Talk:Baruch Goldstein/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2


Previous Unorganized Discussions

What about the wounded and those subsequently killed during rioting?


What does Hanadi Jaradat have to do with this?


"*Yitzchak Matoof, local resident, testified that "Arab storekeepers told me not to come to the Machpelah on Purim as it will not be good for Jews there.""

This obviously sounds pro-Goldstein because it in the section of their claims supporting him!


Questions

1) Does anybody know why the remaining Arabs (approximatley 770) didn't carry out their planned massacre of Jews after Goldstein's shooting?

2)Why did Goldstein try to stop the planned massacre of Jews by himself?

3)Why did the Arabs subdue Goldstein with a fire-extinguisher instead of the weapons that they'd smuggled in to the mosque? Conch Shell 13:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these questions? Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To clarify the article Conch Shell 08:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clarify the article in what way? Are the claims written unclearly? Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, but they don't 'add-up'. I try to see things from as many perspectives as possible, even though I don't accept Kach's conclusions I can now understand their reasoning.
You seem to be rather defensive about this topic, do you mind if I ask whether you accept the Kach explanation?
Conch Shell 08:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not "defensive" about your questions; rather, I'm concerned that you are not using the Talk: pages for the purpose that they are intended. If your questions are intended for personal elucidation, rather than for improving article content, they would best be addressed by private correspondence of some sort. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) Many Arabs were killed and hundreds injured. With all of the people mourning, healing etc., they were in no condition to carry out an attack.

Does this mean the Arabs were so traumatised that they were only able to riot afterwards? Conch Shell 13:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2) The Arabs did not try to stop Goldstein from entering because he was a medic and they never thought he would carry out an attack. Had there been others with Goldstein, they may have had a harder time getting in. Also, the army refused to help.

I was under the impression that Goldstein entered the mosque wearing a concentration camp uniform? Conch Shell 13:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3) The entire event happened very fast. They didn't have time to go find all of their smuggled weapons (as they were well hidden). Goldstein had trouble reloading his gun and the Arabs used whatever they could to subdue him

Do you mind if I ask how you know the weapons were well hidden? Conch Shell 13:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Falcoboy7 04:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


1 - Yes. Also, if they had carried out the pogrom, then Goldstein would surely be viewed much differently.

2 - I have never heard that he wore a concentration camp uniform and a quick search on google couldn't find anything about that either.

3 - Well some of the Arabs were searched so they had to hide the weapons well.

All of the knowledge I have of this story has come from friends of his, websites, books, etc. I had never met him and I have no direct link to his family. I have heard the event told over many times and these are my findings.

Falcoboy7 02:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you. Your answers have been very enlightening. Conch Shell 07:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NB - Just for the record Goldstein was wearing an Israeli army reservist uniform [1] Conch Shell 08:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Also, that is interesting about the reservist uniform and I wonder what his specific purpose was in wearing that.

What do you mean by Israeli "reservist uniform"? gidonb 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

An israeli "reservist uniform" is the uniform that soldiers that are not on active duty wear. AryehHillman 18:29, 1 January 2005 (Pacific Time)

Are you sure? Because I think there is no such thing. gidonb 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The Shamgar report says: "he wore his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty". --Zero 10:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Itbach al Yahud"

Jayjg - The war cry "Slaughter the Jews" was also shouted before the pogrom in Hebron in 1929. It was entered previously but you had edited it out. I think it is a very good point and should be included. Falcoboy7 06:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

"(uncited claim, and irrelevant in any case)"

It is relevant, because the Jews of Hebron knew about this and therefore were scared even more of another pogrom, which explains Goldstein's actions. Uncited claim? Isn't that why it's in the "claims" section? I guess I could go citing everything but the purpose of this is not to transform the entire article into a law case. Falcoboy7 22:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

1) How do you know it was shouted in Hebron in 1929? If you can't provide evidence, then you need to cite things as claims, not statements of fact. 2) More citations are better. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I can go digging for citations, but the entire thing about "Itbach al Yahud" is in the claims section. You said "if you can't provide evidence, then you need to cite things as claims," - which it currently is. Falcoboy7 02:09, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The source for the Arabs shouting "Itbach al Yahud" (Slaughter the Jews) before they massacred 67 Jews in Hebron in 1929: Memorandum to the High Commissioner of Palestine from the Jewish Community of Hebron. It was reprinted in the newspaper "Davar" on 8 September 1929 on page 2.Simonschaim 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One-sided

While the facts stand that Goldstein murdered 29 Muslims in Hebron, and his act was vilified by most Israelis while being glorified by right-wingers, this article does not bother to suggest reasons for his behavior or motives. True, what he did was wrong, but as any good prosecutor would ask, Why did he do it? Since the answers aren't coming from Goldstein, I think we need to add more about his background and activities, as well as the general political climate in Hebron in the years leading up to the attack, in order to paint a fairer, NPOV picture. Yoninah 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break. We now have a picture of him as a doctor, and a large section attempting to justify his murders and the (scary) inscription on his tomb stone. Though it's useful in seeing that Jews are exactly the same when it comes to this whole "martyrdom" business as the arabs. Ask anyone about this guy and they'll say they've never heard of him. But he's the reason that suicide bombings started in the occupying state of Israel. That's the Jewish media for you!

Baruch Goldstein has very little to do with why suicide bombings occur in Israel. Perhaps you should read this article (at the least) before posting such non-sense. Falcoboy7 19:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The first ever Hamas suicide bombing took place two months after the masacre. Perhaps in response to it?

the first ""hamas"" ""suicide"" bombings but they werent the first suicide bombings nor the first hamas bombings (long live the little diffrence)

Terrorist or Militant

Looks like there is some controversy over whether Goldstein is considered a militant or a terrorist. My feeling was that since just about all Palestinians who have killed Jews in the Middle East conflict are considered "militants," it only makes sense that a Jew killing Palestinians also be called a "militant." Thoughts? Falcoboy7 02:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian murderers are terrorists. Lies about them do not alter the terroristic nature of Goldsteins' actions. Jeremy Nimmo 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
While terrorists are definitely militants, I believe the more specific word should be used across the board. I disagree with the idea that the definition of terrorist is POV. Goldstein was a terrorist, as is Osama Bin Laden, as is Hanadi Jaradat who was mentioned on this page. gidonb 10:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Only a Court of Law can determine whether a person is a "murderer" a "terrorist", a "thief", a "rapist" and so on. Until such a Court has made such a determination, no-one has the right to categorise somebody with one of these terms. It is a basic principle of justice that a person is innocent until found guilty. No Court has ever ruled that Dr. Baruch Goldstein is a terrorist. Therefore the term "terrorist" is totally out of place for him. Simonschaim 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. I do think that in this instance the word "terrorist" could be considered POV but does not necessarily have to be. Falcoboy7 05:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that currently it is considered POV. As a result, while the few Israeli terrorists are labeled correctly as terrorists, the many Arab terrorist individuals and organizations are usually described through terms that greatly reduce their actions in terms of the crimes against humanity that they commit. This creates an unbalanced picture throughout the articles on the Middle East and is also unfair towards the victims of crimes by all sides. Contrary to common wisdom, this does not necessarily have to do anything with Israel. Persons for example who are strongly against the war in Iraq, that has cost the US enormous amounts of human casualties and money, may be particular against clear wording on Al Qaeda. I can understand this but cannot justify the bias in any direction. As for myself, I am in favor of the terms that do not hide the nature of any destructive human actions. gidonb 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
So Hamas is a "Palestinian Islamist movement," Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was only "considered a terrorist" by the US, EU, and Israel, in very few of the List of Notable Hamas Members can you even find the word terrorist, in the Hanadi Jaradat article there is not once the word terrorist, Qawasameh members of Hamas are "activists," in the Yasser Arafat article it's stated that "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians," but Goldstein can't be referred to as a militant? Don't get me wrong, they are all terrorists, but the double-standard is blarring. There should be a Wikipedia rule that anyone implicated in the murder of civilians must be labelled a terrorist. Aiden 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad we agree. Everyone is on the long-run well-served by calling things by their names, e.g. Palestinian terrorists and Israeli terrorists, even if some temporary discomfort is involved. It is our policy, but unfortunately our practice is different. Wikipedia should not have double standards, nor should it flatten out the severity of all violence, that is opt for the easy single-standard solution. gidonb 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well please explain to me why every time I change the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" to ""attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" in the Yasser Arafat article it is reverted by a Wikipedia administrator? Aiden 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha see my point? I removed the word terrorist from this article so that it just says "physician who killed 29 Muslims" it was reverted in a matter of minutes. I also changed the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" to "attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" in the Yasser Arafat article and it was reverted in equally short time. Aiden 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the unfortunate reality of en.wikipedia. I am happy that it does not allow moderate language when the crimes are by Israelis, but that is not enough. There are moral moral implications to the collaboration in a network that whitewashes crimes against humanity in large quantities. See also my user page on the effort it took just to include the Holocaust in the Germany article. gidonb 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"unauthoritative" claims

I've removed the word "unauthoritative" that was inserted before the word claims. It's unclear what exactly it means, and it appears to be merely an attempt to POV the article. The word "claims" alone indicates that they have not been substantiated. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I used the word 'unauthorative' because Goldstein gave no reasons for his actions, they have merely been infered. I have also removed the following claims for the following reasons:

  • The metal detector at the East Gate where most of the Arabs entered that Friday Purim morning was damaged the night before.
Could Goldstein have known this? If not then it could have had no bearing on his actions.
  • An unusually large number of Arabs came to the Cave of the Patriarchs that Friday; around 500 men and 300 women. Because of this massive influx of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers were only able to search a handful of men for weapons.
Are Kach qualified to say that the number was unusually large? Did Goldstein know that only a handful had been searched? If not then once again it could have had no bearing on the supposed reasons for his actions.

Also both these claims lack a cited source. Conch Shell 16:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The metal detector at the East Gate was already broken at least two weeks, if not several months, before Purim. (The Arabs just damaged it FURTHER on the night before Purim.) The Arabs knew well before Purim that it was broken since they came to pray in the Cave of Machpelah every day. What is significant is that ALMOST ALL the large number of Arabs entered specifically by this East Gate that morning. Although there was nothing to stop them entering by the Main Gate, very few chose to do so. [Sources: Shamgar Commission: Minutes pp.203 bet-gimmel, 519; Exhibit 14] 2. The number of Arabs who came that morning to the Cave of Machpelah is quoted in the Shamgar Report. That it was an unprecedented large number is not an assessment by Kach, but is evidence given to the Shamgar Commission by Arab guards and Arab worshippers who were present that morning in the Cave of Machpelah. The Army Duty Officer at the Cave of Machpelah gave evidence to the Commission that it was only possible to search a small number of the 500 Arab MEN - from the Report we can see that it was about twelve per cent. NONE of the 300 Arab women entering the Cave of Machpelah were searched. Even if there had there been women soldiers present, they would not have been allowed to make such a search, since the regulations forbade it. [Sources: Shamgar Commission: Report pp.15,18; Minutes pp. 203 gimmel, 509, 2119, 2191, 2235-36; Exhibits 286, 313, 322]Simonschaim 16:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, for better or worse, these are the claims that are made (see the links provided), and they're quite widespread in certain right-wing circles. The article already states that Goldstein did not make any statement regarding his reasons beforehand; "unauthoritative" implies that there is some body somewhere that "authorizes" claims made by various groups. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact that they are in a section named "Supporters' Claims" tells you that they are unsubstaintiated and may or may not be true. Aiden 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'Authoritive' just means to speak with authority, which Goldstein's supporters can't with regard to his actions. Revisionist rubbish is regularly removed from holocaust-related pages, the same standards should be applied here. However it's faily pointless taking this to arbitration as you're on the committee and have already made your views clear. Conch Shell 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What can be more 'autoritative" than the opinion of Goldstein's a"h widow, Myriam? She has taken part in these claims. hasofer 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It depends on when she first made them. Rabbi Dov Lior didn't mention anything about Goldstein acting to prevent a massacre in his eulogy, which suggests that the Kach claims were fabricated at a later date. Anyway, Wikipedia have strict rules about "canvassing opinion" so given the controversial nature of this topic I think its best if we limit the discussion to changes in the article. Conch Shell 09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
After the sh'loshim period... which obviously does not limit the validity of her statements,... to the very opposite in fact, they are more valuable. What looks controversial is your POV on what to keep and not keep about Baruch Goldstein hasofer 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any press reports of Goldstein's widow giving a reason for his actions in March/April 1994? (assuming the sh'loshim period is 30 days) Did she say that Goldstein told her what he intended doing and why? He could have been just another crazed American with a gun for all we know. I am applying the same standards to this page that are applied to others. Conch Shell 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Word Usage

In regard to my recent edits: I have replaced the word "massacre" with "shooting" in the sentence "Rioting immediately followed the massacre, leading to the deaths of another 26 Palestinians and 9 Israelis." Secondly, I replaced "Members of the outlawed Kach organization defend his mass murder" with "Members of the outlawed Kach organization defend his actions." I feel that while most people (including myself) consider Goldstein a mass murderer, there are some who claim he is not, and that using such words supports one POV. Aiden 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists category

I realize that Wikipedia discourage the use of the word 'terrorist' but as long as they have a Terrorists category Goldstein should be in it because:

  1. He fits the Wikipedian category criteria.
  2. The Israeli government demolished a shrine at Goldstein's tomb under a law forbidding the erection of monuments to terrorists, his own government therefore consider him to be one.

Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this issue is to get an administrator to remove the terrorists category? Conch Shell 11:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself; it is plainly clear according to Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism that we are to avoid labeling individuals or groups as terrorists. The presence of a terrorist category is irrelevant, as it could have been created by anybody and its presence does not dictate new policy. Regardless of who is violating Wikipedia policy elsewhere, we as editors of this article should not follow in suit. Two wrongs don't make a right. And yes, the category should be deleted, or else a LOT of other names need to be added. Aiden 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misrepresenting the policy. Wikipedia:Words to avoid lists arguments for and against describing people and groups as terrorist and does not clearly present a policy that we should not. The overall impression is that there is disagreement on the issue. Personally I think we should avoid using this label and that is how I have been arguing for a long time. However, this category exists and Goldstein obviously matches it. As I wrote before, put up the category for deletion and I will vote in agreement. --Zero 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by catstail

According to the Hamas article, organization's first use of suicide bombing occured on April 16, 1993 when a suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden van set off his explosives between two buses parked at a restaurant. This is before the Goldsteins actions.

The question is, can any information provided by catstail be trusted? Should we remove only what we know is not truth, or everything he added, to be sure?

Heptor talk 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Catstail has added a number of references that don't hyperlink to anything in the article. He might be adding them later - if he doesn't I suggest removing the indices because they cause confusion. Conch Shell 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing properly

Which of the four references have been examined by anyone here? The purpose of citation is to specify where you found the information so that someone else can follow the same trail as you took. It is necessary to say where those cites to Yediot etc are taken from. --Zero 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gravesite and commemoration -- Cleanup

Regarding my recent edits:

and Conch Shell's subsequent revert:

When I said I was doing "cleanup," I meant it. I neither added nor removed any text. All I did was fix the grammatical/spelling errors and put the sentences in a smoother order. There is absolutely no content in my revision that does not also exist in Conch Shell's revert, so it would seem Conch Shell finds the content to be NPOV. So, Conch Shell, would you please explain what POV you had in mind?

-- Nmagedman 18:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting the statements in a different order places a different emphasis on them, though this is a minor matter. Conch Shell 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Deaths following

The text "Rioting immediately followed the shooting, leading to the deaths of another 26 Palestinians and 9 Israelis." is too vague in that it does not specify an upper limit to the time period. I have taken an arbitrary cutoff of one week and found the following in the MEJ chronology (see references). P=Palestinian, S=settler, I=Israeli other than settler.

  • Feb 25: 3P in Hebron, 3P in Gaza Strip, 1P in Nablus, 1S in Bethlehem, 1I in Tel Aviv.
  • Feb 26: 6P in Hebron, 5P and 2S elsewhere in OT.
  • Feb 27: 3P in OT
  • Feb 28: 1P in Hebron, 1P in Nablus
  • Mar 1: 1S in WB killed by IDF who say that he fired on them
  • Mar 2: 2P in OT
  • Mar 3: (1P killed by other Palestinians for apparently unrelated reasons)

That makes one week. In case you think I should have included Mar 4, the data there is 4P in OT. --Zero 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Massacre

'Massacre' is an acceptable and frequently used Wikipedia term. A search for this word returned 8691 entries including Peterloo Massacre, Indian massacres, Tlatelolco massacre, Nanking Massacre, Malmedy massacre, Montreal Massacre, Qibya massacre, Osaka massacre, Dili massacre, Ma'alot massacre, Tadjena massacre, Acteal massacre, Srebrenica massacre, Massacre at Hue, Gwangju massacre, Rais massacre, Beni-Messous massacre, Tenes massacre, Aramoana massacre, Bentalha massacre and the Munich massacre.

The essence of "massacre" as opposed to "killing" is that it refers to killing a lot of defenceless people all at once. The fact that a lot of people were killed at once is disputed by nobody. The fact that they were defenceless was established by the Israeli commission (the best the victims could manage for a weapon was a fire-extinguisher) and not even the apologist Simmons claims that the Arabs were armed. So it was a massacre. Even if, against all evidence and simple logic, Goldstein thought he was saving a lot of people by his actions, it was still a massacre. We do not need to pander to the needs of a few fanatics. --Zerotalk 10:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume that I am the "apologist Simmons" referred to by Zero. Zero has obviously not studied my book on the subject. Otherwise he would have not made such a statement about the Arabs who were then in the Cave of Machpelah having no weapons. In my book, I gave details together with sources that showed that weapons were found by the Israeli soldiers after Dr. Baruch Goldstein's act, in the Hall of the Cave of Machpelah where the Arabs had been. These weapons were shown NOT to be those of Baruch Goldstein, the soldiers then on duty in the Cave of Machpelah or the Jewish worshippers who were present. (The Arabs certainly illegally possessed weapons at that period, since they had used them to kill no fewer than three Jews and injure many others in the Hebron area.) In addition there had been intelligence reports that the Arabs would try and smuggle weapons into the Cave of Machpelah in the days preceding Purim. [Sources: Shamgar Commission: Report p. 28, 46, 59-60, 223; Minutes pp. 518-19; Exhibits 868, 1137 (1), 1137 (52), Reports from Logs] Simonschaim 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that a lot of people were killed is undisputed, how is calling the killings "killings" a fringe view? Why use a POV word when we have a neutral word, Zero? —Aiden 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"Massacre" is not a pov word, it is a neutral word that describes the event objectively. Calling it "killings" is losing key information, like calling something an animal when you know it's a horse. --Zerotalk 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose it's ok to use "Massacre" in this context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929

When describing the Arab killing of jews (67 to be exact) and refering to Arabs as murderers and using words like "atrocities"? But, the Cave of Patriarchs "shooting" was labled a ...um oh yeah it was removed.

There is a pattern of word mincing on Wikipedia in regards to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Here's a few examples:

Khanaey Chai is mentioned as "far-right" political party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahane_Chai later in the article it DOES state that the Israeli government itself declared them a terrorist group (The U.S. DOJ does as well by the way) but not in the first opening line. That information is burried further down the page. Not to mention their history and great pride in the Irgun group which carried out the King David Hotel "Bombing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing among other "attacks" on British and Arab targets.

Hamas, however, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas are described as "best known around the world for carrying out suicide bombings". "Best Known"? The author is detaching himself from the responsibility of this being called a POV by putting that responsibility on someone else "the world". Is that based on a survey?

-Cyclo-

Citation policy

Some of the citations on this page violate the citation policy. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say where you got it. The Simons pamphlet has to be cited as the source of some of these items. --Zerotalk 00:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre

Was there ever an article by this name or should that redirect here? Also, should the "Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1990s" be added to the article since Goldstein appears on List of terrorist incidents? Thanks. --Tom 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that this incident is listed under Mosque of Abraham massacre. Still, how would you make it so the above title redirects to that article? I guess the best way to learn is to do so I will try. --Tom 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I took care of it. You can find the article at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and redirected from Mosque of Abraham massacre. —Aiden 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Aiden. Guess I'll learn how to do that later :) I sort of left that on the back burner. The "new" title does seem more appropriate doesn't it? I am NO expert though, thats for sure. --Tom 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think so, the entire complext is known as the Cave of the Patriarchs, with the Mosque comprising only a section. —Aiden 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Category...again

It's funny (not really) how this was discussed 4 months ago and here it is again. First off, I hate these lists because they are subjective. I see this also listed in the List of massacres. Man, what to do, what to do..... --Tom 16:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that category doesn't belong. Sorry. --Tom 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs? An opinion piece

During the last few days I have on several occasions put the following contribution on this Talk page. Each time it has immediately been deleted by Gidonb. After each deletion Aiden has been very critical of this deleting by Gidonb. I am therefore now putting before the users of Wikipedia my contribution together with messages between myself, Gidonb and Aiden. I ask the users to decide whether my contribution should or should not be on this Talk page. Thank you.

MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE TALK PAGE

Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs?

As a person who has over the course of a number of years made a very detailed study of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's act in the Cave of Machpelah on Purim (25 February) 1994 and has subsequently written a fully documented book on the subject entitled "Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs?" I feel that I can speak on this subject with some authority.

It is a most fundamental tenet of justice that a person is innocent until proved guilty and such guilt can only be established in an Court of Law. Not only has Dr. Goldstein never been found guilty of perpetrating any massacre, no opportunity has ever been given for anybody to put forward a defence for his act that Purim. Yet despite all this, he is continually being labelled a "terrorist", a "mass murderer" and so on. The only "trial" he has had, has been by the media and the politicians who have their own agenda.

It is true that a Commission of Inquiry (the Shamgar Commission) was set up by the Israeli Government immediately after that Purim. However the way it conducted its activities has much to be desired. Although the Israeli law on "Commissions of Inquiry" clearly states that should a situation arise where the name and honour of a deceased person could be harmed by the results of such an Inquiry, then the relatives of such a person have to be informed and given the opportunity to put forward a defence, including the right to cross examine witnesses. Despite this law, the members of Dr. Goldstein's family were NEVER given such an opportunity.

It also goes without say that judges or members of a Commission of Inquiry may not decide on the guilt of a person until they have heard all the evidence. Yet, in this Commission of Inquiry, the majority of its members were already calling Dr. Baruch Goldstein a "murderer" before they had heard all the evidence. One of its members, Judge Abed el-Rahman Zouabi, who is a professional judge of the State of Israel, used this term from the FIRST DAY of the hearings and in the course of the hearings used it no fewer than 17 times in just the open sessions.

I dedicated my book to "Truth and Justice. In the interests of truth and justice, a Commission of Inquiry should be established - the composition of which to be acceptable both to the Israeli authorities and to the Goldstein family - whose sole function would be to determine whether the killings by Dr. Baruch Goldstein should be classed as a massacre of Arabs or a pre-emptive strike to prevent a massacre of Jews."

I should mention that this is not an empty statement, since there is much evidence that Dr. Baruch Goldstein did a pre-emptive strike to prevent a planned massacre of Jews that Purim morning in the Cave of Machpelah.

Many of the questions raised in the above "Talk" have been answered and fully documented in my book. I therefore suggest that you read this book which appears in its entirety on the Internet.

I will be very happy to hear comments from readers after they have studied the book.

MESSAGES BETWEEN MYSELF AND GIDONB

Dear Gidonb Please let me know why you deleted my contribution to the "Talk: Baruch Goldstein"? Is it any less relevant than the other contributions which appear on this talk page? Simonschaim 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Simonschaim, the reason I trimmed the text was in the edit summary. Sorry, I cannot promise there was not one single contribution that was less relevant to the edit process than your contribution (which I may have overlooked). That said, your contribution was definitely between the less relevant ones to the content of the page. Please follow the Wikipedia policies while you are here. If you would like to promote your personal opinions then you will be better off at a web-forum. Enjoy Wikipedia, I will insert a welcoming message if it hasn't been done yet. The links in such a message are helpful for the editing process. Regards, gidonb 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gidonb: I was rather dismayed to read your "reasons" for deleting my contribution to the talkpage on Baruch Goldstein. These you stated to be that they were my "personal opinion" and that they were irrelevant to the article on Baruch Goldstein. However reading through one of your contributions to this very same talkpage you wrote "Goldstein was a terrorist". Since no Court of Law has found him guilty of being a terrorist, this is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION! In addition, if it is RELEVANT for you to make such a comment on the talkpage, it is NO LESS relevant for me to bring the counter view. You also mention "Wikipedia policies". If you would study the "Key Policies of Wikipedia" you would see that one of them is "Respect other Contributors". However despite this you totally removed my contribution and when "Aiden" accused you of "censoring talk pages" you classed this as an "unpleasant accusation". I consider my contribution to this talkpage no less relevant than your contributions and I am therefore restoring it. Simonschaim 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My contribution specifically discussed the categorization of the article, while there was disagreement about it on the main page. Your contribution did not relate to the edit process. Therefor it was removed. This has nothing to do with respect. I respect all contributors. However, if we are not tough sometimes on the information dumped at talk pages, they become one big mess. gidonb 10:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


MESSAGES BETWEEN GIDONB AND AIDEN

Did you not delete another user's comments? If that isn't censoring I don't know what is. —Aiden 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying that I censor talk pages is a very unpleasant accusation that does not improve the pleasure of contributing to this community project. I did explain in the edit summary why I removed the text. Also, you referred to Wikipedia policies, can you show me just one policy that states that anything that is dumped by anons at talk pages, even if unrelated to the edit proces, should remain there? gidonb 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

gidonb, article Talk pages exists so that users can offer their views on the article and the article's subject. Policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOT apply to articles not Talk pages. It is not up to another editor to decide what should be censored and what should remain on a Talk page. It is very impolite to remove another user's comments from a Talk page, save for vandalism. Please refrain from doing so. —Aiden 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Many editors do this all the time. The talk pages are meant for discussing the editorial process and not meant for dumping/promoting personal opinions and websites. Per WP:NOT no part of Wikipedia is, although on personal talk pages this is usually allowed. Without bold editors all article's talk pages would eventually clog. Please refrain from making unfriendly allegations. Remember, I challenged you to provide one policy that underwrites that any text unrelated to the editorial process on talk pages should be kept there. So far you have not delivered. You only made new accusations. gidonb 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Simonschaim 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, have no problem keeping the post above. Just like its important to have the 911 conspiracy folks, neo-nazis, and every other group express their opinion on what should or should not be included in an article and what sources are relevant. I have been in debate with another user who says ALL of Wikipedia should be NPOV, while I say that talk pages are the EXACT place where ALL aspects of the article should be discussed and by that very nature, POV/opinion is going to come out. SO WHAT?? I don't support personal attacks, spam, AGENDAS or hmmmm, what else?? Anyways, you think Goldstein wasn't a massacrer/terrorist since he was stopping a planned attack or he did a pre-emptive strike or whatever, very good. Make your points, provide reliable sources, don't do original research, keep it civil, gain consensus and carry on. Thanks! --Tom 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tom for your comments Simonschaim 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Over a week has now gone by since I contributed the above Talk. The only observation has been POSITIVE. There have been no NEGATIVE comments. I therefore consider it perfectly acceptable to reinstate my contribution exactly in the format that it originally was in.Simonschaim 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Were you referring to my comments as positive?? After reflecting some more, this project is TRYING to be an encyclopedia of sorts. Way too many "hot" topics, ie Bush, 911, Arab vs Jew, ect, ect have turned into POV/soapbox central. I am VERY against censorship. But SOME type of moderation/mediation is important. IMveryHO, ANY defense of Goldstein's actions are VERY radical in view and DO NOT warrant the amount of talk page discussion that has gone on in here lately. The best example is the WTC Towers and how that talk page is trashed. I won't even go there. Again, what I was saying above in my first comment was that hearing from "radicals"(sorry but thats my opinion) helps show us the dangers that lurk out there. --Tom 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Simonschaim, this is totally getting out of hand. The text was allowed on the talk page, you received a reaction to your pov and now you insert a duplicate of the text? Isn't enough ever enough? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, a soapbox, a free host, a blog, or an indiscriminate collection of information gidonb 14:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom: The right to present a defense by (or on behalf of) ANY person being accused of perpetrating a crime is fundamental. I am sure that you will not find a single Judge in a democratic country describing this as radical (let alone VERY radical).Simonschaim

Dear Gidonb: Had you not from the outset kept on deleting my original item, the question of duplication would never have arisen. The best solution would have been for me to have yesterday deleted this particular talk item (i.e. "Should or should not ....") and replaced it with my original item. However this would have involved deleting comments of other users and this I am strongly opposed to. Simonschaim

Your opinion piece really does not belong here. All the comments except for one are copied from various talk pages into this page. All this is against our policies and simply not done. Your abuse of Wikipedia led to more abuse by you and may very well lead to abuse by others, since it is a precedent. Your misinterpretation of Tom's polite answer and Aiden's procedural disagreement for ideological support and your duplicate insertion of the text, prove to me that we should have been bolder in applying our relevant policies, not weaker. Please take your political debates elsewehere. We are not a forum, we do not want to become a forum and come to think of it, we are pretty bad at it too. There are plenty of sites that are designed for this function. gidonb 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V

I am going to remove some material, in the next days, from this article because I feel that it CLEARLY violates the above 3 Wiki policies. A link to a geocites web site is very questionable. The aurguement put forward by Simonschaim is just that, an aurguement/opinion/original research. This ENTIRE article is in need of serious sourcing from the ground up. I urge fellow editors to re-read the 3 above policy guidelines and trim this article of ANY material that doesn't meet this HIGH standard that is critical to keeping this project at the level I hope we all strive for it to be at. I look forward to your comments. --Tom 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Thanks

Hi Tom, I helped you a bit on the way. It is only a beginning. For just removing totally unrelated stuff from the talk page I was falsely accused in edit summaries and on talk pages of vandalism. And what did we get as a result? Two copies of the opinion piece and a moderating discussion leader. I will see what happens now and follow your changes. Good luck! gidonb 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the geocities site poses a WP:RS problem. The website is by nature unreliable, but in this case it's merely an online version of a copyrighted book that Rabbi Simons wrote. The article appropriately presents this information as "a book by Kiryat Arba resident Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons," not as objective fact. It is an effective representation of the pro-Goldstein view. On a side note, "Chaim Simons" is a fairly notable person, according to Google. --DLandTALK 17:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
DLand, You admitt that geocites is unreliable so I am going to delete links to it. I am still trying to find out about Simons book. Who is the publisher and what is it ISBN#?? I am sure that there are books denying the Holocaust, that doesn't mean we quote them or give them much credit in here. I am not sure if even one sentence is deserving for speculation about defending Goldstein's actions. The article says he never gave a reason for his actions. This still seems to be WP:NOR and should NOT be added until it is well documented.--Tom 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The book is catalogued in the Jewish National and University Library (of Hebrew University) the most comprehensive and prestigious library in Israel. A link to the book's record page can be found here.
As for the analogy to denying the Holocaust (which, as a side note, is an inappropriate one to make) we do, in fact, quote books like that. See for yourself in the article on Holocaust denial. The point is that as much as you disagree with something and consider it ridiculous, our job is to present both sides, no matter what. In this case, what is being presented is a claim made by supporters of Goldstein's actions. As speculative as it may seem, it is the view of a significant contingency of people that is being discussed in this article.--DLandTALK 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Why inappropriate?? OK, how about the 911 conspiracy kooks?? That better? Material from geocities is trash at best. I have tried to be polite about this, but it's time to raise the bar here. When can do ALOT better, can't we? We DON'T present "both sides", we compile verifiable, sourced NON ORGINAL RESEARCHED FACTS. One fringe book doesn't cut it. There are TONS of sites to put forth your theories about why Goldstein did what he did. This ain't it. --Tom 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content does not belong here

I think we should really consider what of the "response" belongs here and what belongs to the massacre article. Much of the response may have been to the messacre, not to the person, and therefor the long or complete form of the reaction could also belong to the other article. gidonb 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No one responded one way or the other, so I have moved all the response material to the massacre article, where it is imho more relevant. I hope the results are to everyone's liking. Best, gidonb 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Murdered vs killed??

I know I read somewhere on Wiki policy which term should be used and when. The header says killed vs murdered. Fine. So why should the term murdered be used later in the article when talking about Goldstein's death? They were both murders right? Thanks...

We should stick to 'killed' in both instances. Nobody here knows for certain what happened. —Aiden 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. At Talk:The Holocaust there is a lengthy discussion going on currently on the topic. Not surprisingly, people are much more open to the use of the term "murder" over there. --DLandTALK 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldstein was killed, because it was an act of self defense of the attacked arabs.

Goldstein's widow

Just removed was a claim that she had said that Goldstein made a "preemptive strike". Ian Lustick, however, quotes her:

"Don't let anyone say he was a psychopath," she said. "He planned to do this in order to stop the peace talks. He did this for the sake of the people of Israel." [2]
I removed a claim that said he did what he did to prevent a planned mass murder of Jews by Arabs...--Tom 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Why no discussion of his mental state/problems - shooting unarmed civilians ( either side ) must be slightly abnormal.

Baruch Goldstein photo

Hi, why isn't there a photo of this guy in this article? doing a search in google images shows there used to be one in wikipedia but has been removed. why? does that break some policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yas121 (talkcontribs)

Yes, it was a copyright violation. If you can find a free image, please add one. --DLandTALK 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
OK will do. By the way is there any particular reason why you deleted my addition to the massacre section? all I did was provide a little more detail of the massacre from an eye-witness account. --Yas121
I removed the part you added not because the quote was inaccurate, but because it is not directly relevant to a factual description of what happened. It's an unnecessary embellishment. --DLandTALK 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but that sounds rather naive. It is most certainly relevant, like any other incident, eye-witness accounts in the absence of cameras and photographic evidence are always used/cited and necessary. See any disaster in wikipedia or in the News. How can it be an embellishment? --Yas121

Hey

Is it legal to piss on his grave? 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Arab"

I don't think it's that POV to say that he was an anti-Arab. I'd like to point out two paragraphs from "The Real Significance of Baruch Goldstein" by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky:

Amir Oren, who subsequently became the military correspondent of Haaretz, provided the most complete story of Goldstein's relations with the Israeli army and the entire Israeli political establishment in his March 4 Davar article. According to Oren, after the 1984 elections and the subsequent formation of the national unity government, then Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and then Chief of Staff General Moshe Levy learned about Goldstein's refusal to treat non-Jews in Lebanon. Oren wrote:

When Goldstein's refusal to treat non-Jewish patients became evident to his commanders, both the artillery corps and medical corps commanders quite naturally wanted to court-martial him and thus get rid of him. They took it for granted that this could be easily done, because Goldstein had graduated only from the army's course for medical officers. [Goldstein did not have combat officer training, which is normally a prerequisite for admission to the course for medical officers.] The two corps [commanders] also knew that Goldstein, while attending the army's course for medical officers, had become notorious as an anti-Arab extremist.

Khoikhoi 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Arab people seems to be about to be deleted. If so, this article should remain in its supercategory Category:Anti-Arabism. —Ashley Y 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So I am going to go ahead and include him in Category:Anti-Arabism or Category:Anti-Arab people. Any objections? Yas121 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, with ANY list/category you have to provide SOURCES. Just because you believe him to belong in that category based on his actions doesn't work. Just as people want to include Mel Gibson in the category of Anti-Semtic people based on his comments, that doesn't work. Goldstein never gave anybody ANY reason for what he did. There has been LOTS of speculation and THERORIES put forward for what he did (see above) but nothing concrete, imho. Again, provide reliable SOURCES that label him as Anti-Arab. Thanks....--Tom 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi just gave one, above. In addition, since Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is listed as a terrorist incident, perhaps he should also be in Category:Terrorists. —Ashley Y 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this, see my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#People by group-hating. —Ashley Y 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Tom, yes of course I agree. See above example. Yas121 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Added image

I added an image I found at the BBC web site. It can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm

I think it's a good idea to have an image. I'm new to Wikipedia, but maybe somebody could help me make sure I do this right, because I think the image is a great addition to this article. I8pgump 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God are you people serious???!!??

I can't believe you have addedd this mass murderer to Category:Israeli murder victims|Goldstein, Baruch!!! Yes what a poor victim he was and you have removed him from category Hate Crimes and Anti-Arab!!! because you know he must be protected!!! You can not be serious!!! Yas121 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool down. Remove the category. —Aiden 14:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, settle down. Lets not attack. Lets not defend. Lets provide reliable sources :) --Tom 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Why isn't this guy in a footnote - if that. I hope every nut in the Middle East - Jew or Arab - doesn't gets a wiki article.

Answer

"After being subdued with a fire extinguisher, Goldstein was beaten to death by Muslim worshippers, notably after his rifle had been taken from him. [3] Because of this, his official death certificate issued by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior lists the cause of his death as murder. [4]

Rioting immediately followed the shooting, leading in the following week to the deaths of another 25 Palestinians, four Jewish settlers (one shot by Israeli forces), and one Israeli in Tel Aviv. [5]

Although the Israeli authorities know (via an Arab collaborator who was present that morning) the names of the Arabs who killed Goldstein, they were never brought to trial. [6]"


It is clear from the text that he was murdered by definition (The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.) - this is a fact. However victim is a POV, the solution is to rename this category to "Murdered people" to avoid POV (in all articles, not just in this one). This category is here to stay. --Haham hanuka 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to see his death certificate besides going to Israel? Are there ANY other sources that state he was murdered? Thanks --Tom 12:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
ps...the intro of the article says the Dr. "killed" rather than "murdered". Isn't that due to some Wiki policy, it has been brought up before but I forget. Anyways.....--Tom 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We do not have "Killed people" category. But we have "Murdered people" and "Murderers" categories. --Haham hanuka 10:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please prrovide SOURCES that Goldstein is a murder victim, rather than saying it is clear from the text or that a death certificate listed the cause of death as murder. Per WP:CITE, provide some reliable sources calling him a murder victim. Thanks...same goes so the mass murderer tag it seems...--Tom 18:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Goldstein was beaten to death after his rifle had been taken. This is a fact. I've already bing my sources for this fact. --Haham hanuka 16:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing he was beaten to death, I am questioning the term "murder victim". Can we/you provide sources that call him a "murder victim"? Some might say, I am not one of them, that was killed in self defense. Others will say, no, he was unarmed and had his head bashed in with a fire estinguisher(sp), others will say...it doesn't matter what anybody says. What matters is what do reliable sources CALL/LIST him as. This, imho, is the problem with many of the categories and lists on Wiki. People will say well he/she said this or he/she did that so OBVISOUSLY he/she belongs in that category or list...No, that is original research...just provide sources LISTING/CALLING him/her whatever and so be it....anyways..--Tom 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course he can't. As far as we know he was beaten when eh posed to change the magazine. Even if in retrospective it was possible to act otherwise, I don't think they could know this at the time. And anyway, it wasn't premeditated killing. It wasn't even as if he entered the place, and out of the blue they jumped on him and killed him. IT was after he shot to death more than 20 people.
So it is ridiculous to put this category of "murder victim" on him, and even more ridiculous to remove the most lethal Israeli mass murderer from the Israeli mass murderer category! eman 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on my own understanding of the terms, it would be reasonably justifiable to call Goldstein a "mass murderer" and much more difficult to justify calling him a "murder victim." But the description of Category:Israeli mass murderers describes the category as those "convicted of mass murder as Israeli citizens or permanent residents, by an independent court of justice. If they died while committing the act or shortly thereafter, a conclusion that they committed murder by the official inquiry (commission) of the relevant sovereign country will suffice for inclusion in this category." If the Shamgar Commission came to such a judgment, then that category would be completely justified; if not, it wouldn't. On the other hand, there seems to be no definition of what is included in the "murder victim" category, regardless of the circumstances. Alansohn 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If Barukh Goldstein is removed from the Category:Israeli mass murderers because he wasn't brought to justice, should Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold be removed from Category:American mass murderers for the same reason? I think it is an absurd on both cases. eman 11:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he was a mass murderer, by any reasonable definition of the term. Despite your Columbine example, the Category:American mass murderers doen't specify inclusion criteria. The Category:Israeli mass murderers specifies that a determination must be based on an "official inquiry". Again, if the Shamgar Commission came to such a judgment, then by the definition of that category he would be a mass murderer. As to the suggestion that the immediate survivors of the mass murder were guilty of "murder" themselves based on their actions in trying to stop Goldstein from reloading his rifle and committing further murders seems entirely unreasonable. If anything, a claim of "murder" in this case seems even less justifiable than a case where passengers killed a fellow passenger who had tried to storm the cockpit of a Southwest Airlines flight in 2000, a year before September 11th, with no charges files against the passengers who had done the subduing (see [3] for details on this incident). My Conclusion - Mass Murderer, yes, if source is provided; Murder Victim, absolutely not. Alansohn 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
From the excertps of the Shamgar report[4]:
Dr. Baruch Goldstein bears direct responsibility for the massacre because the evidence unequivocally indicates that he carried it out. Furthermore, all stages of the event, including his preparations and behavior on the morning of February 25, 1994, as well as both general, and specifically ideological conversations which he conducted with others, such as the arguments with Mr. Meir Lapid (exhibit 1088), and an interview with a foreign correspondent early in February 1994 (exhibit 1092), indicate that his actions were premeditated.
BTW, why is there a policy difference between the two categories?
eman 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
His lynchers wasn't brought to justice also. It is clear from the text that he was killed as a revenge and it has nothing to do with self-defence. --Haham hanuka 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
a. The text should be corrected. it seems to be highjacked by suporter of the murderer.
b. Please tell me, how do you know that he wan't killed by the initial fire extinguisher blow? Was there an autopsy? And how long was it after his rifle had been taken from him, that he died?
eman 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
a. Yes and Yes
b. Since when did supporters of such dispicable acts require/need/have such proof?
Yas121 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy violations

This article severe violates Wikipedia policy on permissible sources and citing of sources. Unpublished archival material like court records and birth certificates is not acceptable as a source, see WP:V and Wikipedia:Archives as sources. Of course what is really going on here is that these "citations" are being copied from a source that has been removed from mention. That is also a violation, see WP:CITE. --Zerotalk 12:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New York connection

Just read this article... And the Response section almost reads like a justification column! My specific point I wanted to bring up was the New York section under Response.. Reading through it and Brooklyn Bridge Shooting leads me to believe this section is a POV insert into this article to show how ugly the palestinians also are (na-na-na-nana). Perhaps I am missing something large, but I do not see any FACT related to a connection. The imam saying that Palestinians are suffering should come as no news to anyone and does not prove or show that the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting is a response to Baruch Goldstein or his actions. The source provided, [5], is pure speculation on this whole point. At best, I would like to see this whole section removed, at the least I would want to have added something like "It is theorized by The Middle East Forum - Promoting American Interests that (Brooklyn Bridge - Baruch Goldstein connection story)". Of course I am bringing it up here for fun and lively debate :) Mceder 12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist

Noticing this edit war - Threeafterthree is indeed quite right that Goldstein can not be labelled a terrorist on Wikipedia until a reputable source is provided that calls him a terrorist, regardless how much Wikipedia editors wish to call him that. Please do not respond to this post with a long discussion. I do not care about your opinion on the subject, it is completely irrelevant to the article. A response should involve citing a reliable source says Goldstein was a terrorist. Mad Jack 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if a source is provided, it will only support the point-of-view of the source. According to WP:NPOV, we are not to advocate one point of view over another. Labelling someone as a terrorist via a Wikipedia category is in effect creating a list of people Wikipedia considers terrorists. This is a clear violation of that policy. —Aiden 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot "consider" anyone "anything", because Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, nor are we a first-hand source. We can't just say "Oh, these are the people we have decided are terrorists, transexuals, Catholics, etc." because we don't have the power to make that call. What is needed, I guess, are reliable sources that indicate that Goldstein is widely considered a terrorist, which you may well be able to find. Mad Jack 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think he could go in either, but per Category:Mass murderers, he cannot be in both. I'd support either one. -- Avi 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable physician or what?

For the lead, I proposed something to the quality of

Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli mass murderer who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank.

Several people keep reverting the lead to

Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli physician who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank.

This guy is *not* being remembered for exceptional achievements as a physician. Virtually every other mass murderer (31 or so out of 34 in the American mm cat) has this type of lead. Why do you do this? I sincerely hope no one is trying to make a statement here, or even attempting to protect that monster. Kosmopolis (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that virtually every other mass murderer has this lead. In fact, the converse is probably true. Timothy mcVeigh does not have such a lead. Kozo Okamoto does not have such a lead. Lee Boyd Malvo does not have such a lead. Terry Nichols does not have such a lead. Dalal Mughrabi does not have such a lead (this mass murderer has a lead that says "was lionized by Palestinian nationalists."!!). Let's keep this POV label out of the lead. Isarig 15:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, you want to keep "a POV label" out of the lead, but instead introduce the most laden word in existence to describe the subject: Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli settler [...]. This is not a good edit. Here are some statistics about mass-murderers on Wikipedia and their lead sentence. The people you are reffering to are either convicted and/or living (McVeigh, Nichols, Malvo) or were connected to a militia (Okamoto), so the comparison to Goldstein does not make sense at all. The Mughrabi lionizing lead is ridiculous, btw. Kosmopolis (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

32 x "Was a (mass-)murderer, killer, perpetrator, suicide bomber, stabbed, murdered" etc.

  • Abdullah Badran was a Palestinian suicide bomber
  • Benjamin Nathaniel Smith was a spree killer who targeted members of racial and ethnic minorities [...]
  • Douglas John Edwin Crabbe is an Australian murderer
  • Eric David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold, both high school seniors, were the perpetrators of [...]
  • Eric Stanley Graham was a mass murderer in New Zealand who killed seven people.
  • George Hennard was a mass murderer who claimed twenty-four victims at a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, USA [...]
  • Harry Maurice Roberts is one of the UK's most notorious murderers and longest-serving prison inmates.
  • Hastings Arthur Wise was a convicted murderer who was executed in the U.S. state of South Carolina [...]
  • James Dunham was a multiple murderer who, on the night of May 26, 1896, killed his wife, her family [...]
  • James Edward Pough was an American mass murderer.
  • Jean-Claude Romand is a French impostor and murderer who pretended to be a medical doctor.
  • Jeremy Bamber is one of the UK's most notorious mass murderers
  • John "Jack" Gilbert Graham was a mass murderer who killed 44 people by planting a dynamite bomb [...]
  • John Allen Muhammad is an American spree killer.
  • John Filip Nordlund was a Swedish mass murderer from Gävle
  • John Wayne Glover was a serial killer
  • Julian Knight is the mass murderer who on August 9, 1987, shot dead 9 people and injured 17 [...]
  • Kenneth Junior French is a mass murderer who, on August 6, 1993, killed four people in a Fayetteville
  • Larry Gene Ashbrook was the spree killer who, in 1999, murdered 7 people at a concert at Wedgwood Baptist Church [...]
  • Mamoru Takuma stabbed 8 first- and second-grade students to death
  • Marc Lépine was a spree killer from Quebec, Canada
  • Mark James Robert Essex killed 10 people and wounded 13 others in the United States on January 7, 1973.
  • Mark Orrin Barton was a spree killer from Stockbridge, Georgia, who, on July 29, 1999, shot and killed nine people [...]
  • Martin Bryant murdered 35 people and injured 37 others in the Port Arthur Massacre
  • Mattias Flink is a Swedish mass murderer who killed 7 people on June 10, 1994.
  • Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri killed six students and two staff members
  • Richard Franklin Speck was a mass murderer who systematically killed eight student nurses [...]
  • Ronald Joseph DeFeo Junior is an American murderer.
  • Susan Eubanks was a mass murderer in San Marcos, California, who murdered her four sons in 1997.
  • Thomas Watt Hamilton was a Scottish mass murderer at Dunblane
  • Tore Hedin was a Swedish mass murderer and police officer,
  • Wade Frankum was a 33 year old mass murderer who killed seven people

7 x Convicted murderers, living murderers

  • Lee Boyd Malvo, along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October 24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks.
  • Kevin Cooper is a deathrow inmate in California's San Quentin Prison.
  • Colin Ferguson was convicted of murdering six people and injuring nineteen others [...]
  • Timothy James McVeigh was an American convicted of eleven federal offenses and ultimately executed as a result [...] of his role in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
  • Marcus Wesson is an American man convicted of nine counts of first-degree murder and 14 sex crimes, including the rape and molestation of his underage daughters.
  • Jay Wesley Neill was a convicted murderer who was executed for his part in [...]
  • Terry Nichols was convicted of being an accomplice of Timothy McVeigh, the man convicted of murder in the bombing [...]

7 x Murders that are connected to a profession or group

  • Richard Wade Farley is a former employee of Electromagnetic Systems Labs (ESL) in California.
  • Byran Koji Uyesugi was a former Xerox service technician in Honolulu, Hawaii who was convicted of killing seven [...]
  • Harold Frederick Shipman was a British general practitioner who was the most prolific known serial killer in the history of Britain
  • Robert Steinhäuser was the 19 year old expelled student who opened fire at the Gutenberg-Gymnasium in Erfurt [...]
  • Valery Fabrikant, is a former associate professor of mechanical engineering at Concordia University. He was the gunman in the school massacre [...]
  • Edgar Ray Killen is an American former Ku Klux Klan organizer who conspired to kill several civil rights activists in 1964.
  • Jeffrey James Weise was a high school student of Red Lake, Minnesota responsible for the shooting deaths [...]
  • Kozo Okamoto was a member of the Japanese armed militant group, Japanese Red Army (JRA). [...]

4 x People known primarily for other things

  • Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been the President of Equatorial Guinea since 1979.
  • Dipendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal was King of Nepal from June 1 to June 4, 2001.
  • Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a militant group in Iraq.
  • Shoko Asahara is the founder of Japan's controversial Buddhist religious group Aum Shinrikyo [...]

3 x First the profession, then the mYurder

  • Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli physician who killed [...]
  • Asher Weisgan is an Israeli bus driver who shot and killed four Palestinians [...]
  • Sadamichi Hirasawa was a Japanese painter who was sentenced to death, convicted of mass cyanide poisoning. [...]


You seem to be forgetting some , notably the relevant ones :

Samir Kuntar ( Arabic: سمير القنطار‎, also transcribed Sameer, Kantar, Quntar, Qantar) (born July 20, 1962 in Aabey, Lebanon), is a Lebanese Druze who belonged to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), a pro-Iraqi organisation led by Abu Abbas.

Hanadi Tayseer Abdul Malek Jaradat (September 22, 1975 – October 4, 2003), a Palestinian woman from Jenin, blew herself up on Saturday, October 4, 2003 in an attack on Maxim's restaurant in the northern Israeli city of Haifa.

For some reason in wikipedia, the lead doesn't call the Palestinian bombers/shooters mass murderers. Amoruso 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Suicide bomber does not equal mass murderer. suicide bomber equals shooter. Amoruso 12:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Following your logic, I aligned the article lead to the Kuntar article. Kosmopolis (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)