Talk:Amiram Goldblum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 [1], 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 ignorant 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

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin42, I apologize. correcting and teaching some editors how to read the texts, both in this section and in others, becomes very strenuous sometimes. Would you consider deleting it ? רסטיניאק (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Consider deleting what? I am not an admin. If you want to edit your own talk page comment, you are welcome to strike or delete it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting my response to Amlaera following the comments of Gaijin42: PNAS is considered to be one of the top scientific journals: no word and no idea can pass into print without the confirmation of a few referees as well as the editor of the paper, which is a prominent scientist assigned by the journal. In that case, Sir Alan Fersht was responsible for that paper. Sir Fersht (Fellow of the Royal Society) is one of the most prominent British Scientists. However, "explosive systems" fits the types of problems solved by Goldblum with his algorithm just as well as "explosive problems". The Hebrew University already used that generic algorithm to construct two companies dealing with very diverse problems (investments in the stock markets and design of peptides and proteins) which have an extremely complex combinatorial nature (problems with a huge number of possible options, in the 10 to the power of hundreds). רסטיניאק (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastiniak (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2 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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastiniak (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 December 2012‎ (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." (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank Scarletfire2112 for his kindness in addressing my concerns. However what he suggests is not even remotely acceptable as it it simply false and defamatory. The only way I can see out of this (until better and reliable sources are found) is to use exactly the language of the LAT, with not a bit of variations and imaginative associations. "Following a murderous attack by a Hammas member who stabbed three residents in the neighborhood of Baka in Jerusalem, a group of enraged Israelis drove Arab construction workers from a building site in that neighborhood, and subsequently turned to the home of one of the peace activists in Baka, Amiram Goldblum. One of them yelled "PLO supporter !","Leftist !" and a few of them picked stones and hurled them at Goldblum's apartment. "The hostility is a product of the right", Goldblum responded. "We are made scapegoats", "it is sheer madness". The Spokesperson of the Kach illegitimate racist party (now defined as a "terrorist organization" by Israel, US, Canada and EU) - Kach and Kahane Chai took responsibility for the attack on the Goldblum apartment ("Yediot Ahronot" of 22 October 1990, page 9) רסטיניאק (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

The exact language would be a copyright violation probably. I do not see a real problem with the paraphrase. However, there may be an issue that the LA times may be repeating a story regarding an incident that might not have actually happened! Are there any sources covering this other than the latimes? We may need to double-qualify the statement as "The LA Times reported that [...] See http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=884181&ct=11757857. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

gaijin - I am pretty sure that wiki rules allow for the LA times to be included, and yes, there is Hebrew coverage of the event as well connecting goldblum to it. (there is lots of coverage of the event in general, of course). Soosim (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, per the discussion at ANI [2] which placed further doubts on this content, I have removed the section per WP:BLPREMOVE. Please continue your discussions about the appropriateness of this section and how to phrase it if it is to be include. Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1 - I think you have made a mistake. there is no discussion at ANI about this paragraph (your link takes one to a discussion about a banned editor continuously violating blp, etc.), and there is nothing in blpremove which prevents this from being in - it is well sourced as well. strange that you would think otherwise. and in any case - as you can see, we have been discussing it here as well. Soosim (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Look further down. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

at what? Soosim (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

At ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are better sources than LAT for this story. "Yedioth Ahronoth" was in 1990 the largest circulated (still today, among paid newspapers) and most influential newspaper, and had the largest report (nearly full 9 pages) about the stabbing and the murder. The only report in "Yedioth" about the stone throwing is attributed to the illegal Kach group, whose spokesperson is reported (on page 9 of the Monday October 22 issue, the morning after the murder) to take responsibility for the attack on Goldblum's apartment. This is also in line with what Goldblum told LAT about the source of Jewish hostility. So the LAT has a partial story because Kach spokesperson would probably not call that reporter but publicize his actions among Hebrew readers.רסטיניאק (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Now that we are in a position to add (or not) via consensus

I suggest that giving any coverage to the incident is WP:UNDUE. Soosim's obvious intention in adding a passage about it is to get the idea "Goldblum is a PLO supporter" into the article. A close reading of the LA Times article shows that it isn't even clear that it was Goldblum that they called a PLO supporter (the text at that point refers only to a "prominent peace activist"). Now that things have been reset properly we could discuss what sort of text belongs in the article and add it once there is consensus, but I'm not convinced that any text about this issue belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to fix one word... the LAT attentive reporter only heard a single person calling names. "One of them" he wrote. "A few" hurled stones. Now it is not surprising that a few Kach (Jewish right wing terrorist organization) were those who hurled the stones, based on their own spokesperson. רסטיניאק (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

let's try: (and I really don't care if goldblum supports the plo or not): Following an incident in 1990 when a Palestinian Hamas member stabbed and killed three residents of Goldblum's Jerusalem neighborhood, a group of Israeli protestors went to Goldblum's home shouting insults and throwing stones at his apartment. Goldblum responded by saying, "We are being made a scapegoat. It's madness, sheer madness." Soosim (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No "group" shouting insults, but "One". No "group" throwing stones but "A few". Why does Soosim insist on changing the language of LAT ? and now, that the Yedioth Ahronoth source for the incident has been exposed, with information that LAT did not get directly "from the mouth of the horse", the action must be attributed to the "Kach" extreme right wing Jewish terrorist illegal organization (See WP Kach and Kahane Chai) as per their own announcement. Avoiding this issue can not lead to any consensus. רסטיניאק (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

not changing language - see the headline, read the article. ok, how about this? Following an incident in 1990 when a Palestinian Hamas member stabbed and killed three residents of Goldblum's Jerusalem neighborhood, a group of Israeli protestors (from the Kach movement - RS, please) went to Goldblum's home, with some shouting insults and throwing stones at his apartment. Goldblum responded by saying, "We are being made a scapegoat. It's madness, sheer madness." Soosim (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a proposal, to which you refuse. You are changing language, as anyone can read. Nowhere, in ANY coverage of the murder in Baka, it was written "Goldblum's neighborhood". The neighborhood is Baka (some papers wrote "Jerusalem", a neighborhood with a population of more than 10,000. No way, Soosim, you are wasting your time and the time of WP editors. Not "Some" shouting insults but only "One", not :some throwing stones but only "a few". Not the "Kach movement" but "the Kahana Jewish racist and terrorist illegal organization". This is precisely WP:RS, I give you again the surprising source, Kach and Kahane Chai. It is all there. And no agreement about your picking one out of 4 quotations. If you wish to get the Yedioth page (it is page 5, not 9 as I wrote before, of the Monday, October 22 issue of Yedioth Ahronoth), let us know how to transmit it to you. רסטיניאק (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Admin comment. I am pleased to see that some progress is being made here, and I in particular congratulate Soosim for thinking of the "shouting insults" formulation which addresses one of the major issues here. I'll just point out, however, that headlines are written by editors to grab attention and shouldn't be used as a source. Stick to the text. Thank you, רסטיניאק, for finding this additional source. It seems to be useful addition, and I hope that you can find a way to make it available to other editors here - perhaps via email?? Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here is another good English language source about the incident [3] It states that stone throwers were extremists and adds a further (outrageous) allegation of what they shouted.Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If the text makes clear that the stone-throwers were extremists associated with the Kahane movement, then we might be able to agree on an addition regarding this incident. I very much agree with Rastiniak's point along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There may even be better texts, by the local reporters of Jerusalem Post and Yedioth Ahronoth. Thanks Slp1 for suggesting to send those to you via email. Please let me know where to send it to.רסטיניאק (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Actually I would rather you guys sorted it out by yourselves rather than involving me. If possible, try to link the Jerusalem Post or Yedioth Ahronoth articles, as I did to the Australian article. If it is just a few relevant sentences or a short paragraph about it then maybe type them out here so that everybody else can see it.Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no direct links to the archives that keep those articles. They may be downloaded to pdf at the National Library of Israel that keeps archives of all journals. The relevant report of the Jerusalem Post on Monday October 22 is by their local reporter Louis Rapoport (Titled "Iris, the Rainbow", Iris Azulai was the first of the three stabbings) starting on the front page of the J. Post and continuing on the back page (page 8) under "Rainbow". The text is long and describes the provocators who are clearly identified as Kahane thugs, who also attacked the reporter, once he requested them to stop stone throwing. The police stopped the reporter and took him away in their van while leaving the provocators untouched, many of them continued hitting the van windows to get to the reporter, who lived nearby. This clarifies the sentence of LAT, saying that "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...." clearly , the locals were those who tried to stop the stone throwers who were Kach-Kahane thugs. So it seems that Soosim wishes to introduce the small group of provocators from the illegal Jewish terrorist group into Wikipedia articles ?. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

I was able to find "Iris, The Rainbow" on Lexis-Nexis. Unfortunately, it isn't useable for this article as it doesn't mention whose house was stoned. Goldblum isn't mentioned in the article at all, in fact. It is probably his house, but we just can't be sure. I think you might have to stick to the two articles you have. But I think that is enough probably.Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

רסטיניאק, There is also no requirement for a source to be available online. If the source is reliable and verifiable (e.g. anyone can visit the library and look it up, or download it perhaps for a fee), then it's a usable source. If you are concerned about others objecting to the source because they can't view it, you can always quote the relevant paragraph on the talk page or even in a footnote. Quoting the source in a footnote is standard practice in other articles about contentious subjects; Intelligent design comes to mind as a prime example. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So now we have three sources for the events on the day of the murder. The Sydney Morning Herald is based on later interviews, as it was written one month later, but confirms all the "ingredients" of the three other sources and helps to obtain a quite complete view. "Following the stabbing and murder of 3 Jews in the Neighborhood of Baka (October 21, 1990), where Goldblum and many Peace Now and left wing supporters lived, a group of Jewish extremists mostly from the Kach Jewish illegal terror organization rioted in many parts of Jerusalem, attacking Arab cars and people, some came to the neighborhood and attacked Arabs workers, threw stones at Goldblum's house and attacked locals and passers by who tried to stop them, while police avoided clashes with those Kahane thugs". This is supported by a combination of the reports of LAT, Yedioth Ahronoth and Jerusalem Post. I do not see why this should be in the article about Goldblum, but if Soosim and Scarletfire are so keen on it, I do not mind to introduce it in that language if this helps solve this continuous conflict. The Israel Project apology to Goldblum also helps to clarify parts of that issue.רסטיניאק (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Hello. As I mentioned above, the Jerusalem Post article can't be used as a source, because it doesn't mention anything about Goldblum. Does the Yedioth Ahronoth actually specifically refer to him? If it does, can you quote the relevant sentences here? I realize that you will have to translate them, but hopefully will not be too difficult for you. What I am concerned about is that your proposal may contain quite a lot of synthesis. Thank you very muchSlp1 (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Even without J. Post, what I wrote is a fair combination of the sources, with no synthesis in the sense of "A" and "B" make "C". I am afraid that any attempt to report about that story must be a combination from reliable sources or an imaginary distortion, which was what we had before. The Yedioth Ahronoth does mention Goldblum. LAT does so too. It should not be difficult to combine the two without "synthesizing". However, the murder was followed by riots all over Jerusalem, so why focus on the Baka area, and more specifically, the Goldblum apartment. The single Los Angeles Times reporter was in Baka' while many Yedioth Ahronoth reporters and Jerusalem Post reporters were spread all over town. Their reports are much wider and more balnanced (due to the quantity of reports) when considering the immediate traumatic responses mostly by Jewish thugs from the Kahane illegal terrorist groups. In those more balance reports, Golbdlum is indeed a miniscule issue, as Slp1 just found in the J. Post reports. That is why Yedioth has 8-9 pages, J. Post has 3 (larger pages than Yedioth), reporting on the incidents all over Jerusalem. A bit like reporters in different battles of the same war. So the focusing in that terrible day on the Goldblum apartment is petty and highly unproportional, unless someone wishes to use that for some other purpose, which is what I suspect. Is it possible that someone needs it for "proving" something to someone ? Maybe to refute the apology to Goldblum by the Israel Project  ? or to someone else ? I will however try to get to the Yedioth relevant pages and translate them here. Now that more sources have been exposed, I do not see any reason that WP should have anything on that issue in Goldblum's article. רסטיניאק (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

The Wikipedia policy that expresses what Rastiniak is arguing is WP:UNDUE. I referenced that policy in removing the passage prior to application of full protection. I continue to believe it applies to what we're discussing here. Editors are reminded that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of material drawing on that source; other criteria must be met as well (I have seen a post elsewhere that didn't show an understanding of that point in connection with this issue). At this stage I have not seen a convincing argument that this incident must or should be covered here; mostly it is about what other people did, not what Goldblum did. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You know what, Rastignac, I think it is possible to view this from a very different perspective. It is obvious from a cursory survey that this individual has suffered appalling physical and verbal attacks for the peaceful expression of his beliefs. The internet is littered with retractions of libellous statements made against him by individuals, groups and even the media. There is talk of a court case in which he won substantial damages against a TV company due to the falsehoods contained in a report, though unfortunately I haven't been immediately located the kind of secondary sources I would like. His apartment was stoned and appalling accusations levelled at him by angry extremists. On the advice of the police, he had to arm himself. There is no way that the libellous and slanderous statements should be repeated, but I do think that the abuse that he has suffered can be considered notable - and when presented neutrally from the sources we have, could be considered a credit to his fortitude. At the moment there is no mention of this aspect of his life.

BTW, I have found another very brief reference to the stoning incident in University Press book [in University Press book http://books.google.ca/books?id=8_fUEOBK2YQC&pg=PA23]

So how about this... Goldblum's peace activities have resulted in physical and verbal attacks against him and other left-leaning Jews by right-wing Israelis.(LAT, SMH) Following the murder three of Jews by a Palestinian, extremist Jews went to Goldblum's house in Baka - the neighborhood where Goldblum and other peace activists lived.(LAT, SMH) They shouted insults and threw stones at his apartment.(LAT, SMH, book). This is solidly sourced from the sources we have to date. Slp1 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with this passage which may indeed be missing from the article. Would you consider adding the Yedioth Ahronoth report (October 22 edition, page 5) about the spokesperson of the Kach group (those are not just "extremists" but terrorists) who announced "hitting Golbdlum's apartment" ? Here is the relevant paragraph from Yedioth of Oct. 22 by their reporter Naomi Gal: "Stones were thrown in the morning at the upper floor (Goldblum's apartment... רסטיניאק) There were phone threats as well. Left wing activists who tried to discuss with the group that stood below were beaten. The spokesperson of "Kach" claimed yesterday that his men hit the apartment of Amiram Goldblum, the former spokesperson of Peace Now who lives there too."רסטיניאק (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

perhaps first try to include the original hebrew as well? i think that would help. you can email the scan to any editor from that editor's user page, left side menu, toolbox. Soosim (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually you can't because WP's email system does not allow attachments. Editors would have to send him an email רסטיניאק. But I do think if you want to pursue this source, רסטיניאק, it would be good for others to see the original Hebrew too. I find the translation a bit confusing and it sounds like there might be more than one apartment being targeted. If you want to pursue the Kach connection, רסטיניאק why don't you just type out the original Hebrew here? Slp1 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, here's the only paragraph in the whole of the issue of Yedioth Ahronoth that mentions Goldblum:

בבוקר נזרקו אבנים על הקומה למעלה. היו גם איומים טלפוניים. פעילי שמאל שניסו להתווכח עם החבורה שעמדה למטה, ספגו מכות. דובר "כך" טען אתמול שאנשיו פגעו בדירתו של עמירם גולדבלום, דובר שלום עכשיו לשעבר. גם הוא גר שם. I hope that this is satisfactory. It does not seem that there are two apartments, but there were many "Peaceniks" as well as journalists who were attacked and beaten by the group of demonstrators, most of them came as an organized Kach-Kahane thugs to create an atmosphere of terror. רסטיניאק (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

based on the yediot paragraph cited above, I see the following: goldblum was threatened and his apartment was stoned. a kach spokesperson "claimed" that the people responsible for this were Kach supporters.

so, with this information, I would write the paragraph in question as follows: Goldblum's peace activities have resulted in physical and verbal attacks against him.(LAT, SMH, YA) Following the murder of three Jews by a Palestinian, Jewish protestors went to Goldblum's house in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Baka,(LAT, SMH) where they shouted insults and threw stones at his apartment.(LAT, SMH, book). A Kach spokesman claims that his group was responsible for this.(YA) Soosim (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Soosim, you are again trying to focus on Goldblum, and deviate from the proposal of Slp1, which was mostly acceptable provided that the addition of Yedioth will appear in full. This is the other reporter who was right there (J. Post reporter who was there too did not mention Goldblum, but was beaten heavily by the Kach terrorists when he tried to stop them from throwing stones). Also, the Kach terrorist rioters are reported in ALL papers to arrange riots all over Jerusalem on that day. That is found in all main Israeli papers of the time, J. Post, Maariv, Yedioth and Haaretz. So, the acceptable paragraph is:

Goldblum's peace activities have resulted in physical and verbal attacks against him and other left-leaning Jews by right-wing Israelis.(LAT, SMH) Following the murder of three Jews by a Palestinian in the neighborhood of Baka, extremist Jews rioted all over Jerusalem , some went to Baka - where Goldblum and other peace activists lived.(LAT, SMH) They shouted insults and threw stones at Goldblum's apartment (LAT, SMH, book), drove Arab workers from a construction site (LAT) and had beaten left wing activists and journalists who tried to discuss with them. The Kach (Kach and Kahane Chai Jewish terror organization) claimed that his men hit Goldblum's apartment (Yedioth) . רסטיניאק (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

rastingnac - "and other left-leaning Jews" is not relevant to this article. "right-wing Israelis" is not what the source says. "extremist Jews rioted all over Jerusalem , some went to Baka" is not what the source says. "and other peace activists" not relevant to this article. "drove Arab workers from a construction site (LAT) and had beaten left wing activists and journalists who tried to discuss with them" not relevant to this article. also, we are leaving out your response of scapegoat and sheer madness - did the LAT quote you correctly? Soosim (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Soosim: the main issue that is not relevant is your attempt to attach the murder , the neighborhood, the violence, everything, to Goldblum. This is not acceptable, as you are inflating an irrelevant side issue of the murder and the riots and focusing it on Goldblum. I reallize how difficult it must be for you to realize that all the papers attach the violence to the right wing and to the Kahane terrorist thugs. Nothing will be introduced to the article without them. Please do not teach us how to read papers.. רסטיניאק (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

While I would not be vehemently opposed to the approach that Slp1 was advocating, it is clear that there is not a consensus for adding something along those lines. That's a situation I can live with as well. The discussion of course could continue, but it isn't apparent that it will be productive in the sense of leading to a consensus on this matter. things might well remain that way for some time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to look at the matter a bit differently. We have a piece in Los Angeles Times by an on-site reporter. We have three Israeli papers (Yedioth, J. Post and Maariv) with many reporters, each, in various sites around Jerusalem. We have one late (three weeks or more) story in the Sydney Morning Herald, not focusing on the Baka, Jerusalem murderous day, and a large chapter in the Book by Meron Benvenisti ("Intimate Enemies - Jews and Arabs in a shared Land"). The LAT report is about 900 words long, and has three short citations by Goldblum, where in one of them it is mentioned that his house was stoned. The only two citations that reflect any content are "The hostility is a product of the right" (linked to the stoning and post murder riots by Jews), and "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". In the Benvenisti book, out of a very long chapter about the events around the Baka murderous stabbings, Goldblum is mentioned in a single sentence somewhat similar to the LAT quotation "The goal is not to fall in love with them but to disengage from them, said the Peace Now spokesman Amiram Goldblum, A Baka resident whose house was attacked by right wingers". Benvenisti also adds that "Leftists were attacked in the streets and their houses were stoned" (which suggests that Goldblum's house was not the only to be stoned...) . The Sydney Morning Herald piece is of 1600-1700 words, with the following mentions of Goldblum who was interviewed, a few weeks after the murders: "Amiram Goldblum is a Hebrew University Professor and a spokesman for a movement known as Peace Now which advocates a dialog with the Palestinians and whose supporters come largely from Academia and the professions. Mr. Goldblum lives in Baka on the top floor of a stone house whose most conspicuous feature is a large burglar alarm mounted over the front door - he has long been a target of the Israeli Right, an "ashafist" or PLO supporter in the words of his Jewish detractors. So inflamed was the mood, fuelled by the arrival of dozens of extremist Jews, on the day of the Baka murders that accusations levelled that he had sheltered the murderer in his house. Rocks were thrown, but Mr Goldblum has taken the sensible precaution of closing the metal shutters over his windows". He also consulted a senior police officer who advised him to arm himself against possible attack. So it is that Mr. Goldblum now carries a gun at home "to protect myself", as he says ruefully, "not against Arabs but against my fellow Jews". As this is NOT a report by someone who was on the spot on the day of the murders, it is questionable to what extent one can use it except for the direct single quotation of Goldblum. It is interesting that in the WP article about Baka, Jerusalem, the murder is not even mentioned. it is also not mentioned in the article about Baka on Hebrew Wikipedia .

Most important: Yedioth Ahronoth, out of 8 pages with thousands of words on the murder, the murdered, their families, the clashes over the whole city, mentions Goldblum only in the context already given above, of the Terrorist Kach organization spokesman who claimed that his men hit the Goldblum apartment. Less than 10 words out of many thousands. Jerusalem Post has three full pages about that day, again with many reporters and many reports, thousands of words, and not a single one about Goldblum. Finally, Maariv has 3 full pages with some 15 reporters, none of them mentioned anything about Goldblum. It seems thus that the attempt to focus the Baka murders on Goldblum is highly unblanaced and with no proportion to what really happened. However, if anyone suggests to use the sentences that mention Goldblum, with meaningful and balanced quotations of his, that could be OK. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

(edit conflict) Nomo, thanks for expressing your opinion that something of this sort might work for you. I hope we are closer to consensus than you think.

Thanks for the Hebrew text רסטיניאק and for the translation Soosim. Based on the comments here it seems both רסטיניאק and Soosim are okay with mentioning the Kach claim of responsibility, but that overall רסטיניאק would like more information about the events of the day, and Soosim would like less. I see some problems with both positions: some of רסטיניאק's version seems excessive in detail about events that aren't directly related to Goldblum, very much wanting to emphasize the "Kach" connection, but are a bit of a stretch from a verifiability angle, while Soosim's version seems to go to great lengths to downplay that these kinds of attacks are made against others, and that extremist Jews were involved, when it is clear from the sources that this is the case.

I don't know anything about this situation other than what I have read here, but it strikes me as curious, Soosim, why you would want to describe these actions as those run-of-the-mill "Jewish protestors"? Why would you want not to specify the source of this violence? Where I live, people throwing stones at a house and yelling libellous falsehoods at someone is the sort of action from which most people, even strong activists for a cause, would want to disassociate themselves. Most especially when it seems that an apparent terrorist group was directly involved. To be honest, from a worldwide perspective, it seems like a totally backward move to try and deemphasize the source of this violence as clearly reflected in the sources.

And רסטיניאק , since this is an article about Goldblum, why is all of the details of all the other violence relevant? The point of this little paragraph is to show that Goldblum has been physically and verbally attacked, not to describe that particular incident. I see the point that it may be valid to indicate that this wasn't the only incident that day, but that's all that needs to be said. I also don't see it as relevant that the Kach were later designated a terrorist group. Similarly, based on the retractions, Goldblum has been falsely attacked, not just by Kach but by many others. To be honest it seems like a totally backward move to try and emphasize Kack more than have been described in the sources.

So... based on your suggestions and correcting a couple of my own grammatical errors, here is an updated suggestion.

Because of their peace activities, Goldblum and other other left-leaning Jews have been subjected to physical and verbal attacks against him and by right-wing Israelis.(LAT, SMH) In 1990, three Jews were murdered by a Palestinian in Baka, the neighborhood where Goldblum and other peace activists lived. As part of violence in other parts of Jerusalem,(Yedioth) extremist Jews went to Goldblum's house. (LAT, SMH, Yedioth) They shouted insults and threw stones at his apartment.(LAT, SMH, book). The next day a Kach spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack on Goldblum's apartment. (Yedioth)" Slp1 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited conflicted with רסטיניאק, so some of my comments to רסטיניאק are outdated. I want to say that I strongly advise against using quotes of Goldblum. Quotes are very, very prone to POV cherry picking and quote mining issues, and the article has far too many of them anyway. They need to be pruned and his views summarized, not added to.Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, Slp1. I have no problem with the form of the paragraph that you delineated. Fully acceptable as you wrote, with minor "cleaning" of the opening sentence ("Goldblum and other left-leaning Jews have been subjected to physical and verbal attacks against them, by right wing Israelis"). רסטיניאק (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Thanks for the copyedit! What about Nomo and Soosim (and any others)? Are you okay with this? Slp1 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

slp1 - great work. I am not opposed to labeling people for what they are, and yes, anyone who throws rocks at someone or something is a criminal and deserves to be dealt with by the authorities. as to your almost-final version, I would just point out that on that particular day, it seems that the groups were led by either the kach people or the right-wing Israelis, but that members of the crowd included others - both the LAT and SMH say that. that is my concern. also, "peace activities" in the first part is unclear as well. and the violence around Jerusalem looks like pal terror, so, i would do something like:

Because of their peace activities and political stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Goldblum and other left-leaning Jews have been subjected to physical and verbal attacks by right-wing Israelis and others.(LAT, SMH) In 1990, three Jews were murdered by a Palestinian in Baka, the neighborhood where Goldblum and other peace activists lived. As part of the violent response to this event around Jerusalem,(Yedioth) extremist Jews led a group of people to Goldblum's house. (LAT, SMH, Yedioth) They shouted insults and threw stones at his apartment.(LAT, SMH, book). The next day a Kach spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack on Goldblum's apartment. (Yedioth) Soosim (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The additions of Soosim to the text of Slp1 are on three issues: 1 "Political stance towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - this is redundant with many other parts of the article, as well as with "peace activities". 2 "attack by right wing Israelis and others" - the others are either "enraged Israelis" (LAT) or "Extreme Nationalist Jews" (SMH) or many other expressions found in the Israeli Papers. Soosim , would you like to choose ?. 3 "extremist Jews led a group of people" - the "leading" is not specified anywhere. There is "the group that drove Arab construction workers etc... then turned" (LAT). The "leading" introduces something that is not there, which assumes prior decision. Thus I prefer to stick to the Slp1 text. However my strongest support to characterize the "others" as "other Nationalistic Jewish extremists", as they are clearly characterized in ALL sources but clearly not the vague term "others" which is "anyone else". רסטיניאק (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Slp1 - care to comment on my suggestion and rastiniak's comments on my suggestion? thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Neutrality tag

The last person to add the "neutrality" tag was Nataev, who is no longer active on this article. If there are others who believe there is a POV problem here, please speak up; otherwise the tag should be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

i don't have an objection (and was curious why it was allowed to stay since that user, i think, was clearly 'overboard'). Soosim (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)