Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

Responses: Israeli Public

The following quotation is the only statement in this section which may vaguely reflect the Israeli public:

"A poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Hebron massacre while 3.6 percent praised Goldstein."

Beyond this, the section talks incessantly on Jewish minority groups like the community at Kiryat Arba, Kahane Chai and the Lubavitch movement. These are neither valid representations of the intended Israeli public nor of the Jewish public; these groups are considerable minorities in both of these groups, as can be found in their respective articles. Kahane Chai and the Lubavitch movement are international organisations, and cannot possibly represent the specific views of even the Israeli Jewry, let alone the whole of Israel's Jewish and non-Jewish population. I would suggest that this section be renamed something equivalent to "Responses From Jewish Minorities" and that further information be supplied so that the opinions of the Israeli public as a whole is represented, as opposed to simply the views of a minority of groups within the Jewish religion. [Posted at 18:54 UTC 14th June 2011; apologies for inconsistency with Wikipedia's standard format]

Sister's statement on 20 year anniversary of Baruch Goldman's death

This document contain information for this article and also for Baruch Goldman's death. However, I will be submitting it via the usual submission process for both articles. It denies the official report given in both articles and claims that Goldstein was assigned to guard duty at the Cave of Patriarchs as a false flag operation to discredit Kach. It also suggests that IDF soldiers shot on Muslims, too.

By following the verified articles about this incident, one of the side effects is to create cult status for Baruch Goldstein as Jewish martyr by the Kach cultists and also JDL in America.

As well, by referring to Goldstein as a radical Jewish militant without associating the Kach and the JDL with terrorism even though "radical militant" is a term associated with terrorism, the effect is to be less objectionable than using the objective term "terrorism", even though that is what Goldstein was assumed to be doing.

It would be closer to the truth that certain religious Jews in the IDF are engaging in criminal behavior against Palestinian Muslims through sympathetic members and radicalization of the Orthodox Jews. The common root of this radicalization is the JDL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.19.113 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Smart Editing techniques

This article is filled with subtle antisemitic material and using Smart Editing techniques, I have fixed it. Look at my edits for an example of Smart Editing techniques and hpefully we can get rid of antisemitic material in all articles.--64.250.232.51 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.232.51 (talk)

What antisemitic materials? Debresser (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111103121134/http://www.jdl.org:80/index.php/about-jdl/faqs to http://www.jdl.org/index.php/about-jdl/faqs/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091020083907/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=123 to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=123
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090106162256/http://www.mepc.org////journal_shahak/shahak48.asp to http://www.mepc.org/journal_shahak/shahak48.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary

This addition of material by Nishidani IMHO adds unnecessary detail. It is not customary to add people who are wounded, or how precisely they ended up being wounded. Compare other articles, e.g. about the 9/11 attacks. I can not escape from the thought that this is a POV inspired edit, trying to overly stress the gore of terrorism in this case. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree; this also violates guidelines of generally not naming people who are not notable. There are further NPOV issues with lumping people killed in violent incidents elsewhere which followed with the victims of the massacre. I reverted recent edit about age of some of the victims as it is not found in source referenced, but Nishidani restored his edit in violation of 1RR. Separately, I would question Al Jazeera article as RS. --Wiking (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser. Suspicions are not material to an objection. Wiking:none of your objections above are based on policy, and all happen to be wrong. (a) WP:NOTABILITY nowhere states victims, dead or otherwise, are not to be mentioned. All of the lists of dead in terrorism are given where available, and were it not for the incident remain unnotable. It's about page creation re non notable people.Read it; (b) the massacre had an immediate aftermath and this is always noted; (c) I did not break IR, read the policy and check the edit history; Al Jazeera is regularly cited on wiki pages, as are Haaretz, Ynet and other similar newspapers. No serious editor questions it. I might waste more time checking for parallels, such as Ben Yehuda Street bombings where none lethal fatalities are noted in later incidents. (d) you complain that 'several as young as 12' is not in the source. Well, 'several' means generally four or more, and 4 children aged 12 were killed. If you wish to write 4, you're welcome to do so.

So, there is no policy substance to these objections. Judgments are based on policy, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is evidently the case here.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not object to either four or several, but that's not in the linked source. Please add another source there. I also do not object to including brief info on the casualties of violent protests that followed, as well as of Hamas bombings claimed to have been carried out in retribution, but I object including those killed and injured in separate incidents in the total tally. That's different from including critically injured who died a short while later without recovering in the number of victims. As far as listing the wounded, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. Thank you. --Wiking (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw it (by the way, an editor who changes his policy objection successively, after the first is confuted, is not doing his job. If the removal was based on erroneous policy, and then you adopt another policy objection, the problem is not policy, but the use of policy to keep the stuff out of the article on any pretext). The policy reads:

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

The names of the wounded or survivors come from a widow, or from the wounded, speaking directly in an interview with the press, here Al Jazeera, therefore the information was released to the public domain where it is reliably sourced. The accounts of survivors is self-evidently 'relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.'

As to your point that 4 or several is not in the source. Well, all you had to do was glance up at the list of the dead, where the dates are given, see that Nabeel Abraham, What About The Victims?, Lies of Our Times, May 1994, pp 3-6, provided those details, and either leave it at that, or make a ref name="Abraham" and adjust accordingly. Editing should be efficient, meaning one reads the page and figures things out, adjusting here and there, not removalist. In any case, I have B'tselem's detailed coverage, name by name, of people killed that day and in the immediate aftermath, and will be adding it. And yes, I'll include Hamas's retaliations, if nobody beats me to the 'gun'.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not know which source had explicit info about victims' ages, hence could not add that ref; it appeared as WP:SYNT at first glance, and certainly is not present in source referenced immediately after the statement. Will wait for you to add it.

As far as their names, the issue is has nothing to do with info being in public domain or with source reliability (bolding is mine):

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

So, I think my (and Debresser's) objection is well grounded and I am not sure what you are referring to as changing his policy objection successively. --Wiking (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That is your 5th mistake, you are confusing your several arguments with those of Dovid whose objection differed. Debresser made one argument, you are making several others. The fact that 2 object has no weight. What has weight is making a policy based objection, consistent with wiki practice, and getting agreement. Otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry can show up, and cast a vote arbitrary to swing stuff in or out according to the numbers game.

Debresser objected, on the basis of a suspicion about my ulterior motives, as to the purpose of adding details about the wounded or survivors. That itself was improper. I've never seen him object to the use, in a perfect parallel article to this, of photos of wounded survivors on the 1929 Hebron massacre. I don't either. In fact, I helped put some of the uglier details in. So Dovid can't have it both ways: objecting to an innocuous addition of details about the wounded when they are Palestinian, while keeping mum with an article that deals with the Jewish victims of a similar scale massacre in the same place, Hebron. In my view, one must be consistent here to avoid being an ethnonationalist partisan.

You quoted one part of the policy, I quoted the other. In both cases however, read properly, the WP:BLP entry does not say one cannot use such names. It says caution and judgment should be used. You say the content lost by erasure is 'insignificant'. Tell that to the survivors, who informed the larger world via a mainstream article of what they suffered. You may think wounded Palestinian are 'insignificant' and need not be mentioned. But the article is incomplete unless we include them, since the documentary record we base the article on mentions them. Finally, you have no answered my points. Address them. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not follow what you refer to as 'parallel articles'. No idea why you bring up that the fact that 2 object has no weight, as I have not used this argument. Not sure what relevant points I have not addressed either; your count of my 'mistakes' is also confusing. I feel that I am being very consistent, but once I noticed that you quoted irrelevant part of the policy, I quoted the relevant part explicitly, above. Indeed, as you pointed out, it does not prohibit listing names, but strongly discourages the practice. Please do not infer from my very straight forward objection that I think wounded Palestinian are 'insignificant'. While objecting to listing their names in this article or presenting quotes from a newspaper interview as facts, I have no objections to including information about the number of the wounded, their ages, or seriousness of their wounds, as long as it's properly sourced. Similarly, I have no objections to mentioning casualties of the aftermath clashes, but not in the same section of the article. --Wiking (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Nishidani, I objected not because of your motives! Don't put words in my mouth that never left it. :)

I object because those names and especially ages and the details about the wounded are superfluous, and not encyclopedical. I wrote that very clearly. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid those words did fly past what the Homeric poets called your herkos odontôn, (barrier of the teeth). See (b) below

(a)It is not customary to add people who are wounded, or how precisely they ended up being wounded. Compare other articles, e.g. about the 9/11 attacks. (b) I can not escape from the thought that this is a POV inspired edit, trying to overly stress the gore of terrorism in this case

(a) is your objection? Then (I) answer my point about the photos of the wounded surviovors with names at the 1929 hebron massacre page. I find nothing objectionable, but logically you must exclude them, if that is your principle. If you don't then it means you allow for Jewish victims of terrorism what you prohibit for Palestinian victims of terrorism.

(ii) Your statement that it 'is not customary to add people who are wounded' is flawed. In 2 minutes I found 3 articles on Jewish victims of terrorism which add precisely this:

(a)(1) Mike's Place suicide bombing:'Critically injured Keith Trowbridge, 37, of United States'.

(a)(2) Beersheva bus station shooting:'At least one of the wounded Israeli soldiers, Daniel Harush (19), was shot and critically injured by fellow security officers who mistook him for a terrorist.'

(a)(3)) Lions' Gate stabbings under Victims

The dead were Aharon Benita, 21, and Nehemia Lavie, 41, who attempted to come to the couple's rescue.

Adele Banita and her small son were injured, Adele wounded seriously with stab wounds. Visiting Mrs. Benita in hospital along with Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Let’s make this clear,"... "just as we’ve smashed previous waves of terrorism, we will also smash this wave of terrorism."

On this evidence, it very much looks like you are trying to keep out the kind of detail on the Palestinian article which wiki editors find acceptable on articles regarding Jeweish victims of terrorism. So?Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not responsible for other editors. Please look at the good articles, and bring your arguments from them; do not look at the bad articles to bring your arguments from them. I can only state my opinion as it is, and at the moment I am trying to improve this article only. I might very well be of the opinion, that those article need to be improved too, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are obliged under WP:NPOV to apply the rule as you understand them neutrally over all articles that come to your attention. You made a false statement, that it is not customary. It is, to the contrary, frequent, as a few minutes googling on comparable articles showed. A 'feeling' is not enough to constitute a legitimate objection.As to 'trying to improve the article', of your 84 edits, the majority consist of removal of information. The only substantial addition is this, regarding the 'good character' testimony for the mass murderer.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And I am applying good editing rules to this article. As I said, if you see something wrong on an article, fix it. You can't use a few instances of bad editing to prove your point against simple rules of editing which are basic to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Try and focus, instead of drifting. You have given no policy basis in your remarks for objecting to the added content. This is a constant issue with you so please give and argue from policy not from self-esteem.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please strike that personal attack. I mean the "drifting" thing. I have given you the policy/guideline-based reason. Your reaction is as always to say none was given. This is WP:AE material, sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You open this with calling something a "POV inspired edit", and complain about "drifting"? Thats a bit odd. nableezy - 22:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I said that I can't escape the thought. Also, there is hardly an insult in saying an edit is POV inspired, while Nishidani was personally insulting, and not for the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is unquestionably a reliable source, and I dont think theres an actual reason to suppress the listing of those wounded, but I dont think its necessary. nableezy - 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)