Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre/Archive 1

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

If it's against the US or Jews, it's biased

English wiki, get used to it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


I have begun to de-POV this article, from head to toe, begining with the concisifying of the intro. I would L-O-V-E LOVE some help with this process, and anyone who wants to help is invited to post here, and we can get the ball rolling. My first step was to neutralise some of the language, in order to avoid minor linguistics-related confrontations. For example, I changed the word 'often' (in "...often called the Hebron Masacre") to 'also'- simply, yet elegantly, avoiding conjecture. I got rid of the extraneous details regarding space alotted to each religion, as this has no place in an introduction, and hardly any place in this particular article. I also put in the term 'mass-murder', which may sound inflamatory, but is used by the USA Bureau of Justice Statistics to define "...the murder of four or more victims at one location, within one event." I also created a seperate article for the mosque itself, where its religious importance (and architectural minutae) can be explored in a non-massacre context. I would also like to put forth a caveat: if someone sees fit to alter the changes I have made, without first giving an explaination on this talk page, I will consider getting this page lcoked to IP users at first, and eventually to all users if problems persist.--Ringmaster j 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Violent death of Goldstein

This section of the text strikes me as odd:

"He waited for the worshippers to bow towards Mecca before opening fire on them with a Galil assault rifle, murdering 29 Palestinians and injuring 125. After being subdued with metal poles and a fire extinguisher, Goldstein was beaten to death by survivors. Even after he could no longer threaten them, they continued beating him with shoes and sticks. His face was so mutilated that even Goldstein's brother had trouble identifying him. The pathologist who later examined him found a smashed-in skull, extensive brain damage, broken ribs and left arm."

If the violent killing of the culprit is graphically described, then why should not the article describe how 'round after round penetrated the praying congregation, then, having reloaded his assult rifle for the Xth time, the firing continued..' (or anything similair). The sentence "Even after he could no longer.." and following sentences should perhaps be removed and replaced by "...then G. was violently killed by survivor of his assault", or an equally graphic account of Goldstein's actions should be added. As stands now, that section of the article is close to POV and is perhaps irrelevant.

The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Point_of_view#Assuming_the_obvious:

"Something else that you need to watch out for are obvious facts which are not necessarily obvious to people from other areas. Examples include the level of support a political movement has or does not have, the names of the movements, demographic facts, geographic facts."

Any ideas? Scoo 14:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I'm removing it.--Doron 06:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This article only describes the facts in graphic detail. It is completely unbiased and non point of view. Any complaints of "bias" are simply a way for Jew or Israel haters to disguise their attempts to censur the TRUTH. All of the sources for this information are documented and 100 percent legitimate, so don't even think about messing with it. Just because it doesn't fit in with the far-left's politcal agenda doesn't mean it should be removed. "round after round penetrated the praying congregation, then, having reloaded his assult rifle for the Xth time, the firing continued" has been added to the article, as suggested. More detail is always good, even if it's violent and bloody. If you have any more detail about Goldstein's violent actions, please add them... but don't remove the facts simply because they don't fit the Palestinian politcal agenda. It is absolutely important to show the full story; the violence was not limited to the murderer Goldstein. Some of his victims were also burtally violent, with no regard for the sanctity of human life just like Goldstein. Killing him for self defense is necessary, but their response went well beyond that, and it's a documented fact. That is not to say the murderer and the victim are equally bad. No judgement is given in this article, it is left for the reader to decide after reading the facts. Feel free to add more details on Goldstein's violent actions. However, if the PLO's public relations department doesn't like the truth they can make another page on their version of the story... (unsigned by on 18 November)

The graphic unencyclopedic material added contributes nothing. The detailed description of Goldstein's death, compared to the brief description of his victim's death at his hands, is terribly unbalanced.--Doron 06:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with Doron. beaten to death say by itself that it was violent. You don't beat anyone to death gently. Scoo 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This is one of the most disgustingly biased pages I have ever seen in Wikipedia, and that is saying a lot. --Zero 05:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of the "information" in this article comes from the book "Did or did not Dr. Baruch Goldstein massacre 29 Arabs?" written by Rabbi Chaim Simmons of Kiryat Arba, a well-known far-right extremist. It shows. --Zero 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Though I can't answer this as I am not familiar with the events, is the statement in 'Aftermath' perhaps obsolete? (according to Cave_of_the_Patriarchs#Current situation IDF control the site.) Scoo 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually agree with Zero. This is a biased article ...What is so strange to me is that Zero clearly see th bias here but is unable to see it in nakba and other such articles. I guess if the conetnt of this article does (according to zero) show it was written by "far-right extremist" I wonder what can we learn about Zero from the articles he edit ?Zeq 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What specifically do you view as POV? Let us make a list and reach a consensus. Aiden 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Where to start? The whole article is little more than a summary of the article of Goldstein-apologist Simons. --Zero 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please explain exactly what you have an issue with. I see nothing but an account of events. Are you saying some are false? Please list what specific sections of the article you view as POV. Aiden 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
For example, the areas listed in the intro (to an impossible 6 decimal places!) are irrelevant to the story and are only present for polemic purposes. The "aftermath" section consists almost entirely of Arab-bashing. Many of the claimed citations to the Shamgar inquiry seem to be to evidence given to the inquiry and not to the findings of the inquiry, so we don't even know if the inquiry rejected the evidence. Can anyone quote the inquiry concluding that Goldstein was killed after being subdued rather than in the process of subduing him? Etc Etc. --Zero 10:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Aftermath" section does seem to be highly selective. It would be nice if it were better sourced as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will begin researching some additional sources and verifiable accounts of events to make the article more balanced in that respect. Aiden 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Dr Chaim Simons book is a perfectly valid, well researched and well documented source. One of the few I might add.

The points to be made should be made; that the Israeli Government does not hold all people to the same standard and did not address this event in a balanced way. The motive was not explored, many witnesses were not called and many of the people involved in the Commission were blatantly biased.

The evidence of a planned attack, by many of the people in that Mosque, that they were armed, that plans had been distributed in advance, should be taken into account, especially if it affects public perceptions. The Public has a Right to Know. The Public has a Need to Know.

Whether the Rabbi is “Right wing” or not is irrelevant. His book is accurate and valid and the facts are not changed. Abadon 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? Do you have a copy of the commission records so that you can check it? --Zero 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't had the time to read the whole discussion, though I too must add the the entire article seems a little biased: there is very little descripton of the massacre itself, and any mention of the aftermath has no mention of israeli supporters of Goldstein, and has too much focus on "angry arabs". --Nargos 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the section headings? Do you think there might be slightly less ...hmm... biased? words that could be used as section headings? "Carnage" is the kind of title you find in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

References Format

References and footnotes for this article were badly misorganized. I organized them based on the psuedo-footnotes already included, but was left with quite a few sources that aren't clearly referenced in the article. These include:

Minutes of the Shamgar Commission are in container 7648 gimmel at the Israel State Archives. Special thanks to Dr. Chaim Simons for his enormous effort, going through over 2000 pages of minutes of the open sessions.

  • [1] Minutes of Shamgar Commission pp. 518-19; Report of Shamgar Commission p. 28
  • [2] Minutes of Shamgar Commission p. 927
  • [3] "Hamas planned a Massacre of Jews in the Cave of Machpelah on Purim", Yom Layom, 10 April 1994, p. 1
  • [4] Minutes of Shamgar Commission p. 930; Submission by Carl Bishop, no. 23, Exhibit 1137, (Israel State Archive 7647/3-26/gimmel); Submission by Reuben Margules (via Menachem Gurman), no. 68, Exhibit 1137, (Israel State Archive 7647/3-28/gimmel); Submission by Joseph Gottlieb (via Naomi Hochstein), no. 108, Exhibit 1137, (Israel State Archive 7647/3-28/gimmel)
  • [5] Minutes of Shamgar Commission pp. 1653, 1712-13
  • [6] Witnesses: Freddie Kuskus, Operations Officer of Border Police Unit in Hebron, and Moshe Givati, former Brigade Commander in Hebron. (Minutes p. 892, Minutes p. 1599)
  • [7] Memorandum to High Commissioner of Palestine from Jewish Community of Hebron, reprinted in Davar, 8 September 1929, p. 2
  • [8] Minutes of Shamgar Commission p. 218
  • [9] Minutes of Shamgar Commission pp. 38, 219, 245, 431, 450, 550, 698, 891, 944
  • [10] Duplicated collated statements of local residents, op. cit.
  • [11] Minutes of Shamgar Commission pp. 203 gimmel, 561, 579; Evidence of Benny Binyamin to Israel Police, Cave of Machpelah, 3 March 1994, Exhibit 37, (ISA 7645/1-1/gimmel); see also Reports from Logs, op. cit.
  • [12] Report of Shamgar Commission p. 15; Timetable of Events, Exhibit 14, (ISA 7645/1-1/gimmel)
  • [13] Report of Shamgar Commission p. 1

If anyone can put these where they need to be please do so. Aiden 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, most of these should not be in the article at all. Nobody here has ever consulted them. They were just copied slavishly from the same article by Goldstein-supporter Simons. Since we link to that article, we do not need to link to the citations that that article claims in support. --Zero 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Dear gidonb

I notice that you have deleted material of another user which I restored with its full sources. This particular material was in this article in its entirety from 9 August 2005 to 20 December 2005, when it was then removed by a user on the grounds of it being "hearsay and garbage". I fail to see how fully documented material from the Shamgar Commission can be so classified!

You attempt to justify your "deletion" by describing this material as a "conspiracy theory". I would be grateful if you could please explain and justify your deletion. Thank you.

Simonschaim 19:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear gidonb

On 11 June 2006, I made a verbatim restoration of some deleted material together with authoritative references which showed that it was not "hearsay and garbage." However WITHIN HOURS you had completely deleted this material. I immediately asked you to explain and justify your deletion. OVER A WEEK has now gone by and you have made no response whatsoever. In addition, no other user has come out in support of this deletion of yours.

I therefore consider myself fully justified in restoring this material.

Simonschaim 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Simonschaim, sorry for my belated answer. The reason why I deleted the text was in the edit summary. To the best of my knowledge this is not the background to the massacre as the research committee concluded. It is your personal take on the massacre, illustrated with bits and pieces of information from testimonies brought before the committee, including by Jewish residents of Hebron and Qiryat Arba. These legitimate testimonies are recorded in the minutes of the committee. They do not carry special weight unless the committee concludes so. Including bits and pieces of information that fit into your conspiracy theory as the background to the massacre is blatant pov. I stand behind my own edit summary and summaries by others are not necessarily relevant to my edits. Only sometimes. I ask you again, please respect our policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR while editing here. At the webforums and your own website where you promote such theories you are free to write whatever you like. gidonb 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


As long as the information is valid and is indeed quoted within the commission, it should be a part of this article. If you believe that it is original research or that it miscontrues the events as described by the commission, please correct the page, but do not delete the information, only put it in context.

Guy Montag 02:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gidonb

You are basing your deletion solely on the fact that the material that I restored to the article "was not the background to the massacre as the research committee [Shamgar Commission] concluded."

Unfortunately, the way this Commission 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 [(Israel) Commissions of Inquiry Law 5729-1968 para.15 and amendment no.2 5739-1979 para.3] Despite this law, the members of Dr. Baruch 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. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes (Commission member Judge Zouabi) pp.100, 124, 188, 335, 436, 465, 574, 607, 789, 869, 1151, 1164, 1173, 1202, 1367, 1425, 1675; (Commission member Lieutenant General (res.) Moshe Levy) pp.370, 482, 719, 1679, 1715, 1782; (Commission member Professor Menachem Ya'ari) pp.1295, 1296]

A parallel to this would be a person being brought to trial for murder, not being allowed to present his defence, and, in addition, most (or indeed even one) of the judges calling him a "murderer" before hearing all the evidence. It goes without say that a Higher Court would immediately disqualify such a hearing by the Lower Court.

Thus in the act of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, we have to look at ALL the activities going on in Hebron at that period and then decide whether they are relevant to Baruch Goldstein's actions.

Here are the facts with their sources:

1) No fewer than NINE OFFICERS of the Israel defence establishment gave evidence under oath to the Shamgar Commission of an impending attack by Arabs against the Jews in Hebron at that period. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes pp.69-70, 83-84, 125, 136, 198-99, 242, 453, 926-27, 2010-11, 2052]

2) Ruthie Moshe gave evidence under oath in a court case that when she told a Hebron Arab worker (who at the time was working in her house), that she was going to be in the CAVE OF MACHPELAH on PURIM, he replied "Don't go to the Cave of Machpelah. Go to Kiryat Arba. It is safer." [Baruch Ha-Gever trial, Jerusalem Magistrates Court, 1997, Minutes p.57]

3) Three days before Purim, a meeting was called at a few hours' notice by Major General Shaul Mofaz, Commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, for the Mayor and Councillors of Kiryat Arba. At this meeting Mofaz informed them that a terrorist organisation was planning to execute a serious attack during the coming days. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 217 aleph p.6, 678]

4) The cry "Itbach al-Yahood" ("Slaughter the Jews") by a multitude of Arabs was heard on several occasions in the Cave of Machpelah in the days preceding Purim. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes pp.1653, 1712-13]

5) The Arabs had distributed a leaflet in Hebron saying that on Purim or the day after - the stress being on Purim - an Arab terrorist attack would take place in Hebron. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits, Reports from Logs of Operation Rooms of 2 separate Israeli Army units] The existence of this leaflet was also reported in the Shamgar Report. [Shamgar Commission: Report pp.79, 223]

6) At that period, the Arab residents of Hebron were notified by means of leaflets, loudspeakers and inscriptions on walls to stock up with food in anticipation of a long curfew which would follow a gigantic attack against the Jews of Hebron by the Hamas. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibit 680] This warning was also broadcast over the local Mosques' loud speaker system.[Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 1137(42)]

7) Warnings were given to the Israeli guards at the Cave of Machpelah that on the days immediately before Purim, the Arabs might try and smuggle explosives into that place.[Shamgar Commission: Report p.28; Minutes pp.518-19]

8) Almost all the 800 Arabs that Purim morning entered the Cave of Machpelah by the East Gate where they knew that the metal detector [which would detect smuggled weapons] was broken, although there was nothing to stop them from going through the Main Gate. [Shamgar Commission: Report p.15; Minutes pp.203 bet-gimmel]

9) Because of the unprecedented large number of Arabs, very few of the men and none of the women were searched. In fact the regulations forbade the searching of women, even by women soldiers. [Shamgar Commission: Report p.18; Minutes p.203 gimmel] On this the Shamgar Report stated: "No-one was authorised to waive the inspection of individuals entering the Cave [of Machpelah] especially at a time when a warning of a possible Hamas attack had been issued." [Shamgar Commission: Report p.229]

10) There were various reports of finding weapons in the Cave of Machpelah in the Hall where the Arabs had been.(A check showed that they did not belong to Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the soldiers or Jews then present in the Cave of Machpelah.)[Shamgar Commission: Report pp.46, 59-60, 223; Exhibits 1137(1), 1137(52)]

11) There is also other material but since it could be considered as hearsay, I won't bring it here.

In view of all the above, it would be an amazing coincidence for these facts to be unconnected with Dr. Baruch Goldstein's actions!

I should like to hear the opinions of other users on the above. Thank you.

Simonschaim 11:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of this was already answered in the above posting. You are free to personally disagree with the judicial commission that researched the massacre, but we have to apply Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. gidonb 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A week has now passed since I last wrote on this Talk page (19 June). Yet during this entire week no user has come out in support of Gidonb. On the contrary, it has been recommended that I put this factual material of mine of 19 June in the actual Article. I am therefore putting "Facts 1 to 9" together with their sources in the Article under the heading "Beforehand". If there can be an "Aftermath" there can be a "Beforehand".

Simonschaim 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Recommended by whom and where? All responses to this item above are mine. An extremely selective choice of materials supporting conspiracy does not work well with the Wikipedia policies cited above, however you turn it. Perhaps you misunderstood someone's polite answer again for support? gidonb 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the letter I received from Guy Montag: Baruch Goldstein Thank you for the wonderful letter. I suggest you add it to the page itself. I am not well versed on the Baruch Goldstein incident, but I did hear that a commission collaborated on the evidence given by Kach. I hope to visit Israel within the next year. Best Regards, Guy Montag 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "" The "wonderful letter" he refers to is a copy of the above letter which I sent you on 19 June.

If you consider my material to be "extremely selective" you are welcome to ADD yours and I undertake not to delete it. However I feel you have no right to delete (and other users use much stronger term for your "deletions" - and this is not only of my material but of numerous other contributors) material which you do not like.

Simonschaim 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your additions create a huge WP:POV bias to this article, in coordinance with the POV you have tried to push here and you promote elsewhere on Web. The collection of the infobits that you add to articles here is not only pov, but clear WP:OR, also if you have worked your way through all the minutes of the judicial commission to find only a few indications supporting the conspiracy theory that you try to push. Please read WP:NOT and my earlier comments, here and on Baruch Goldstein. gidonb 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with gidon. Simonschaim, it's not so much the information that doesn't work, it's the way it's presented. "No fewer than NINE OFFICERS..." That is clearly trying to prove a point and is unencyclopedic. If you'd like the information included, take what is pertinent and present it in a neutral point of view with proper citation, of course. For instance, do not say "No fewer tha NINE OFFICERS..." Say "According to testimony given before the Shamgar Comission, nine IDF officers claimed..." Wikipedia has a policy of X says Y about Z. Not to mention, your contribution really ruins the article style. Try to avoid numbered lists if possible, and make sure you follow the same reference citation format that is used in the rest of the article. —Aiden 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bus bombings in aftermath

I moved this to a seperate bullet point. Can someone tell me if the journal or the perpetrating organizations laid a connection with the massacre? gidonb 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: If no connection is established, I will remove the item. I consider either of the above sufficient. I am also willing to listen to other possible links. gidonb 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Material from the Shamgar Commission

Dear Tom

I was rather upset to see that you repeatedly delete my material in this Article. The courteous procedure is to write to me on this Talk page in an intellectual manner detailing your reasons why you think my material is inappropriate for this Article. We can then correspond together on it and see if we can come to a consensus. Instead, you are hiding behind such vague words as “theories”.

For that matter, much of the other material in this Article is “theories”. For example, it is only a theory that the things listed under “Aftermath” are related to this Purim act in the Cave. Had the Arabs before that Purim never attacked Jews in Hebron and only started immediately after that Purim, one could then reasonably say that this act was the cause of such attacks. But sadly this is not the case. Arabs have been killing Jews in Hebron for nearly a century - Remember 1929! In the months before that Purim, 3 Jews were shot dead in the Hebron area by Arabs and many other Jews wounded. This act on Purim certainly gave them a good excuse to CONTINUE with their attacks on Jews. And excuses they indeed do use! It was in September 2000 that Ariel Sharon went on to the Temple Mount. Arabs immediately made attacks on Jews blaming it on the provocation of Sharon. However investigations made afterwards showed that they had been planning such attacks well before Sharon’s visit and they just used this visit as an excuse.

According to your philosophy Tom, you should likewise be deleting most of the items appearing under “Aftermath”. Why have you not done so?

I shall now go through the material I put in this article, item by item.

      • “Alternatively, it has been alleged that Goldstein acted to pre-empt a massacre of Jews by Arabs planned for that morning in the Cave.” Just before this Goldstein is described in this very same Article as a “mass-murderer”. This is only a theory. No Court of Law has ever found him guilty of murder. Any “trial” he had has been by the media and the politicians! I grant that it is legitimate to quote this theory in this Article, PROVIDED that the theory that he did a pre-emptive strike to prevent a massacre of Jews by Arabs is ALSO mentioned (and there is much circumstantial evidence to support this theory). Just to say he was a mass-murderer is POV. However by ALSO mentioning the pre-emptive strike, the matter becomes NPOV.
      • “At 5 A.M. on the morning of the Purim holiday, 800 Palestinians passed through the East Gate, where the metal detector had been broken for some time.” [my addition is “where the metal detector had been broken for some time.”] As the Article originally was, the reader will not attach any particular importance to the fact that the Arabs entered by the East Gate. The Shamgar Commission did however see a significance in this. The Members visited the Cave and wrote an Official Minute on their visit. [Minutes pp.203 bet-gimmel] They pointed that the metal detector at this East Gate had been broken for several months (and so obviously the Arabs knew about this) and that ALMOST ALL the 800 Arabs passed through this East Gate, even though there was nothing to stop them from entering via the Main Gate.
      • “After his weapon had been taken away, Goldstein was beaten to death by the Moslem worshippers.” This is the wording in two places in the Report of the Shamgar Commission [Report p.15, 47-48] and is thus more accurate that the original wording in this Article.

In its Report, the Commission wrote "No-one was authorised to waive the inspection of individuals entering the Cave especially at a time when a warning of a possible Hamas attack had been issued." According to testimony given before the Commission, nine IDF officers claimed that they had received intelligence information of an impending attack by Arabs against the Jews in Hebron at that period. The Report also refers to warnings given to the IDF guards at the Cave that on the days immediately before Purim, that the Arabs might try and smuggle explosives into the Cave, and that a leaflet had been distributed by the Hamas in Hebron warning of such an attack.” [ I meticulously documented the sources for this material from the Shamgar Commission in the Reference section of this Article] A significant amount of time was spent by this Commission in studying what was occurring in Hebron immediately before that Purim. They did not consider it irrelevant to the subject and, even in their Report they made a number of references to the warning received before Purim of an Arab attack on the Jews of Hebron. The selective points from the Shamgar Report which had been mentioned in this Article made it a POV. I consider the point I made restores it to a NPOV.

Tom, Will you please give me FULL answers to ALL the points I made above. We can then discuss together whether my material should or should not be included in this Article.

With best wishes

Simonschaim 09:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simon, let me summarize the "Sham"gar commission report in its simplest terms...... We are not to blame. Stop. How could we know a Jew was going to kill Arabs when we were more concern about the Arab threat. Stop. There were a number of security breakdowns but they are explainable and will be fixed in the future. Stop. Arabs had plans to attack Jews. Stop. We are not to blame for this attack. Stop. Arabs had planned to kill Jews. Stop. Yadda yadda yadda. Stop......NO WHERE IN THE REPORT DOES IT SAY WHY GOLDSTEIN DID WHAT HE DID. NO WHERE DO THEY PROVIDE A THEORY FOR WHAT HE DID....NO WHERE DOES IT GIVE ANY SPECIFICS (ie where or when) OF THE PLANNED ATTACK BY ARABS ON JEWS.
My objection is to the use of words like "alleged". By whom?? I know that is your POV. The commission NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that. PERIOD. And to some how imply that is POV/original research.
If there is ANY material that you feel is NOT sourced, please REMOVE it.
The metal detectors weren't working, so what? If the Arabs had weapons, why didn't they open fire on Goldstein instead of smashing his skull in?? Why does any of this matter?? Why am I spending time responding to this or even trying to edit this article so it contains ONLY established facts??
I am going on vacation for three weeks on Saturday so please do what you will with this article.
I live in a TOTALLY different world and don't blame people a bit for their perspectiive based on all the violence going on in the ME. I seriously have no beef with you. I just feel that a totally unprovable theory is being introduced into this article's HEADER. Maybe a section under theories about his motives, ect. would be more appropriate...Again, why am I trying to defend this article?? I should just stick to Rhode Island, Quakerism and the Philadelphia Eagles. Have a pleasant day. Cheers! --Tom 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday. I did not want to take advantage of the fact that you were unavailable and so I have held up my reply to your latest message on this Talk page and also the Talk page of "Cave of the Patriarchs". Presumably because of lack of time due to your preparations for your holiday, you were unable to answer almost all the points I made.

The main point you did make was that the Shamgar Commission (in their PUBLISHED report) did not link Dr. Baruch Goldstein's actions with what was going on in Hebron at that period. However we must view such an omission with great caution. Let me repeat what I wrote above under "Background":

"Unfortunately, the way this Commission 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 [(Israel) Commissions of Inquiry Law 5729-1968 para.15 and amendment no.2 5739-1979 para.3] Despite this law, the members of Dr. Baruch 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. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes (Commission member Judge Zouabi) pp.100, 124, 188, 335, 436, 465, 574, 607, 789, 869, 1151, 1164, 1173, 1202, 1367, 1425, 1675; (Commission member Lieutenant General (res.) Moshe Levy) pp.370, 482, 719, 1679, 1715, 1782; (Commission member Professor Menachem Ya'ari) pp.1295, 1296]

"A parallel to this would be a person being brought to trial for murder, not being allowed to present his defence, and, in addition, most (or indeed even one) of the judges calling him a "murderer" before hearing all the evidence. It goes without say that a Higher Court would immediately disqualify such a hearing by the Lower Court.

"Thus in the act of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, we have to look at ALL the activities going on in Hebron at that period and then decide whether they are relevant to Baruch Goldstein's actions."

Tom, I would therefore like you to please answer ALL the points I have made above and also in the Talk page of "Cave of the Patriarchs." Only in such a way will it be possible to justify the deletions of material from my contributions to the various articles on this subject.

Best Wishes

Simonschaim 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Hi, I am back, but my internet was down, my satelite dish was down and I have to watch a 4 and 6 year old by myself this week so we are off to the pool so I will not be responding as I would like. Please edit any article as you like. It really isn't a big deal to me or in the scope of things. I wish you and all citizens of the Middle East peace and hope the rockets stop falling. I hope Israel kicks the crap out of Hazbolah and ends their bullshit tactics. Take care! --Tom 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fleshing out the bullet points

The bullet points in this article provide a pretty good skeleton on which to hang some text, but by themselves they really aren't much more than a basic outline. I've tried to flesh out the basic info about the massacre itself including some info from contemporary press reports. If people are happy with the way this looks, I'll see if I can flesh out a bit more of the succeeding sections. (You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style to see the guidelines that I've tried to implement here.) -- ChrisO 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Influence/American Jewish reaction in "Diaspora" Section

This topic is way outside my area of expertise, so I think I can speak as a simple reader with no dog in this fight. Knowing next to nothing about this massacre, I read this article and had a couple of concerns.

My comment is only that the claims Kach is a U.S. funded movement prompted by the American "gun culture" is a bit unclear. Do these claimants mean that it is an American government-funded movement or one funded by right-wing American Jews, Gentile "anti-Palestinians," or what? Did Chaim Bermant expand on what he meant by "gun culture" or which Americans he meant?

Also, I find it hard to believe that no Jewish publication in the United States failed to condemn the attack. The broad generalization that American Jewish publications supported the attack overtly or by their silence is odd.

Thanks. Marklemagne 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Section for "popular response" needed after "Israeli government"

eg. one prominent Israeli said: "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." - Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 at the funeral of Baruch Goldstein. [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1] PalestineRemembered 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That quote came from exactly who you said- One person, it doesn't mean anything.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


This is quite a skinny article. How about his side of the story? No hebrew speakers here, that have read up on the subject? Chavatshimshon 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I know the whole story behind Goldstein... I'm not going to add it, because some Anti-Kahanist will just come and delete it. Simply Goldstein attemted to prevent an attack on Purim from those Muslims.



The number of people killed and wounded, plus Goldstein, is not possible based on the number of rounds he had. 4 magazines of 35 rounds each, 4*35=140. According to this he had to have shot at least 155 rounds, if not more. either the number murdered and injured is wrong, or the number of magazines and rounds is wrong. --Shuliavrumi 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we/you/I have reliable sources for either piece of material? It seems that the number of dead would be easier to source than the amount of bulletts he was carring proir to entering the cave. Anyways, --Tom 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Presumably those injured as a result of the panic this would have caused (knocked down, trampled, etc.) would also be properly counted as casualties, even if they weren't struck with a bullet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How Many Wounded?

Is it 125 or 150? Because here it says 125 but on Baruch Goldstein's bio page it states 150 wounded.

Heatsketch 01:19, July 3rd 2007


Israel has near-universal conscription, and upon completion of duty, all soldiers are placed into the ranks of the reserves, until age 55 (for men. Women are reservists until their mid-20s, sometimes longer). This means that virually any Israeli male can be described as an "off duty reservist". Goldstein was not on active reserve duty when he commited his crime, and so it is improper to describe him as an "off-duty reservist", just as we don't describe Gal Fridman, for example, as one. Isarig

From what I can see, the guy you mention doesn't go windsurfing in his uniform. I also doubt his windsurf board was army-issued. Goldstein was given his gun through his service in the army, was dressed in his reserve uniform, and was scheduled for promotion to major. Virtually all Israelis are not reservists, the standard statistic is 400,000, Israel's population is over 7 million. You suggestion that he shouldn't be called an army reservist because he "was not on active reserve duty when he commited his crime" also makes no sense logically. Amoruso claims that "we all know what is being implied here", presumably he is suggesting that this is part of a conspiracy theory I'm trying to puch that the IDF was involved in the massacre. It isn't, it is because Goldstein's status as an army reservist is a vital component of our understanding of him and the shooting.Nwe 15:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
he committed a crime while wearing a uniform, but was not on reserve duty at the time. It is irrelevant that he is in the reserves. As virtually all Israeli males are. Feel free to add the fact that he wore a uniform to the description of the massacre- that explain how he was let through by the guards but stop implying this is some officialh act of the Israeli reserves. Isarig 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you raise a consiracy-theory of a conspiracy-theory that I deliberately rejected in my last message? I can't think that anyone would read the reference to him as a reserve and think that this implied collusion in the IDF. He wasn't on reserve duty at the time, I think we've been clear on that from the beginnning , that's why he's described as "an off-duty reserve". 400,000 into 7 million does not equate to "virtually all Israelis", and the fact that he was wearing his uniform demonstrates the importance he himself saw in his status as a reserve. He also had the gun used to carry out the massacre through his service with the IDF, and clearly very involved as a reserve, being up for promotion to major.Nwe 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If he was not on reserve duty at the time, and his description as an "off-duty reserve" applies to hundreds of thousands others, what purpose does this label serve, other than to subtly push the conspiracy? His wearing of the uniform helped him get past the gaurds - you can mention that in the description of the crime. Isarig 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
See above for your answer. You can't justify revert an edit on the grounds of hypothetical motivations that are irrelevant, but might possible have in different circumstances have inpired it.
The justification is that it is an irrelevant factoid, which violates WP:NPOV . Your motivations for violating this core WP policy, suspect as they may be, have nothing to do with it. Isarig 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely the point. You have been trying to justify the reversion of my edits on the basis of motives that you are poisonously alleging. There are also no ground for your bringing WP:NPOV into this. This is merely a question of whether a fact is worthy of inclusion. That Goldstein was a reserve is hugely significant here. I have given several reasons for this:

  • Goldstein's status as a reserve was clearly important to him and he saw it as relevant to the massacre he carried out, because he was wearing a reserve uniform.
  • He attained the gun which allowed him to carry out the massacre through his service with the IDF
  • The fact that he was up for promotion demonstrates that he was very involved as a reserve
  • It is vital to our understanding of the man's psychology and the culture that contributed to his state of mind

Normally, in disputes, I refrain from editing until some level of discussion has gone on. However in this case this is impossible, so petty and demonstrable of POV are your edit summaries.Nwe 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that Goldstein wore his uniform becuase his status as a reserve was important to him is just your opinion.
He attained his gun as a settler living in a dangerous area - settlers get such guns regardless of their status as reserves.
When you serve in the reserves you eventually get promoted, this has nothing to do with the crime.
This is the exact kind of unsourced POV-pushing that needs to be kept out of the article . Isarig 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It is sourced, its sourced to the Israeli MFA. Are you absolutely unable to refute the factual accuracy of my inclusion, as it has appeared so far? If that is to then any justification against a greater level of information is extremely precarious. The uniform matter isn't just my opinion, its simple, obvious logic. Goldstein wore his reserve uniform because he clearly identified himself with the reserves. You are also wrong in you assertion that he was issued the weapon as a settler living in someone else's country. They are authorised to carry weapons, but Goldstein's weapon was issued to him as a reserve. Promoted to Major? Even though the recommendation for promotion was lengthy and specifically praised him. As for POV pushing, it appears to me that practically every edit you make on this site is POV pushing, while I am genuinely trying to advance the information people are receiving and ensure some level of neutrality.Nwe 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The uniform thing is purely your opinion, as there is no source that says this. A more plausible explantion, which is refernced in the Yatom press conference, is that he wore it so as to easily get past the gaurds. Goldstein's weapon was issued to him as a settler, not as a reserve. Th epromotion has nothing to do with the crime, it is a natural consequence of serving in the resreves 0- an dthe opini0on tnhta his being a resevre is "vital to our understanding of the man's psychology and the culture that contributed to his state of mind" is pure POV pushin gof the worst kind, that must be kept of the encyclopedia. Isarig 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He was authorised to have his weapon as a settler, but it was IDF-issued as a result of his service. His promotion also demonstrates that he was active and involved as a reservist. Even if we dispute his motives in wearing the uniform, it is a major feature of the crime he committed, and a consequence his status as a reserve is a major feature of Goldstein. His wearing of the uniform either shows that his reserve status was important to him or vital to his capacity to commit the massacre. Finally it remains that this is a fundamental fact that isn't disputed, its inclusion as a result axiomatically adds to the completeness of the article and people's understanding of the event the article describes. You can't simply oppose something on the basis that you dubiously think its inclusion makes your side look bad.Nwe 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he was issues his wepaon because he lives in a settlement, no becuase he's a doctor in the reserves. You simply have that wrong. His planned promotion only shows he did his regualr reserve duty, which is not a point of contention. The uniform issue is cnetral to his ability to carry out the crime, I agree, and is described in that section. I can exclude thi sfact as irrelevant POV-pushing - the pOV-pushing you admit to aboce when you say it relevant becuas eof yoru speculation that his reserve status was important to him - which is the only relevance this factoid might have. Isarig 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Goldstein was issued his weapon because of his service in the IDF, if he hadn't served and been serving he wouldn't have been given it. It's you who have simply got that wrong. Israeli settlers are not presently universally issued with weapons by the government without having served in the army, they are currently merely authorised to carry weapons. You now both accept both the accuracy of the information being given and its relevance to the incident as non-contentious. There are no legitimate bases on which you can justify the exclusion of this fact after that. Any prejudices you have on the issues in the article or against the person providing the information are irrelevant to the sinificance of the matter we are discussing.Nwe 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The reverts you are carrying out are also messy and incomplete, in which context they have to be re-reverted regarless even of the basis for the original edit.Nwe 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


This event did not take place in Palestine, but in the West Bank, and so should not be miscategorised. TewfikTalk 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The West Bank is in Palestine my friend.Nwe (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So far, there is no palestinian state. The Cave of the Patriarchs is in Hebron, which is in Judea from an israeli perspective and in the Hebron governate from the PA point of view. --Squallgreg (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

another response

The 'Response' section should make mention of the book "Blessed the Male". Published in 1995, the book contains eulogies in praise of Goldstein and provides halachic justification for his actions. Several writers conributed, including Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh. Logicman1966 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on fact - there is no reason to cite a bigoted diatribe like "Blessed the Male". (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no book with that title. The title is Blessed is the Man (Jeremiah 17:7), which in this context can also be understood as Baruch the Man in the sense of "macho". Since many of its articles were written by people who knew Dr Goldstein, and had personal knowledge of the circumstances, it certainly should be cited where relevant. The main problem is getting hold of a copy, since it was banned in Israel and never had a large circulation. -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Yitzchak_Ginsburgh#article_name_2. I have both at home. Debresser (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I just want to articulate why I strongly object to the section entitled "Prelude". Rather than being a background or context, this is information lifted directly from a partial source: Israeli official documents. Where is the Palestinian position, in this section? How is it that Israel, which is occupying this land illegally by force of arms, has the only perspective worthy of note?

What's more, this information is carefully selected to present a biased perspective, even from within the already biased confines of Israeli official framework. For instance,

("Qassam", "kill the Jews") [at the Jewish worshipers], making it necessary to call in army and Border Police forces. According to one of the Moslem witnesses, the Jews also shouted hostile slogans.

Of course, the italicized section is omitted, in keeping with the biased perspective of this addition, which serves only to suggest that the innocent people who were murdered may have deserved it by association. Please reconsider your insistence on this section. DBaba (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Israel is not "occupying this land illegally by force of arms". And the Israeli government position was and is extremely hostile to the Jewish residents of Chevron. The Israeli judiciary is a respectable institution whose official findings of fact are reliable sources; the PA "judiciary" is not. The Shamgar commission bent over backwards to paint Dr Goldstein in the worst light possible; but facts are facts. This is what was going on in Chevron in the days leading up to the incident, and it is vital to understanding the incident itself. It is necessary to know that the Arabs were openly declaring their intention of slaughtering the Jews, and that everyone in the Jewish community took these threats seriously; it is not necessary to know that one witness claimed that Jews "shouted hostile slogans", whatever that is supposed to mean. -- Zsero (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I must have missed that. "The" Arabs were threatening, so "the Arabs" deserved to die. How wise. Still, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this land is not occupied by force of arms? DBaba (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing illegal about it. It was occupied by Jordan for 19 years, then Jordan attacked Israel and got chased out. Legally it's not part of any country, because Israel chose not to annex it unilaterally, but Israel is the lawful authority. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of the legality of the occupation is peripheral to this article and should be discussed somewhere else. Regarding this section, I will ask Zsero again: do you have a copy of the official report? If not, why do you think this material gives a balanced view? Your words "It is necessary to know that the Arabs were openly declaring their intention of slaughtering the Jews" betray that your motivation is not one consistent with Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. As well as being plain wrong (just as the cries of "death to Arabs" that can be heard at football games and many other places does not mean that a slaughter of Arabs is being planned), who are "the Arabs"? These alleged cries were allegedly heard the previous evening, so what is your excuse for presenting the information as if the group of Arabs murdered by Goldstein early in the morning was the same group? The extracts from the report which appear here present this information as excuse for why the IDF guards at the tomb were not more on alert (and in particular for why the commander was not there), so your attempt to use it for another purpose is Original Research. And then you claim that hostile slogans aimed by Jews against Arabs soon before a Jew killed Arabs were irrelevant! Zerotalk 06:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'm seeking an outside opinion, because I'm troubled by some of the edits I'm seeing here. I don't perceive the "Prelude" section to be neutral or appropriate, and I'm having difficulty communicating this to my fellow editors. Thank you to my antagonists for being good sports, and patient! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • In my opinion a government document is an acceptable source in Wikipedia. If anybody thinks it is not impartial enough, just add additional sourced opinions, or use a variety of tags available for this purpose. Debresser (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The inquiry report is admissible. However, so far no editor has claimed to have a copy of it. I suspect the text is copied from a hidden intermediate source (and I can guess which). This is not allowed. Moreover, no evidence at all has been given that the context of the information as presented here matches the context in the report. Above I give evidence that the context does not match. Zerotalk 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If there is an intermediate source, that should be mentioned, and the source checked for its reliability. Obviously. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The "intermediate source" is here--an official Israeli gov't website. Since the gov't conducted the Shamgar report, it surely qualifies as a RS. The attempt to censor out this relevant info. is blatant POV. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry: nobody will be able to remove such a good source. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I really appreciate all this involvement. I would like to reiterate what is troubling me, in case it has been lost in the dialogue. This "Prelude" would more aptly be termed "Israeli report" or something along those lines, would it not? And as for it constituting a Reliable Source, surely it is a reliable source for the Israeli government's stance, and an unreliable source in regards to its having any claim to objectivity. Also, it troubles me to see suggested, if it is being suggested, that I would want to "censor out" this addition, as it is useful in demonstrating the Israeli take on the situation, however utterly useless it may be in offering serious background info on the massacre. DBaba (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Israeli judiciary is about as neutral and reliable a source as one will find. It was certainly not biased in favour of Dr Goldstein. As for the government, it was heavily biased against him; it classified him as a terrorist, destroyed his tomb, banned any praise of him, and didn't even try to prosecute his murderers, as it does regularly when someone kills a terrorist after he has been captured and neutralised. -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Prelude" means "what relevant events had been happening immediately before" the attack. This is unarguably relevant. Whether there is a direct connection between this event and the attack, or the innocence or lack thereof of the worshippers, is up to the reader to decide. Moreover, the official report, which as mentioned was very condemnatory of Goldstein, also saw fit to mention this fact, so it deserves to be included. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You are not correct when you say that this report is only a good source in respect to the "Israeli government's stance". It was made by a committee that was supposed at least to give a neutral account. If you want to say that it was biased, then you shall have to bring proof from unbiased, reliable sources for that opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure you are not wriggling away here, I am suggesting that "Prelude" be retitled "Shamgar report", and be included subsequent to the present text. Do you disagree with this? Why is the article more neutral, with an Israeli report entitled "Prelude" in the foreground?
I don't think my point is dependent on sourcing, because it has to do with the misleading presentation of information, and the misleading organization of the page, in an apparent attempt by someone using racist language ("the Arabs") to mitigate the severity of a mass murder. In any case, here is an example of criticism of the report as biased. Thanks again for your help! I will give up very soon, I assure you. Thanks to all for talking this out with me! DBaba (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DBada is right. The presentation of the material is quite unacceptable. In the source this material appears as explanation of why the IDF commander was asleep and why Goldstein's arrival did not cause concern. It is not in any way referred to Goldstein's motivation. However, in our article the material is transparently used as an effort to moderate and justify the mass murder that Goldstein committed. I am deleting it. If someone wants to present some of this stuff in the same context as the report does, go ahead. Zerotalk 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shamgar report is at least as legitimate as any other source cited, so in explaining the prelude to the events, that's precisely where it belongs--in the prelude. If there is a conflicting report from a reliable source, feel free to add it in. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't question the legitimacy of the Shamgar report. Would you care to reply to the actual criticism? Zerotalk 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a rename to "Shamgar Report" is logical and imperative. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. The Shamgar Commission happened afterwards, and issued its report about what had happened. That report is a reliable source for the facts leading up to the incidence, i.e. the prelude. Omitting these reliably-sourced facts would be highly POV, because it would create the false impression that Goldstein acted inexplicably, out of some sort of evil in his heart or something. Zero0000 and DBaba have as much as openly said that this is the impression they want the article to create, and that is why they want these facts omitted. The truth is otherwise, and that truth can be proven from a reliable source, so the facts from which the reader can understand what happened need to be in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't think so what? The indentation seems to suggest that you disagree with a rename of the section, but your arguments have nothing to do with that. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree with renaming the section. This section is about what happened before the event, what was its prelude, and that's where it belongs. Renaming it to "Shamgar Report" makes no snese; the Shamgar report is a source for that, but the section isn't about the commission, which happened afterwards and belongs later. -- Zsero (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Zero wants to push his POV that Goldstein was nothing but a crazed racist murderer by dismissing a RS for facts of what happened in the prelude, nor does he even have a counter-source concerning those events, even from a non-RS. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Omitting these facts is the greatest POV, because it leads the reader to think there was no prelude, and this just happened out of the blue.
PS: Could people please be very careful with usernames, lest someone confuse Zero and Zsero! -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing the structure of this article, I agree that a rename is not the logical thing to do. But I am not sure whether bringing this in a separate section and in this place is appropriate. Debresser (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Specifically: inclusion of this prelude suggests a connection to the massacre. However, the source itself does not seem to imply that. It may better be added as a reference to "There were, as claimed by some Jews seeking to justify Goldstein's actions as a preemptive strike, substantial warnings of a coming Arab terror attack against the Jewish communities in Hebron and Kiryat Arba." and/or "In Hebron, many Jews claimed that Goldstein's action was a preemptive strike in the wake of dire warnings of a Hamas attack Prelude.", later on in the article. Debresser (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It is a relevant fact that belongs right where it is. What it suggests is neither here nor there--that depends on one's POV. Leaving it to the end and relegating it to the status of a footnote to the opinion of the "extremist settlers" is POV. That's aside from the fact that the name of the article, "massacre", is POV and needs to be fixed. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
What do sources call it? Debresser (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Which sources, and why would that matter, if it's a POV and not a fact? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules require us to use the common English name used by reliable sources. In this case "massacre" is overwhelmingly the most common including 27 times in the Shamgar report extract on the site. Zerotalk 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this argument. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are four problems that have been identified but not addressed:

  • Where does the Shamgar report say that Kiryat Arba was under threat? This claim is cited to the report in two places in the article.
  • Where in the Shamgar report does it say that Goldstein was motivated, or even knew about, warnings of an Arab attack?
  • What is the excuse for deleting the information, very clear from the report, that the group of Arabs who allegedly made threatening cries was not the same group that Goldstein attacked but a group on the previous evening?
  • Why are threats against Jews worthy of mention, but threats against Arabs are not worthy of mention?

Zerotalk 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Try and keep lagnuage NPOV: not "excuses" but "reasons". Debresser (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV rule does not apply to talk pages. But a reason rather than an excuse would be also welcome. What is it? Zerotalk 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue. But Wikipedia does require us to be civil, and that includes using NPOV language in talk page discussions. Debresser (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The part of the Prelude that mentions an imminent Hamas attack does not belong. If a reliable source could be found that explains *why* that information pertains to the massacre, then that source could potentially be quoted here. As it is, there is nothing definitively "connecting the dots." What does that information mean in the context of the massacre? You need to quote a reliable source that answers that question, or the information is irrelevant. MarkNau (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It is there already, and sourced. You must have missed it in Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Other_reactions. Debresser (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it only appears in the report in another context. No causal connection between the warning and the massacre is even hinted at in the report. Zerotalk 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently your POV blinds your eyes from seeing the following words, sourced to the Shamgar report "In Hebron, many Jews claimed that Goldstein's action was a preemptive strike in the wake of dire warnings of a Hamas attack Prelude. They cited not only the known threat of a terror attack but the failure of the army to provide proper security even under the threat of attack". Debresser (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problematic section

"In Hebron, many Jews claimed that Goldstein's action was a preemptive strike in the wake of dire warnings of a Hamas attack Prelude. They cited not only the known threat of a terror attack but the failure of the army to provide proper security even under the threat of attack[7]. The Shamgar Investigation later corroborated this: ..."

However, the Shamgar report does not corroborate that Goldstein's motivation had anything to do with these issues. On the contrary, it refers to evidence of premeditation that preceded the incidents of the day. So this part of the article needs rewriting. Zerotalk 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Something like: The Shamgar report later showed that such a threat was indeed existent at the time. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is better, but still it isn't good. One problem is that this issue is in 3 places in the article and 1 place is plenty. Another problem is that it has an element of original research. The report does mention a warning of an attack, but it does not contain an assessment that the warning was of a severity that makes sense as a motive for Goldstein's action. (On the contrary, the report is not even much concerned that no additional security was provided or that the commander of the tomb guard was in bed asleep.) The whole case starting from the mention of a warning in the report is a construction of Goldstein's defenders and should only be mentioned in that context. Actually it is already mentioned in that way: in the "Shamgar report" section; therefore I am deleting this mention. Zerotalk 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Try it again without the name-calling. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need some outside help here, because all edits by Zero are POV down to their minutest details. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means. Maybe you can start by explaining why it is wrong to say that the Shamgar commission regarded the massacre as a base act. It is not acceptable to coopt the commission in support of Goldstein in direct contradiction to its own words. Zerotalk 10:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, as I have stated above as well. I have no problem with adding that information to Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Shamgar_Commission, which is its proper place, in my opinion. I think that is a realistic compromise. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
But you just deleted it twice. Zerotalk 10:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put it back in. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That was a mistake made in haste. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Also explain why you put back "and Kiryat Arba" twice even though the source does not contain any such thing. Zerotalk 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Just a sec. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It didn't specify any city or community there. It just said "Jews". So either remove both, or put both in. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly put back "Baruch Hagever" too. It is relevant and well sourced. Zerotalk 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant in this form. Let me try to make up something better. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. I used the formulation we worked out a few months ago at Yitzchak Ginsburgh. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, regarding Debresser's interpretation of this comment, I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that the racist/revisionist editors work for Debresser, only that neutral edits are a problem for him and revisionist fringe views do not excite in him any interest in reverting. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In the section above you can see that I disagree with those editors that I must come to the conclusion you mean by "racist/revisionist editors". So you are plain wrong, mister/lady. In addition, I do not think your attitude, calling people by the names you do, is acceptable on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And I quote you Debresser: "your POV blinds your eyes" ; "all edits by editor are POV down to their minutest details" ; Debresser, I would like your opinion on these phrases, and your half dozen or so reverts of carefully rendered, invariably cited text: Could your behavior rightly be understood as insolent? When you take cited text that a neutral editor has deemed valuable, and you erase it with the explanation "not very relevant", or "adds nothing", or you blank entire salient quotations which you deride as "POV",[1], this seems not to be civil behavior. Do we agree on this? DBaba (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We agree that I worked it out with that editor without crossing the borders of WP:CIVIL. Contrary to what you are doing. And we worked it out in the real way: we made consensus and edited the article. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The point was, you have been decidedly uncivil. But OK! DBaba (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't poison the well (anybody) or I will be more serious about sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, could we seriously take it down a notch here? The point is, this article has to be slightly reworked in a less biased format- if I didn't know about this from other sources first, I'd have completely misread this entire article as a provoked attack. In something which is obviously a one-sided massacre, it must be displayed as such. We don't blame the colonists throwing rocks and snowballs for the Boston Massacre; we blame the British soldiers who shot at them (I know it's not the best analogy, but you know what I mean). The article isn't in horrible shape, but it needs a little fixing, just like almost any other article. Please feel free to correct me, but let's do this calmly- everyone will come out more satisfied. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has been very calm here for the last two weeks, if you hadn't noticed. But I am sure all will be happy to hear your proposals and see your edits. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I did notice, and I just wanted to give fair warning that I'd made my way over to this, and that I'm not interested in starting a flame war. It'll be a couple days (I'm really pressed for time in the next two days), but I'll do what I can to work it. It's really not a huge thing, just a couple wordings here and there. I'll see what I can do. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

'Prelude' section for this massacre, in comparison to the 'Background' section for the Hebron massacre

In this 'Prelude' section, we are given a brief biography of Goldstein and apparently some context for his murders. An article he wrote. The article serves the purpose of humanizing him. It's a fact, that he wrote it, but it politicizes the killings.

Even in the opening paragraph, this Wiki article will not call the massacre an act of murder. It will quote someone else saying so though. Whereas the Hebron massacre is outright called a 'murder' of however many Jews. I don't dispute the characterization of 'murder'.

I would like to know why the editors of this article do not characterize, without quotations, this act of violence as murder as well. What is the difference?

We are not given the perspective of the killers of Hebron Jews as well, in the Hebron massacre article.

So why are we given the perspective of Goldstein? Why does his article show up in this Wiki page? What's the purpose of citing his fear of Arab demographics?

You have to question the intent of adding this context. The conclusion is that the construction of this article is politicized. Hence, no Palestinian perspective is provided to the 'Prelude' section. Furthermore, the entire existence of a 'Prelude' section is ridiculous.

It changes the context of this article, from providing information about a massacre to justifying or mitigating the repulsive facts, by giving context to the motivations of the perpetrators.

So, I want people to compare the two massacres and especially compare the two 'background/prelude' sections. Both in tone, context and rhetoric.

This is POV, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSix (talkcontribs) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have two parts to this, and I'll address them separately. Goldstein's perspective is given simply because we know it; if you have some source giving the background on the murderers in the Hebron massacre, please add them, but I don't know of any. If we knew what they were thinking, I think that their perspectives would be included in much the same way that Goldstein's was. I do have an interesting idea on this, though. Instead of putting Goldstein's motives at the beginning, why don't we do the same thing that the serial killer pages, such as BTK's does, and put that after the main article? Not only would it make the article read better (given that the current version has two paragraphs which can only be linked to the topic after reading the following paragraphs), but it would also help resolve some of the neutrality issues.
The second part of what you said is true. If one page uses murder, and the other doesn't, they need to be reconciled for the sake of consistency. I will defer to those who care on which term to use, but I'd like to keep it off of WP:LAME, if you know what I mean. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To clarify my first point, why don't we put all of the Shamgar investigation evidence after the massacre itself? The investigation took place after the massacre, so that makes more sense chronologically. It also improves the flow of the article, as it gives the event itself, then goes on to describe the resulting investigation. That's how most of the other articles of this nature are formatted, to my knowledge. Please give me your feedback on this, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll do it. It may take me a few tries to get it to look how I want it, and of course I want feedback on how I did. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Definitely makes sense, chronologically to have the Shamgar investigation after the massacre.

I do think the article should say right away, that this was an act of murder. It should say that, without quotations. Just as in the case of the murder of Jews in Hebron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSix (talkcontribs) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NSix - in the very first sentence, "was an attack on" should be replaced with "refers to the murder of". Logicman1966 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
All right then, here it goes. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Mabye it's just me, but I think it definitely reads better. Please review it and make sure I'm not just going crazy. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Good work - that's much better. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, once and for all, are we going to use attack or murder? I truly could not care less (hence I didn't revert back to my own version), but the 1929 Hebron massacre article uses the term murder, and this one uses attack. It's not so much an NPOV issue for me, more of a consistency issue. We've got to standardize our language. Any thoughts? Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Murder" is a technical term. In my opinion it certainly applies here, but I don't think we really need it (the facts speak for themselves). On the other hand, "attack" is too weak for an incident in which a large number of people were killed. So I changed it to "killing"; I hope that can be accepted by both sides here. Zerotalk 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

I am deleting the second sentence and the citation of this para:

He was eventually overwhelmed and beaten to death by survivors. State Attorney Dorit Benish refused to prosecute those who killed Goldstein after disarming him.[1]
  1. ^ A. Pasko (2 March 2004). "Baruch Goldstein and Hebron Ten Years Later". Retrieved 2008-07-18. 

The reasons are as follows:

  1. The source is written by some "independent analyst & consultant" called Pasko, who is otherwise almost unknown. Pasko is very clear where the information comes from, and indeed we don't really need Pasko since I can certify that the information comes from an adulatory pamphlet by Rabbi Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba (Pasko fails to mention where Simons is from, but does tell us he has degrees in physics and chemistry). In other words, this is information from a well-known Goldstein supporter. It cannot be presented as a fact but at most as a claim.
  2. The wording is quite unacceptable. (1) To say Goldstein was killed after being disarmed (rather than in the process of being disarmed), we need a solid source such as the Shamgar Commission; Chaim Simons won't do. (2) The wording "refused to prosecute" betrays the bias of the speaker. Neutral language would be something like "decided to not prosecute".

What I believe is the full story is that Goldstein's supporters demanded someone be prosecuted but nobody in the government was sympathetic. But we can't write that without a good source either. Zerotalk 11:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What you say sounds logical, especially since I have not found any independent confirmation of that claim, yet. Nevertheless, the fact that a source is POV is reason to mark it with {{Verify credibility}} rather than dismiss it alltogether, and you could have changed "refused" to "decided" yourself. That would have been the optimal edit, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't leave in material that we know relies on poor sourcing. How would that be 'optimal'? Fences&Windows 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

I restored this link, in part because I saw that it was blanked by Debresser, in the context of his adding a citation associated with the racist Kach political party and the Lubavitcher sect, which he is currently in arbitration for promoting here on Wikipedia.[2][3][4] If someone with more credibility finds this tag inappropriate, then by all means I'm amenable to the change. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


  1. Where is Kach mentioned in that discussion, and Lubavitch is not a "sect".
  2. Stop poisoning the well with that closed ArbCom case.
  3. Do not give undue weight. This is an article about a massacre, not about a grave.
  4. A massacre is not persecution.

Note that I gave valid arguments for my edits according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines in my edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And in reply to your edit summary "it's important that you learn that undoing text you dislike is not the way we behave here". That is close to an unnecessary personal attack, and may be directed at you as well: it is important that you realise that you can't just restore your version of an article just because you happen to like it, in disregard of the arguments against it. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Debresser (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And in reply to your edit summary "undo; please seek consensus on the talk page before blanking cited text" Why should I seek consensus any more than you did before making all of your edits? The sword cuts both ways. I remind you again of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The sword doesn't cut both ways. But let's try to stay on topic.
A massacre is persecution. Dressing up like the killer to mock the Muslim locals is persecution. Building a shrine to a mass murderer in the face of the victims, a hundred of whom survived gunshots and had to live with the presence of that shrine, this is what persecution is. The occupation is itself persecution.
This article is about relevant aspects of this massacre. You are blanking those aspects that do not suit your political goals here on Wikipedia. I am including what is relevant about this incident. Clearly, the shrine and its political import are of central importance to this article.
Kach is linked to at least ten times on that page. Please refrain from using sources associated with racist activist groups in the future. And please refrain from the introduction of any historical revisionist, fringe views, as though they were reputable. Also, Lubavitch is commonly referred to as a sect, even if this is in conflict with your religious views. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. the sword does cut both ways.
  2. Lubavitch is commonly refered to as a "movement" within Judaism, definitely not a sect. The word "sect" has its definitions, which are not for you to make up. I may add from personal experience that the Russian police has definitions for designating "religious sects" as oposite to "religions".
  3. A massacre is not persecution, nor was this massacre part of any persecution. To say otherways is POV and/or OR.
  4. Kach is defined on Wikipedia as a "far-right political party". If you think it is racist, and disagree with it, that is no reason to turn this article and talk page into a forum for your political opinions.
  5. What is wrong with the sources you removed? You removed three New York Times, one book by Bouckaert, Peter and one BBC reference.
  6. I introduced nothing, least of all fringe views (what are you talking about). I just restored part of the version before your massive edits, in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this is the second time in the history of this article that you make edits not in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then vehemently protest my reactions to them using all kinds of unrelated arguments and generally ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would recommend you to consider your tone of interaction with me and in general this time around. Debresser (talk)
1)Google "Lubavitch" and "sect". 2)You're mistaken about me removing these sources. 3)Kach was banned by the Knesset for its racist views; you know this, and you are trying to mislead third parties by suggesting it's my opinion. 4)When you use Kach-affiliated websites[5] as sources to promote your religious interests here, you are introducing unreliable material to Wikipedia.[6]
Are you almost ready to talk about the text you are blanking? DBaba (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me start by thanking you for being more reasonable and to the point now.
  1. Try Googling "Arab sect"... :) Anyway, please see Chabad, where it says "Chabad-Lubavitch is a Hasidic movement in Orthodox Judaism".
  2. You are right, and I was mistaken, you didn't remove those sources.
  3. I would like to know what sources it is you claim I am adding. I repeat that I have added nothing today, apart from restoring parts of the old version of this article, in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And what is the source you claim is Kach affiliated? And why would any material from a Kach affiliated site be unreliable, or a fringe view? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The shrine, and the dressing up like Goldstein to celebrate, is important. It is in the media in the Middle East and in the West, it has everything to do with the legacy of the killings, and their lasting political impact. Why would it not be significant to the article? This is your argument, correct, that it is immaterial, or undue weight? It seems to me to be the soul of the matter, rather than a tangential item. DBaba (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree it has some relevance to the subject of the article, albeit definitely only secondary or even tertiary (massacre > Goldstein > grave > visits). That is why I kept the general mention in the lead that "his gravesite subsequently became a site of pilgrimage for Israeli extremists" and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre#Worship of Goldstein subsection, even though that already comes close to undue weight, IMHO. You added even more examples and details to that, and that definitely falls under WP:UNDUE, not to mention that it leads to suspicions about WP:POINT. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you concealing things. I do not see how representing the facts of the matter constitutes WP:POINT or WP:UNDUE. These are the facts, important to the article as well as to the broader conflict. What you have done is cut the section to suggest that the shrine dismantling was the end of the celebration of the murders; this is untrue. You have also covered for the radicalism of the activists at the scene. A sobbing father is acceptable to Debresser, but not a bloodthirsty activist, whereas I seek to include each. DBaba (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
We already have that with close to undue detail. You seek to add more, which is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and leads me to suspect ulterior motives. Anyway, our points of view are clear; let's await outside input. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are you blanking references to the role of the Lubavitcher movement in defending the murders?[7] Aren't you affiliated with this movement? I saw that you introduced a source referencing Baruch Hagever,[8] the Lubavitch revisionist account of the massacre... But you suggest I have an ulterior motive? DBaba (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, who was one of the main authors of that pamphlet, is by no means an official spokesman for Lubavitch. Do not confuse him being a Lubavitcher chassid with that.
And yes, I do, with all respect, suggest that. Would you like to comment on that, please? Perhaps it would be relevant to have that information on the table. With all due respect, again. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV language

"his gravesite subsequently became a site of pilgrimage for Israeli extremists"

This sentence is not in the BBC reference, while I have no access to the book mentioned in the other reference. And even though the words "Israeli extremists" are there, it still looks like bad journalism and rather unencyclopedical to me. I propose replacing it by "his gravesite has been visited by many people over the years, especially on the day of his death". Or something else more NPOV worded. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its POV to note that those visiting his gravesite are extremists. The article states that over 78% of Israelis found his actions to be wrong, clearly they are not visiting his gravesite. The less than 4% who think his actions were defensible are.
I have to also say that there is a huge prroblem in this article with undue weight gien to the idea that Muslims were about to attack Jews (providing by its repetitive emphasis on this idea a kind of justification for Goldstein's actions). This needs to be addressed by cutting down and condensing the references to this.
About the dispute above, I agree with Dbaba that some mention of the continuing pilgrimages to the site of his grave and the activities of those who view him as a hero do deserve more representation in this article. Leaving it out does give the impression that such pilgrimage has ended, and that's simply not the case. Tiamuttalk 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
While I have no problem with your additions and reorganisations, I reverted your edit to cut down on the subject of the Muslims attack. You have only just raised this subject here, and you must be aware that this page is rather sensitive at the moment. So please await consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that since that subject is directly related to the massacre, as it concerns possible motives of Goldstein, it should be treated at some length. Definitely more than the subject of visiting his grave by others after years... Debresser (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your position. I'd like to point out however that I did not delete anything. I only reorganized the information already in the reactions section into what I believe are more representative categories. I am going to restore the edit so that others can see it too. It shows just how much weight we give to Israeli opinions (and Goldstein's supporters within that) and how little is provided for others. Tiamuttalk 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In that case I am sorry, and please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you. I won't delete anything without placing it here for discussion first. I just wanted to collect all related information under the subsections to which they belong. Previously, the section "Other reactions" was comprised primariyl of Israeli public reactions with just one or two paragraphs that were Palestinian reactions. I've separated those out now, creating a Palestinian reactions section. I also split the "Protests and violence" section between the Palestinian reactions section and a new Arab public and governments reaction section. I placed the Shamgar report section under the Israeli government section since its a government report. Tiamuttalk 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That small paragraph about Yitzchak Ginsburgh that was added today looks like it can be deleted, if you ask me. The other reactions in that subsection seem appropriate to me, being that they address different issues. The only two that could (and probably should) be combined are about Lehman and Hebron Jews. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Ginsburgh paragraph. It seems relevant, is reliably sourced, and does not repeat information elsewhere. You are right though about the Lehmann's comment about the impending Arab pogrom and the paragraph following it on how some Jews viewed the attack as a preemptive strike against such a thing. Those could be placed together and condensed. Tiamuttalk 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Then with your permission I shall do so. As to the small paragraph about Ginsburgh, I think it is too far off the subject. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Some smallish comments

  • I don't think the section heading "Worship of Goldstein" is good, since "worship" is usually only used in regard to deities. We need a replacement word; what about "adulation", "hero-worship", "glorification", "idolization"? In general information about Goldstein's following, including events at his gravesite, are relevant and do belong in this article.Zerotalk 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence as to whether Ginsburg should be mentioned specifically. He is the most prominent amongst his extremist circle but he is far from the only one. The reference to Schneerson should go, though, as it is too vague to be useful. Zerotalk 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We are not allowed to use blogs and self-published writings as sources, which eliminates the web page of Manfred Lehmann. If Lehmann is quoted by some news outlet (for example), that would be admissible. Zerotalk 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your first point. "Glorification" sounds good to me. I have stated my opinion about the second point above. May I understand that you basically agree with me? I disagree with you about the third point, because the blog is used only to source Lehman's own words. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Ginsburg should be mentioned as the author of the pamphlet and a contributor to the book. But Schneerson should not be mentioned since we don't have any direct connection between Schneerson and the massacre, and in the fairly detailed sources I have Schneerson is not specifically indicated as a source of Ginsburg's philosophy. As for Lehmann, in order to quote his blog we need a reason to elevate him to this status. After all, hundreds or thousands of people wrote stuff about this massacre and we have to choose. Was Lehmann (died 1997) some sort of spokesperson for a significant group of people? Incidentally, Lehmann claimed that the Shamgar report verified the claim that Goldstein acted to prevent a massacre, but I have tracked down his source (a Jerusalem Post article of 11 July 1994, page 6) and it does not contain relevant information that isn't in the MFA website summary of the Shamgar report. It does not quote anything from the Shamgar report about Goldstein's motivation. Zerotalk 05:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • One issue that created quite a fuss during the Shamgar commission sittings but isn't mentioned in our article: it was testified that the Border Police had standing orders to never use violence against Jews. It should be included; I will find good sources (including the denial). Zerotalk 05:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser reverts

Debresser, I wonder if you could explain some of your reverts in depth. This revert, for starters, suggests that I added "too much detail" and that I removed key text. I didn't remove any text, and I'm not sure what policy you're referencing when you say the detail is excessive. The edit differentiates between the views of the killer and his supporters, on the one hand, and the views of the Prime Minister and Israeli government, on the other; it is important to articulate vividly this difference, as many extremists, including some affiliated with your own Chabad movement, have promoted and held sympathetic views of the killer,[9] or called publicly for the assassination of the prime minister,[10] in keeping with the religious belief that there must be no yielding of land to Palestinians.

Rabin would later be murdered by a reader of 'Baruch Hagever', which celebrated Goldstein as a hero, and which was produced by a rabbi affiliated with your movement, as you may be aware. This lends further urgency to the need to adequately accommodate Rabin's views and the media representation of them in regards to the massacre, as they demonstrate that conflict which would lead to the murder of the prime minister.

I do not understand why I should have to make such a lengthy defense of such a minor addition of text. Can you help me understand what you are thinking? DBaba (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to discuss my edit. I'll be happy to explain myself. But please be assured that Chabad is not "my movement", and furthermore, the fact that I am an adherent of the Chabad movement has no relevance to my editing on Wikipedia. Now, as to your question:
The point you were trying to make, as I understood it and as you say here yourself is to show the condemning points of view of leaders of Israeli politics from both sides of the political spectrum. That point was made in the original text as well. There is no need to elaborate beyond what is necessary to establish that fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we do not publish speeches. The opinion of the editor of the New York Times how to characterise that speech is even more irrelevant. Let the words speak for themselves. You are right that you didn't remove any text; that was a mistake of mine.
I would like to add that I have perceived your edits here as POV for some time now, and your above post admits this saying that you find it important to stress a negative view of Goldstein. Perhaps you should consider whether you should continue to edit this article when you are having a POV. You might want to seek advice of other editors, e.g. on WP:POVN. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That was a lot of words, Debresser... The NYT says Rabin's words were "almost Old Testament in their damnation". I find that description remarkable. How does the inclusion of this phrase harm the entry? DBaba (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of my undo of DBaba

DBaba, I have reverted your undo my and Eliscoming1234's edits, as well as your usage of the word "pilgrimage", for good reasons.

As to my edits. First of all, you reinstated two repeated internal links and a link to a disambiguation page. Please be more careful next time. You also restored the sentence "Goldstein was praised as a martyr by Jewish extremists in Hebron and his grave subsequently became a site of pilgrimage for others from throughout Israel." The words "for others" are vague and don't add anything to the sentence and I had therefore removed them. As to the word "pilgrimage", it is of course used in a non-literal sense, and the people who go to his grave come there to pay homage, to revere his memory, or to make a political statement. So it is not the right word to use. Even if some source uses it, we on Wikipedia do not copy our sources. We do try to stay close to our sources, but we should engage in synthesis and reworking of text to give our articles an encyclopedical character which sometimes is absent in our sources. In this light I would like to repeat my proposal (see above) to rewrite this sentence to the more neutral "His gravesite has been visited by many people over the years, especially on the day of his death".

As to Eliscoming1234's edits. You should really be more discerning. It is unreasonable to assume that there was nothing good in all of the things he changed. In particular, he clarified a lot of points, and did well in doing so. It is relevant to know that Goldstein was beaten to death by Arabs, and not for example by the police or left-wing Israelis (just to mention a few ideas). "Far-right" is more specific than extremist, which is also a POV word. The fact that the West-bank is occupied by Israel is first of all not relevant to this article, which is not a history book of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and is also superfluous to the word "West-Bank" which is internally linked and the reader can look it up there. What I do agree with you is that the words "Palestinian worshippers praying inside the Cave" are relevant and add vital information. The word "unarmed" doesn't, though. Worshippers usually are unarmed, unless otherwise spcified. Adding that word I can only see as an attempt to overly stress facts to arouse feelings from the side of the reader, which is at best unencyclopedical, and at worst POV. Meir Kahane was a rabbi, and although we don't repeat titles every time on Wikipedia, we do mention them the first time a person is mentioned in an article. The Jewish Defense League is internally linked and there is no need to elaborate on what it is. That is what links are for. I understand that some people, because of their POV, might want to stress anything that can put Israel, Jewish organisations, and Goldstein in a bad light, but we on Wikipedia should not engage in that. We should write good articles. Etc, etc. Debresser (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will try to be more discerning. But your claims are not even consistent with the edits I made... I did not leave the phrase "for others". I did not choose the word 'extremists', it is derived from the citation. I believe it is significant that Goldstein was associated with an FBI-named terrorist group prior to his attack; why should this determination be grounds for impugning my motive? The Muslim worshippers are not allowed to bear arms into the cave, so that the killer knew they would be unarmed; how is that irrelevant? Please, Debresser, review the edits more carefully before making your reply. Eliscoming1234 simply removed cited text consistent with his usual modus operandi; he's even been using Wikipedia to promote the Facebook pages of the JDL.[11] Your suggestion for a rewrite of the sentence is misleading, because it neglects to mention that the "visitors" are Israeli radicals celebrating a mass-murderer as a hero by the thousands (as the BBC citation indicates). To call your suggestion "more neutral", well, I quite disagree. The word 'pilgrimage' is cited so I don't understand where you get off claiming it is unacceptable. And as far as "putting Goldstein in a bad light", well, wow, I guess I did not know there was a neutral alternative. DBaba (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
DBaba, there is only one acceptable point of view on Wikipedia, and that is a neutral one. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(1) The mention of visits to his grave should somehow that it refers to visits by his supporters. Just "visits" won't do. Actually I don't understand the objection to "pilgrimage" as it is the English word closest in meaning that I can think of. (2) Since Jews commonly prayed in that building while armed, it is not altogether unreasonable to write "unarmed Palestinian worshippers". Zerotalk 06:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I take your point about "unarmed". Consider it done. Debresser (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Pilgrimage is the wrong word, see my explanation above. It comes close, but has the wrong, religious connotations. Again, the fatc that it has been used by some journalist, is not enough reason for us to use it. This really should be obvious, DBaba. I agree with Zero0000 that we should include the word "supporters", so perhaps "His gravesite has been visited by many supporters over the years, especially on the day of his death." Debresser (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Should this be obvious also to the dozens of reliable sources which elect to use the term 'pilgrimage'? [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] DBaba (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
What I meant should be obvious to you is that we should not blindly copy the words of our sources which e.g. 1. may have their own POV's 2. are often not encyclopedical. And yes, I think that all those sources you linked to use the word "pilgrimage" incorrectly, for the reasons I explained above. Sometimes a word is used by somebody in relation to something, and then everybody starts using it, even though it is a borrowed term. But since so many sources use the term, I will drop my objection. I therefore have restored the parenthesis you added previously, and also added the words "for his supporters" in accordance with Zero0000's comment above. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The sources use the other language that I incorporated as well. Perhaps you could look into that and restore some of the text that you have blanked? In looking at the changes you've effected since my edits, it looks like in several instances you have blanked cited text,[22] e.g. "militant nationalist" and "annual celebration for militant Jews". You also seem to have removed mention of Goldstein opening fire, from the timeline of events during the massacre, and obscured the fact that the dead were killed in a mosque. DBaba (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If it was me who removed the mention of the word "mosque", please feel free to add it in. It should be there. As to the other things, I stick to my opinion that we are under no obligation to bring every word said or written, just what is relevant to an encyclopedia, and in a way that is fitting for an encyclopedia, as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Eliscoming1234 appears to be active on Wikipedia in order to promote the Jewish Defense League, in part by removing mention of its "terrorist" activities and promoting its various chapters. I do not see, Debresser, that your blanking of text is pursuant to any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I am going to restore the text that was/is legitimately cited, and I hope you will accept that this language is not my language or my view, but the view of the legitimate citations, and of the mainstream of scholarship on the subject. Please at least consult the citations before doing what I anticipate you doing, and give me the benefit of the doubt that I perceive this to be wholly neutral, necessary, and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. DBaba (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it'd be useful for the reader to know that the JDL has been characterised as extremist and terrorist, without needing to navigate away from the article. Debresser, is it really possible to present this attack and the perpetrator in anything other than a negative manner, if we are to respect the views of independent reliable sources? Fences&Windows 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There are sources that show a negative view. There are sources that show a positive view. Both sides have their arguments. We should show all sides in a neutral way, which includes giving expression to relevant views, in the appropriate way, as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Anybody who comes to this article to promote any point of view, as User:DBaba has stated specifically, is per definition unfit to edit this article. His numerous POV edits bear testimony to that. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

From now on I will discuss my edits before making them. I am sorry if I talk about repeated discussions. I will discuss them as new sections to make it more organized.Please forgive me for making hasty edits without regarding this talk page. For the record, User:DBaba, no matter how kind your attitude and assumption are towards me, I kindly ask you that you refrain from such name-calling. Thank you.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another undo

Debresser, can you explain why you prefer quotations around pilgrimage, despite the dozen sources I furnished which do not employ quotation marks? Can you also explain why you prefer "supporters", at the end of the sentence? It seems to me that it is more vague and ambiguous than the text you erased, which was also more loyal to the citation.

The quotation marks seem to suggest a commentary on the validity of the term, and the text erasure seems to conceal a key part of what the source is communicating. DBaba (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was your edit of a day earlier that introduced the parenthesis. I will assume good faith in that you seem to have forgotten this. The reason I agree with it is because it offers a balance between all the sources you provided that use the word "pilgrimage" on one, and my above stated objective objections against the appropriateness of its use in this case on the other side.
I am not too happy with the word "supporters" either, but it is again a compromise between the unacceptable "militant Jews" and not having anything, which as Zero0000 pointed out correctly in this comment is also a bad idea. Do you have any other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My edit reflected skepticism for a single source. Once I confirmed it with a dozen more, it became clear that the quotation marks were inappropriate. As far as suggestions, how about we defer to our sources for wording? Can you see how I am not responsible for that phrase, and the source is? In my view, the argument here is between the source and your preference. Help me out, there must be more to it than that. DBaba (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to read this request, since I have explained this both above and on wp:ani, but since you ask, I shall quote. On this talk page I said:: "We do try to stay close to our sources, but we should engage in synthesis and reworking of text to give our articles an encyclopedical character which sometimes is absent in our sources." On wp:ani I expressed this in the words: "I never said DBaba doesn't use sources. I explained on the talk page at length that he copies them too much, in fact. We don't have to copy every phrase written or spoken about a subject into that subject's article. Only what is relevant to make the point. Just like we don't need to quote every positive/negative review of a movie e.g. And we should definitely not blindly use the same words these sources do, which 1. may be written with a certain POV in the back (or front) of the writer's (journalist's) mind, and 2. is more often than not not encyclopedical (news items e.g.) This is explicitely in my talk page posts and should be obvious to any editor on Wikipedia." If you disagree with these principles or would like somebody to explain them to you better than I can, I'd have no problem with asking advice from an uninvolved editor. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So, the dozens of sources using the word pilgrimage without quotation marks represent "POV", and your interpretation is neutral?
"Irrelevant" seems to be your excuse for excising relevant text which does not suit your agenda; can you see how this edit changes the meaning of the sentence, and omits key information? That "supporters" is not the same as "militant Jews", that the "annual celebration" is now concealed from the reader? Advice from an uninvolved editor would be welcome. DBaba (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The first suicide bombing carried out by Palestinian militants was launched by Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in 1994, in retaliation for the massacre carried out by Goldstein.[42] Eight people were killed and 34 wounded in the attack which took place in Afula on April 6, 1994, at the end of the forty day mourning period for Goldstein's victims.[43]

This is wrong.

The first suicide bombing was carried out in April of 1993, almost one year before the patriachs massacre: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talkcontribs)

what a terrible crime this is. well done wikipedia for informing everyone so that its not fogotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is correct. There were a few other attempted bombings as well. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the Hebron massacre led to a major surge of bombing, both more numerous and more severe. Zerotalk 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, do we just edit this out and remove it all together? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We may safely assume that even if that bombing wasn't the first, it was still in reaction to this, so perhaps just remove the word "first"? Debresser (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hamas claimed it was a response to a massacre. That is their narrative. Ultimately we can't say the suicide bombing was a reaction to x any less than 9/11 was a reaction to y. Terrorist speak is hardly reliable. I say axe it all. All of hamas suicide bombings are a reaction to israel's existence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to trust anyone. We can say that there was a large increase in bombings that Hamas claimed to be in response to the massacre. That is objectively true. Zerotalk 07:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We must emphasize this is Hamas' agenda. Palestinian violence predates 1967.
Ok, Zero0000, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


I've been doing some research and can't find anything supported the claim that a suicide bombing was carried out in response to the massacre.

I could only find two recorded suicide bombings in April of 1994, one was the Afula Bus suicide bombing, and the other Hadera bus station suicide bombing.

I have not been able to Zero000 claim that there was "large increase" in bombings after the massacre. There is more available media sources for the 2nd intifada than the 1st. But a quote from the Jerusalem Post says over 12 suicide bombings were carried by Hamas in 1993 before the massacre. While some individuals claim the massacre "exacerbated" suicide bombings, there was no significant increase or decrease in rate of bombings after the massacre.

List of Hamas suicide attacks is woefully inaccurate in both deaths and # of suicide bombings.

I also can't find any claim that any Hamas official said a specific suicide bombing was carried out in response to the massacre. I guess we can owe this factoid to shoddy journalism and book-writing.

So what should we do? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see more research before committing to the text. To first comment on the CAMERA material, as usual for that organization it has very poor quality. Mehola junction is in the northern West Bank (Jordan Valley highway), not in Israel unless you are a Greater Israel enthusiast [23]. The other events listed were also not in Israel; moreover they were not bombings but rather alleged attempted bombings. What happened after the Hebron massacre was that Hamas decided to start attacks inside Israel, contrary to previous policy. Here is how Ehud Sprinzak (an academic expert) put it: "The 1994 Hebron Massacre, when Israeli doctor Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 praying Palestinians, changed everything. Determined to avenge the deaths of their countrymen, Hamas operators resorted to suicide bus bombings inside Israeli cities. In a matter of weeks, the new wave of terrorism had eroded Israel's collective confidence in the peace process and had played right into the hands of extremist Hamas clerics who opposed negotiations with Israel." (Rational Fanatics, Foreign Policy, No. 120 (2000) pp66-73). As for the timing, the book of Joe Stork (ref 43 in the article) says the first attack "took place at the end of the mourning period" for the Hebron dead. See List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks for proof that the frequency and severity massively increased. Zerotalk 12:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The CAMERA article cites its sources and is very explicit. It was more in regards into the claim that the Economist said Hamas suicide bombings were a response to this massacre, when in fact suicide bombings predated the massacre. Joe Stork isn't the most reliable figures, and his hyperbole is not consistent with the known facts. What we do know is the current paragraph is blatantly false (we all can agree suicide bombings occurred before the massacre), but we don't know is whether Hamas conducted a specific suicide bombing in response to the massacre - which again I cannot find any quote or statement from an official Hamas leader. It seems this was an interpretation made by outsiders. Hamas' justifications for suicide bombings mention nothing of this massacre. Also, as I said before the "list of palestinian suicide attacks" is incomplete like "list of hamas suicide bombings." There is no evidence to suggest the severeity of suicide bombings increased after the massacre - in fact there were less after the passover in comparison to the 12+ before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, the text in question is discussing the Afula Bus suicide bombing as the month, number of casualties and location match. If the sources erred in terming this the "first" attack as they overlooked the Mehola Junction bombing in 1993, we can simply add a footnote explaining that they call it the first but there was this one before it. I've changed the wording to "one of the first" to allow for this seeming error to be explained. The text should not however be deleted, as it is significant that this attack is mentioned in scholarly sources as being directly attributable to the Hebron massacre. Tiamuttalk 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. A review of the Mehola Junction bombing article reveals that the only two fatalities were Palestinians. Perhaps that is hy the sources characterize the Afula attack as the first suicide bombing; i.e. as in the first in which there were Israeli fatalities. Tiamuttalk 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, please read the talk discussion in full. Your edit: "One of the first suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian militants was launched by Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in 1994, in retaliation for the massacre carried out by Goldstein" is still not supported by the source. Over 12 suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas prior to Goldstein, and 2 can be confirmed 100%. So it wasn't the "first" suicide bombing. Second, there is no evidence to suggest the suicide bombing that occurred more than 1 month after the massacre was a reaction or retaliation to anything. Please post a source that explicitly states a Hamas official confirmed x suicide bombing that was a direct reprisal to the massacre. But right now the current paragraph is completely unverifiable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Per Zero, I don't view CAMERA to be a reliable source and I believe he is right in saying they erred in terming the locations as inside Israel (including Mehola Junction). The sources that supported the cited text [24] are eminently reliable and quite clear in what they say, despite your protestations to the contrary in your edit summaries deleting them. Additional sources are available too. I recall that our article on Nizar Rayan mentions the same thing: "According to Chris Hedges who interviewed him, Rayan constantly recalled that Hamas, "began to target Israeli civilians in 1994 only after Palestinian worshipers were gunned down in a Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein."[1]" Anyway, I'm not going to revert your revert because edit-warring is bad. I'll amass more sources here, but if the ones you've already seen have not convinced you, I'm not quite sure what will. Tiamuttalk 00:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, Tiamut - you aren't looking at the known facts. The original paragraph was not supported by the source or any reference. If you can find a source that explicitly proves suicide bombings occurred after the massacre, please provide it. If you can find a source that explicitly shows a Hamas leader saying a specific suicide bombing was carried out in reprisal to the massacre, please provide it. Currently, the known facts speak otherwise. 12 suicide bombings occurred before the massacre (more than a year before to be specific.) Hamas started targeting Israeli civilians before the massacre. In fact, the first victim of Hamas violence was a Palestinian civilian. Again - the original source is merely a link to an overview of a book. No page number or anything. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's strange, when I try to acces the links cited in the original text, I get what I'm looking for. Here they are:

  • p. 358 of Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues by Gus Martin states:

"Hamas was the first Palestinian group to initiate a suicide bombing campaign. It laucnhed the campaign in retaliation for February 1994 Hebron massacre when Baruch Goldstein killed and wounded scores of Muslim worshippers at the Ibrahim Mosque on the holy site of the Cave of the Patriarchs. After Goldstein's attack, Hamas recruited human-bomb candidates into its Izzedine al-Qassam Brigade cells, with the specific mission to attack Israeli civilian targets ... These attacks inflicted significant damage on Israel in terms of the number of Israeli casualties. For example, four Hamas bombers killed 59 people in 1996."

  • p. 66 of Erased in a moment: suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians by Joe Stork, Human Rights Watch states: "On April 6, 1994, a Hamas member carried out the first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. The attack in the northern city of Afula killed eight and wounded thiryt-four. The attack took place at the end of the mourning period for twenty-nine Palestinians killed at prayer in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque by an Israeli settler, Baruch Goldstein. It also appeared t have been times to disrupt negotiations between Israel and the PLO ..."

There are, in addition, to quote from Nizar Rayan I provided above, also these:

  • p.150 of Inside Terrorism by Bruce Hoffman states: "Hamas carried out its first suicide attack on April 6, 1994. The incident which killed eight people and wounded thirty-four others, occurred in the northern Israeli city of Afula. It was timed to coincide with the end of the Islamic period of mourning that had begun on February 25 when, as previously mentioned, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an ultranationalist orthodox Jew, had killed twenty-nine Palestinian worshippers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron."
  • p. 249 of A history of Israel by Ahron Bregman, which states: "On 25 February 1994, a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, opened fire inside the main mosque in Hebron, the site of the Tomb of the Patriarchs, venerated by Jews and Muslims alike, killing 29 Arab worshippers. On 6 April, a Hamas suicide bomber killed eight Israeli in Afula, apparently as revenge for the Hebron killing, and seven days later another Hamas bomber, explosives strapped to his body, detonated himself on a bus in Hadera killing six Israelis."
There are more, but I think the point has been made, no?
By the way, I also corrected the date of the Mehola Junction bombing. It was not April 16, 1993, but April 16, 1994. It was incorrectly dated in our Wikipedia article. I've also added a fact tag to the claim that it was the first suicide attack. Tiamuttalk 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, thank you for the sources. The books you cited are simply incorrect and are unfortunately part of a wider-misconception (even cited by BBC and the Economist) that the Hamas' first suicide bombing occurred after the massacre. The Mehola Junction bombing was not 1994, it was 1993. This is confirmed by the cfr, far more concrete and reliable than any of the books listed above. Also note that many acts of violence and murder were attributed to Hamas well before the massacre. We should obviously edit out the current claim that this was the "first suicide bombing" when it obviously wasn't. We also don't know if the alufa suicide bombing was a response to the massacre, or if it was simply part of hamas' general suicide bombing campaign. If we can have a specific hamas leader directly says X suicide bombing was a response to the massacre, we could include it...but right now the facts simply aren't there. It's unfortunate that many notables try to interpret Hamas suicide bombing campaign as a reaction to the massacre, but it is clear the campaign was outlined well before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, thanks for your comments. Zero0000 left me a note regarding the Mehola Junction bombing and it seems that [[Anthony Cordesmann] (whom I was citing for the year 1994) is in fact wrong. I'm sorry for the confusion.
The sources cited here (not Cordesmann) state clearly that the Afula bus bombing was the first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. I don't have any real reason to disbelieve that claim (I think the qualification "against Israeli civilians" is significant here, as prior bombings seem to have not been targeting civilians or did not result in civilian casualties). The sources also say that the bombings were retaliation by Hamas for the Goldstein massacre. I have no reason to disbelieve that claim. I don't think a statement from a Hamas leader is required to prove that either. Nevertheless, I provided suc a statement above, so I don't know why you are still asking for one.
I'm not sure how to proceed here to be honest. The sources seem clear to me, but for others, there may still be doubts. I think writing what the sources say, and including a footnote with any information that is seemingly related or contradictory is one solution. Though I'd be concerned about OR on our part. Tiamuttalk 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is source which I believe will help clarify the issue further. pp. 11-12 of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt and Dennis Ross states that the Mehola Junction bombing on April 16, 1993 was Hamas' first suicide car bomb attack. Though it specifically targeted Israeli civilians, the attack killed only the bomber and a Palestinian bystander. It then says: "A year later, on April 6, 1994, Hamas carried out its first successful suicide car bomb attack in Israel proper when a car packed with nearly 400 pounds of explosives detonated beside a bus picking up students in the Israeli town of Afula ..."
In other words, the Mehola Junction bombing is the first suicide car bomb attack to attempt to target Israeli civilians. However, it was carried out inside the West Bank and did not result in Israeli civilian fatalities. That is why sources say that the Afula bus bombing attack was the first suicide attack against Israeli civilians in Israel. i.e. because it was the first to result in Israeli civilians casulaties and the first to be carried out inside Israel proper. I think adding a note about this in a footnote would for us to maintain the inclusion of this material without misleading the reader.
Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 11:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay now we're getting specific. The first suicide bombing in question targeted Israelis - I presume Israeli soldiers, but the exact circumstances aren't known other than the place, time, and casualties. This is two sentences we're talking about: The first suicide bombing carried out by Palestinian militants was launched by Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in 1994, in retaliation for the massacre carried out by Goldstein.[42] Eight people were killed and 34 wounded in the attack which took place in Afula on April 6, 1994, at the end of the forty day mourning period for Goldstein's victims.[43] This is all very wrong. The first suicide bombing occurred almost a year before Goldstein, and according to Jpost 12 other suicide attacks were recorded well before the massacre. So now we know that is wrong and must be fixed. Second, what suicide bombing specifically was carried out in response to the massacre? The one in Aluf? Okay, but we can't say it started hamas suicide bombing because hamas had already committed half a dozen attempts before. And we can't give too much weight to the POV that the suicide bombing campaign *began* because of the massacre - because that is merely Hamas' agenda. Many people in other continents have been murdered in "response" to attacks in Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wikifan12345. I changed the text of the first sentence to read: "The first successful suicide bombing carried out by Palestinian militants inside Israel was launched by Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in 1994, in retaliation for the massacre carried out by Goldstein." I also added a footnote explaining that the Mehola Junction attack was the first attack to target Israeli civilians, but that it only killed the bomber and a Palestinian bystander. I also included in that footnote the quote from Levitt and Ross above to make clear the distinction between the two (i.e. that the second one was resultd in Israeli civilian casualties and took place in Israel proper).
I don't see a problem with the second sentence at all. There is no reason to doubt what three reliable sources (quoted above) have to say about Hamas' motivations for the attack. I'm quite sure that it was designed as retaliation for Goldstein's attack. If you look at the article for Yahya Ayyash for example, you will see that his death was also followed by bombings at the end of 40-day mourning period. The is a well-established modus operandi for Palestinian militants. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind ... The sources though do not dispute this. Tiamuttalk 11:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
All right. But does the source differentiate between inside Israel and Israeli people? I just feel like the current phrasing gives the false impression Palestinian suicide bombing began only AFTER the massacre, and the original sentence (not the new edit) was simply inaccurate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We mustn't give false impressions, but we should also remember that this article is about the Hebron Massacre and its effects, not about the history of bombings. Zerotalk 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is correct to write "the Mehola Junction attack was the first attack to target Israeli civilians". What I've read only suggests the bus full of soldiers was the target. Maybe I forgot something (old age you know..). Zerotalk 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was basing that wording on Levitt and Ross. Upon checking, I see that they say it took place alongside two Egged busses, offering their opinion that it was specifically targeting civilians. They don't say who was on the bus and they don't describe it as the "the first" such attack on civilians. They do say it was "the first suicide car bomb attack". I think we should use that wording, period. Tiamuttalk 14:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the many newspaper articles about it at the time said that one of the busses was carrying Israeli soldiers (which is how they got injured), and the other was a regular local bus. However it didn't say who if anyone was on the local bus. (I'm quoting from memory; too busy for more research today.) Zerotalk 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Katz (pg 76) describes the targeted station this way: The Mehula Junction was one of those gas-station snack-bar landmarks that dotted the lengthy Jordan valley Highway. It was a place where soldiers, settlers, and tour buses could stop, fuel up, and consume soft drinks and snacks. At times, hundreds of people were gathered in front of the road stop. It was a ripe target... Twenty soldiers and a civilian were also injured in the attack. So it stands to reason that there were both civilians and soldiers there at the time of the attack.
Also, regarding claims above that Mehula was the first suicide attack, Katz notes that They (the people investigating the Mehula junction bombing) had seen suicide truck bombs in Lebanon... Suicide car bombs were a poor man's artillery shell, and they were used with great effectiveness in Lebanon by Hizballah. Raul654 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
As a life-long propagandist, including years as the official propagandist of the Irgun, Katz cannot be treated as a reliable source. The text you quote proves his nature very well: none of the contemporary newspaper reports put the number of injured at more than 9. Moreover, the injured civilian was an Arab and so unlikely to have been a target. Zerotalk 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't Katz as majorly unreliable. Keep in mind the original Gus Martin quote was simply false. Many suicide bombings were recorded well before the passover massacre, and the idea that suicide bombing was only a "reaction" to the massacre has been peddled around for many many years. Katz can't be any less reliable than Joe Stork (citation 43) who has been implicated in providing biased research regarding Israeli policy. But in regards to the article - I really don't see the relevance in including such a disputed topic. We know this wasn't the first suicide bombing, so now we've simply adjusted that lie into first suicide bombing "inside" Israel which I think is simply game semantics. Also note that while Israel has been victim to ~150 suicide bombing, about ~1,100 have been thwarted. Who knows how many were prevented prior to 1993. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
From Shmuel Katz: The New York Times described the arguments in the book as "one-sided" in a joint book review of Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine by Katz and The Angry Arab by Abboushi. Elaborating, the reviewer wrote: "Books like the ones in question is read mainly by those who are already convinced; while the neutral reader is unlikely to pick up both of them". The reviewer added: "Similarly, Katz devotes an entire chapter documenting the existence of every Jewish village in Palestine and the immigration of every band of Jews to it through the centuries since the destruction of the Second Temple in order to enhance the Jewish claim to the country. Yet, the presence in that same country of a majority Arab population for 1,300 years is not deemed by him sufficient ground to establish its claim to a national homeland in it."
Hardly an unbiased source on this issue. Factsontheground (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)