Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:33, 7 March 2013

Template:BLP noticeboard

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 12 2012. The result of the discussion was delete.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors blocked the smears by deleting the article on Goldblum) It is suggested that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

References

1. Plaut is the only one to exploit pages that he might have been the vandalizer of
2. Naftali Raz: 27 years later
3. Haaaretz retracts from original title
4. Globe and Mail apartheid poll among Israeli Jews
5. Poll results by DIALOG
6. Poll results by DIALOG
7. Shock findings of ‘apartheid’ poll questioned
8. 'Haaretz changes tack on major story that alleged widespread ‘apartheid’ attitudes in Israel,' at The Times of Israel, October 30, 2012. Miller adds: “It is, however, not clear what these respondents understand by the term as this question did not require clarification”.'

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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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)

1. Yisraela Fund

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles