments above) are quite neutral - just a reporting of the facts, as per the LA times. why are you (and editor rastingnac) so outraged by it? something doesn't sit right, but I do wish you would focus on the editing. then maybe we could get through this. ok? Soosim (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So take it to ANI. I have no intention of letting up on this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different version, per one of רסטיניאק's concerns: Following an incident in 1990 when a Palestinian stabbed and killed three residents of Goldblum's Jerusalem neighborhood, a group of Israelis went to Goldblum's home and called him a "PLO supporter" and a "Leftist", and then threw stones at his apartment. Goldblum responded by saying, "We are being made a scapegoat. It's madness, sheer madness." Scarletfire2112 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems

"Goldblum invented an algorithm for solving extremely complex combinatorial problems, called Iterative Stochastic Elimination (ISE)". "Extremely" seems a little non-neutral, and not supported by source. Also, it is primary source, should try to find secondary. And source 5 seems questionable, since he's on the science commitee. Some cleanup and source-checking seems to be required. Amlaera (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Amlaera has a small misunderstanding, as Goldblum is presented in 5as an invited speaker and not as a committee member. If Amlaera wishes to change "extremely complex" to "explosive" as in the following PNAS source [3], there should not be any problem with such a change. In fact, it is a much better source than current ref 8 of the article, so that kind of cleanup is most welcome.רסטיניאק (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Ah, yes, you are correct about 5. Didn't look hard enough. I agree that 1 is a better source, but it does not support "explosive problems". It says explosive systems. Maybe it should be "Goldblum invented a stochastic search method able to find best solutions to cost functions and, in most cases, even for large explosive systems". But really, it is still a primary source since it is an abstract to his own paper. The whole sentence should be excluded until we find a reliable source on this. Amlaera (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

it seems that Amlaera is very igonrant about scientific issues. Go learn something about the policies of accepting papers to PNAS as well as learn something about the prominent British scientist who was the editor of this paper and presented it to the journal in his own name (A unique process of PNAS), Prof. Alan Fersht. Maybe once you learn a bit, you will be able to make any comments, as you seem to know too little to get involved in a scientific discussion. רסטיניאק (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק