Talk:Irv Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this neutral point of view?

[edit] NPOV Issues

I have removed NPOV tag from the article. If the anon who added the tag has concerns about the article, please discuss them here. ElBenevolente 00:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krugel's Attorney

The edit presents the statement as if it was made by Rubin's defense Attorney, when in fact it was Earl Krugel's defense Attorney. In the source there is nothing to suggest that Krugel's Defense Attoney had any kind of relationship with Rubin, so I really don't see his description of Rubin's psychological state to be particulary relevant. If you can find anything to suggest they had a relationship, or find a similar statement by someone who did, then I think it would belong in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question why the jewishsf.com source would ask Werksman. Turns out he *is* Rubin's attorney. Either that site got the information wrong, or he represented both defendants. I am going to reinstate the quote with the origina CNN source. 70.137.159.45 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a site that says thats true then be my guest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, but if you'll give me more than FOUR minutes then I will add the cite! You just blocked me - inadvertently I'll assume - from completing my edit. Huangdi 12:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I blocked you but I thought you would have put the source at the same time you re-added the quotation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious claims

where is your source that anyone blames the federal authorities for his death, also you repeatedly have added only his supporters and family believe he was murdered even though Friedman never states he falls into either of these categories. Despite any source you provide the witness's war record is never going to be relavent to this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The source that is linked RIGHT after the claim - thats the source!! --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no source that Kinky Friedman is a friend or colleague of Rubin's, and find the idea rather unlikely. Making that claim is original research at best. Nor do I think these sources [1] [2] are. Even the National Vanguard call it "suspicious", and they'd hardly be either friends or colleagues of Rubin.[3] As for the witness's war record, I too fail to see any relevance to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is making the first assertion. I don't know if you followed the geneaology of this, but originally one editor claimed that *many* people believed he may have been murdered. I attempted to replace this with *some people*, and alternately, with *some followers* (in Jewishsf article, which actually says some ideological followers) or *Rubin's relatives and colleagues* (as BBC). Faced with this alternative, the editor acquiesced in *some* (by this time this part had expanded to two sentences, one saying suspicions and the other saying maybe murder). As for me I'm now agnostic and somewhat weary over this point, whether the general some or specific followers. Oh geneaology: the Kinky opinion piece came into the picture apparently as an attempt to support saying *many*. As for the witness Danny Gillis, for a long time he had a little paragaph to himself, about the JDL's claims, which was dressed up with loaded terms, including the whole "agent provocateur" business (a phrase about him that appeared nowhere else but in Wikipedia). Eventually I streamlined that sentence to reflect their basic assertions about him, and then added relevant information about Gillis that 1) addressed his credibility, which was being questioned by the JDL and 2) had to do with the circumstances and interactions between the two men that lead to Rubin's arrest. Huangdi 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't have a problem with "some people", I just think it was both wrong and mistaken to suggest only his followers and family believed he was actually murdered. The kinky peice was used not to support "many" buyt to support the fact that it wasn't only supporters that believed he died in suspicious circumstances. Also once again I think it is silly to include a pragraph on Gillis' war record I am was again going to remove it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that Gillis's Navy service is not relevant now. It had been with the whole 'career criminal' innuendo, but I removed that part once I found that was completely unsubstantiated (mentioned only on JDL and similar websites, as well as neo-Nazi ones). As long as the first sentence about JDL allegations is there, the second is legitimate and necessary as both deal with the witness's general reputation and credibility. Huangdi 07:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if the sentence about his noble motives is present, then the sentence about why he may not be credible is also neccessary. I think we should remove the entire thing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)