Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Are Factsontheground's edits (basically one edit and a fix) relevant?

I don't think the number of visitors to a grave is very relevant information. Again, this is not an article about a grave. Also, 10,000 visitors over 16 years is hardly much. If that is what he wanted to show. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I think that any particular party (especially of people who probably were drunk as per the preceipts of Purim) is worth mentioning. Debresser (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the video about from ynet about Goldstein allegedly being celebrated this year and it seems edited and fake. --Shuki (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That's original research, Shuki. Find an expert that shares your opinion and you might have something. Factsontheground (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Both Haaretz and the Jerusalem post thought the story was notable enough. And Palestinian celebrations of inappropriate events are described in-depth on Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
1. The question is not notability, but relevance. This article is about the 1994 massacre, not about a Purim celebration from 2010. 2. That video is an obvious fake, no expert needed. WP:OR doesn't require editors to stop using their heads. 3. What happens in other articles I don't know, nor is that an argument. 4. You reverted another unrelated edit as well, which is sloppy at the least. Debresser (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The story is obviously relevant to this article because the people in question are celebrating the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. That's why it got published in two separate publications. It is not just a "Purim celebration".
You will find that the original research policy does actually apply to assessments of videos as "fake" by Wikipedia editors. Ask any admin if you are unsure about this.
The reason I reverted your edit regarding the mention of Purim and Ramadan is because I agree with ZScarpia on that issue, not because I was being "sloppy". Try to keep civil, okay? Factsontheground (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Those people were celebrating the festival of Purim on the day of Purim. If (and that remains a big "if") during that celebration, while as per the preceipts of Purim being drunk, they made up some song related to the subject of this article, then that is such a fringe occurance and of such neglectable importance, that it has no bearing on this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site.
Nowhere in WP:OR or WP:V did I see the word "video". You'll have to better than tell me to "check with any admin".
My accusation of you being sloppy was based on the fact that our edit summary specified only one of the two things you did. So that was sloppy, no offense intended. Also, if you agree with him, the next section of this talk page addresses that issue, and you should have joined that discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add, that this is a highly contentious article, and from experience of the last few months I can tell you that the best thing is to get consensus and input from other editors first. User:Zero0000, User:Timan, and Wikifan12345 might be willing to voice their opinions. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to understand why this event is notable and controversial, I'll explain it for you. Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem are controversial and are often a matter of dispute between Israel, the Palestinians and the United States. Sheikh Jarrah is particularly controversial because of the number of resident Arab families that have been evicted over the years. Often, the families are first evicted by Jewish settlers who take over their houses and are then protected by the police. The fact that settlers were loudly singing these songs in an Arab neighbourhood, in a home that had been recently taken from an Arab family, in a way that would intimidate and threaten the remaining Arabs, is very controversial. It's not a story about just any Purim celebration.
And as for repeatedly calling me "sloppy" please read Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.Factsontheground (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The event has some marginal significance in the big picture of a long conflict, but nothing that warrants inclusion in any Wikipedia article IMHO. Including specifically and especially this one.
Sorry if I struck a wrong note with you. It was not a personal attack, but rather an impersonal assessment of an edit. I hope youl'll be more carefull with your edit summaries next time. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, 1. on Purim all sing loudly 2. in Israel houses are mostly open to let in fresh air in the evening 3. during Purim people might have left the door open to make guests feel free to enter without disturbing the host. Try to see things in perspective, and do not ascribe too much to minor events.
Especially since, as I stated before, the voices on that video are clearly edited. It is not beyond certain elements in Israel to have made up these words. That is of course pure speculation, but the unreal clearness and homogenousness of the voices in what is supposed to be a drunken brawl of a whole group, is more than suspicious. This has been noted by others in their comments on this video, see notably commentary #13. He in addition points out that we don't actually see anybody singing these words, which makes the whole thing even less reliable. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
FoG, this is an encyclopedia article and you should be more interested in improving it than just merely adding POV unrelated info. Let's say that theoretically they were celebrating the massacre. One family over the history of time does not make it notable to be included here, the same way that someone celebrating any assassination is not notable. On the other hand, if you can show that this is really a common occurrence, than you might have a case. --Shuki (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't understand why this is notable and newsworthy I'll quote myself: "Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem are controversial and are often a matter of dispute between Israel, the Palestinians and the United States. Sheikh Jarrah is particularly controversial because of the number of resident Arab families that have been evicted over the years. Often, the families are first evicted by Jewish settlers who take over their houses and are then protected by the police. The fact that settlers were loudly singing these songs in an Arab neighbourhood, in a home that had been recently taken from an Arab family, in a way that would intimidate and threaten the remaining Arabs, is very controversial. It's not a story about just any Purim celebration." Factsontheground (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Repetition isn't helpful FOTG. Even if we assume what you say is true, it has little to no connection with the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. we are libeling a whole demographic here - and most importantly an important Jewish holiday. Just because a handful of drunk settlers might have sang a song about Goldstein does not some how give us the right to make a connection to the massacre. This should be debated in the actual Goldstein article than anywhere else. The real stories are seeing Palestinian movements latching on to accusations or stories like these, and using them as an excuse to incite violence and riots. Right now there are massive demonstrations in East J'lem and dozens have been injured. I do not like seeing wikipedia encouraging such violence by overly-representing irrelevant stories as claims of "injustices" that must be rectified with suicide bombings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikifan12345, Wikipedia policy for determining whether material belongs on Wikipedia does not include considerations that some information may incite violence in the real world. In particular, unlike Israeli media, Wikipedia is not censored. Factsontheground (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, but the media coming out of E'Jlem and the Palestinian territories is. PLO has some of the strictest media laws in the World. Consider that in this dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And how is that relevant? Factsontheground (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with the obvious, that both Israeli and Palestianian and Arab media are to various degrees censored, and that this has no bearing upon Wikipedia policy. At the same time I find Factsontheground's insistance and repeating himself less than necessary. Please accept the fact in good grace that your personal opinion is at odds with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in this article. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? Which criteria? Factsontheground (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Debresser, you didn't answer my question. You can hardly claim consensus given that you have not made a clear argument on Wikipedia policies not to include the material and you and Wikifan12345 seem to have different reasons for not including the material. Factsontheground (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Your question has been answered above, by me and other editors. Please drop this dead horse. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reported Factsontheground at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Factsontheground_.28Result:_.29 for insisting to add the information discussed above against consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Some things that I think bear pointing out:
  • Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. "Edit warriors" often fight aggressively, game the system, stack the discussion, or exhaust other users into dropping the issue, rather than seeking constructive, encyclopedia-related consensus. It's a bit of a stretch to match Factsontheground's editing to that. It may be seen as significant that none of Factsontheground's edits has involved hitting the Undo button. Also, as you pointed out, the WP:3RR rule has not been broken.
  • 3 editors may be considered a fairly limited level of consensus.
  • The listing instructions at the Edit Warring Noticeboard say: you should try to address the problem through dispute resolution.
-- ZScarpia (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, I have a suggestion to make. The footnote which comments on the Purim connection which you have just added concludes: "in the years to come after 1994, there would be numerous instances in which the settlers would celebrate Purim by also invoking Goldstein's memory and image in a provocative manner." Why not add the Sheikh Jarrah incident to the end of the note as an example of such a celebration? -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I appreciate your constructive attitude to consensus seeking. I agree that consensus could have been stronger than 3:1, but at least that was ample warning that people disagree with him. In addition, I explained to Factsontheground in one of my posts in this section that this article is a very contested one, and that consensus in advance is highly recommended. In addition I posted a polite request on his talk page two days ago to abide by the emerging consensus of this section. In view of all this, his decision to return to his edit was confrontational. Also notice that edit warring is not at all restricted to violations of the 3rr rule. I therefore find that going to wp:ani/3rr was the next logical step. All I hope for from that discussion is a warning to Factsontheground to avoid edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
On the one hand I think that it is fairly pointless to repeatedly add the same, objected to, text back into the article and my sympathy for Factsontheground is tempered by the fact that he has raised a couple of cases (which had a No Action result) on the Edit Warring Noticeboard himself. On the other, I think that the case being argued that Factsontheground is edit warring here is a bit thin and that you've gone to the Noticeboard too quickly. You would have a stronger hand if you'd done something like Request a Comment or made other efforts to find a solution first. -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I take your point for future consideration. Please notice that the case is closed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Factsontheground_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_Warned.29, which I think contains an important message for all of us (myself included). Debresser (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Your judgement was better than mine. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Debresser you seem misinformed about Wikipedia policy. That is a behavioural noticeboard; it says nothing about content. If you want to "close the case" on the addition you need to get more editors than yourself to form a consensus. Anything else is just gaming the system. Factsontheground (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a bright side: if the dispute had gone on longer it might have resulted in a block rather than a warning. Good try, but bad luck. Sometimes it is better to just take it on the chin and I think this is one of them. Even if you have a case, by making a fuss you can reinforce the impression that you are "the problem". The worst thing to do now would be to try and add the material back without seeking to discuss it first. Apologies if my advice is unwelcome or is patronising. Do you think it was incorrect to say that the articles confirm that there were videos on the Internet, but don't confirm whether the incidents they purport to represent are genuine? -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Zscarpia, I appreciate it. Your suggestion is insightful, and in a perfect world would probably be the version that appears on Wikipedia, however in the interests of compromising with DBresser, I'm dropping the whole issue regarding the videos and the Sheikh Jarrah celebrations on Purim 2010, unless better sources emerge.
The issue was small to me, and I'm really just concerned that I was warned of edit warring despite making extensive use of the talk page and trying to make compromise versions of my additions. In the meantime, DBresser, who edit wars against the common sense mention of the religious holidays supported by Time magazine gets off scot free. I think there may be ownership issues about this article, but I will continue to edit and improve it regardless. Factsontheground (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert by ZScarpia

In this edit User:ZScarpia undid this edit of mine with the edit summary "an explanation of why the original form wasn't liked would be nice".

I think ZScarpia is at least behaving inappropriate when his only reason to revert me is that he doesn't see the reason of my edit. He might have inquired about it here. In addition, my edit summary said specifically that I was "moving up the date", meaning that I moved up the date this event took place to the first sentence of hte article. That seems a quite obvious improvement. The fact that through this the additional information that this fell "during the overlapping religious holidays of Purim and Ramadan" was removed is 1. not a problem, since this article does not explain why that should be significant 2. in any case was not stated by ZScarpia as being the reason for his revert. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The source given ("When Fury Rules", Time Magazine, March 7, 1994) details the significance of the date. Would you have any objection to the information being added into the body of the article? -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I would have no problem with that. In that case you should stress the significance as well. But you would have to note that the only source for this significance is speculation (by way if asking suggestive questions) of a pronouncedly anti-Goldstein artice in a newspaper, without support from hard facts. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The significance of the dates is obvious and they should be mentioned. Factsontheground (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
What is so obvious to you, is devoid of significance to me. Also, did you note my previous post, that the source is highly partial and insinuative, and does not bring any facts as to the relevance of these dates? If Time Magazine engages in what can only be described as plainly bad journalism to gain readers by rehearsing popular sentiments and making suggestive allusions, surely an encyclopedia must refrain from that. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out the cut-off point at which an anti-Goldstein article becomes TOO anti-Goldstein. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's interested, here's a Goldstein-supporting webpage in which the occurence of the massacre on Purim has significance: Dr Baruch Goldstein was Murdered 14 Years Ago. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) And, of course, the news archives (such as the UK ones of The Independent, The Guardian and the BBC and others using the Associated Press bureau) contain a lot of information about Baruch Goldstein and the massacre, the massacre having happened at the dawn of the Web. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The book Communicating Terror by Joseph S. Tuman describes the significance of Purim and Ramadan to the massacre ([1]):

Adding to the symbolic texture of the context for the terrorism that was to occur on that fatefu day was the fact that in 1994 it so happened that the Jewish holiday of Purim coincided with the beginning of the monthlong religious observance in Islam known as Ramadan; here, the former overlapped with the beginning of the latter.


Although Goldstein did not say anything during his attack to explain his actions, it is known that the night before his assault he had attended a service at the Jewish side of the Cave of the Patriarchs where after listening to the traditional reading from the Scroll of Esther, he told others there that they should all behave like Esther. The timing of his attack the next day at the same site hardly seems the product of happenstance or coincidence. It was the day of Purim. Moreover, although his actions seemed to be the product of a mind that had snapped or become depraved, there did not seem to be any sign that he was suffering from a mental disorder. His actions were deliberate and intentional. Goldstein was troubled by the ongoing peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in Oslo and openly concerned that a Palestinian state was about to be created. His attack on Muslim worshippers at the same site, while Purim coincided with Ramadan, was an attempt to cast himself symbolically in the story as Mordecai. Indeed that was exactly the way his actions were interpreted by other settlers at Kiryat Arba, and in the years to come after 1994, there would be numerous instances in which the settlers would celebrate Purim by also invoking Goldstein's memory and image in a provocative manner.

I think this is a good enough source to justify the mention of Purim and Ramadan in the lede. Factsontheground (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I had no big problem with it before. Just that the importance should be explained somehow in the article. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
A very good point. Any volunteers to do the write-up? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Factsontheground has already done it. The text explaining the relevance is now in the first footnote. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Then, you don't think that the significance of the date should be explained in the body of the article? -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The footnote is a support for material in the article. It is not material itself; we cannot assume that the reader will read it and in fact that is unlikely. I think it would be highly appropriate and necessary to discuss the significance of the dates in the body of the article, perhaps presenting the argument that is in those footnotes. Factsontheground (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Some critical questions regarding the first sentence, which reads: The attack set off riots and protests throughout the West Bank, and an additional 19 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli Defense Forces within 48 hours of the massacre.2

Please address

1. What is the cause of an additional 19 Palestinians being killed? Were they killed in connection with the mentioned riots / protests? I think it should clearly say what the connection is between the riots (first part of sentence) and the additional deaths (second part). Otherwise, it is up to the reader to decide what it is. When I read it, it seemed like their deaths were just a continuation of the Goldstein attack, and potentially unrelated to the aforementioned riots. If they died in connection to rioting, then it should more clearly say so. ie - "in connection with the rioting and protesting, an additional...."

2. This sentence only really gives one aspect of the consequences. Were any other parties harmed or killed as a result of riots? ie - Israelis.. ?

cheers -- (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

I know the Ha'aretz reference states that 29 people died, but a Guardian article from the time of the massacre reported the official death toll as being 40, and this figure may still only represent the minimum number killed:

I think it's worth pointing it out in the article (and in Goldstein's). Thoughts? - (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is sourced, no problem Debresser (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason for massacre

I haven't edited in a year or two, but the reasons for massacre are interesting. I reread the talk and I believe the official report and reliable sources report that there was never any definitive reason given for this, although there was alot of speculation, rumor, ect. Is that correct? Can folks provide more reliable sources about the theory that this was a "preventive" stike so to speak, so that can be added into the article. I tagged the material that could use sourcing/copy edit. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Goldstein's bio mentions that a writer thought that he was acting out part of the Purim story? Is that theory worthy of inclusion here? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the most valid theory. Purim is a celebration of a Jewish 'revolt' in the book of Hester when she convinced the Persian king to kill his own people because of false conspiracy charges made against Hasam, a high ranking official, do the research. Anyway Since Purim is a celebration of a massacre of ~75,000 Iranians, it is presumed Goldstein acted that way "in honor" of that historical slaughter. Something that is missing in this article and discussion is the mere mention of the memorial dedicated to Goldstein's "service". A site was made in "honor" of his "honorable" acts, and the celebration was comended by the Israeli government, was it commended by the rest of the Israeli populace? Check youtube, many interviews cover jews agreeing and defending him, saying he died a hero, but I'll give the other poster the benefit of the doubt and say that only 3% supported his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah002 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

JDL post-factum labeling

Goldstein was a JDL member in the 70's. It was called an extremist (not terrorist, as per article) organization by the FBI in 2001, long after any involvement from Goldstein, Kahane, etc (who were dead then). Southern Poverty Law Center's classification, although attributed, is also post-factum here. Although both facts have references, they do not contribute to this article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, these should be removed? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should be reverted on the grounds that Goldstein wasn't involved then, they still earned the designation. I'd keep it on the grounds that the FBI doesn't specifically call them a terror group but you can extrapolate that from the document. If people object to that I could dig up another reference or we could just change it to "designated a terrorist organization by the US government" and dig up the State Dept. papers. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What happened to JDL decades after Goldstein's involvement is irrelevant in this article. Designated a terrorist organization? LOL, Good luck with finding that reference! --Vicky Ng (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here we go, "Proscribed terrorist group" I must have been thinking of Kach in relation to the State Department. What about keeping it as "later designated a terrorist organization by the US government"? That keeps in Goldsteins relation to the JDL and their status but makes it clear he wasn't around then. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I had the same idea, and support this completely. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." The FBI citation which is being blanked explicitly calls the JDL a terrorist group, despite the claims on this talk page. The claim that it wasn't described as "extremist" or "terrorist" by federal authorities until 2001 is also manifestly false.[2][3] The JDL claims Goldstein as a "charter member" and a "martyr" on their website, demonstrating the salience of the text. The connection between Goldstein and the JDL is made by many authorities on terrorism, Middle Eastern history, and racism, including the SPLC. Representing the racist angle of Goldstein and these murders, the SPLC is the perfect source (a better link would be this, however). There is no reason to blank this text. DBaba (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I also think that blanking it was a little hasty. As I said above, the text should be changed a little, because the two references you bring still don't establish that the JDL was a designated terrorist organisation at the time when Goldstein was involved with it. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No one said he was. The JDL ties are included as a part of Goldstein's ideological alignment and personal history. Could we keep the original wording and just put in "later designated a terrorist organization"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talkcontribs) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Decades since Goldstein's participation, years since his death, long after Kahane distanced himself from JDL and was dead too, an entirely different JDL (different legal entity, based in LA, with a self-appointed Chairman and very few members of the original JDL) was infiltrated by FBI informant who supposedly convinced two of its leaders to carry out terror attacks, recorded his conversations and supplied them with explosives. Both were killed in prison before their trial ended. And that's what you want to link Goldstein to?? Leave these details to an article about history of the JDL. --Vicky Ng (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hoffman lies in his book. Would JDL continue to operate, openly, if it was, indeed, a designated a terrorist organization? NY Times query proves nothing. Anyone can publish pretty much anything in NY Times. Finally, the mentioning of it in passing in Congressional Testimony incorrectly calls it a proscribed terrorist group (there is no such designation). Muslem terrorists (including those who assassinated Kahane), not JDL, are subject of the linked testimony. --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
. . .okkkkkkk. I'll respond in good faith. The JDL has been on and off the FBI watch list at different times dating back to at least the 80's and had been under FBI surveillance since the 70's. Goldstein emigrated in 1983 from Brooklyn where he had been a member of JDL for sometime. I don't think its unfair to include or un-notable. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"Under FBI surveillance" and "on and off the FBI watch list" is not the same thing as "terrorist organization". Irv Rubin took over JDL in 1985, years after Kahane distanced himself from the group and years after Goldstein's involvement. Article creates the wrong impression that Goldstein was a member of a terrorist organization called JDL. Militant, yes. Terrorist, no. --Vicky Ng (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Anyways, I think that reinstating the removed text with the addition of the word "later" is acceptable to all here, right?
It's like saying, "Meir Kahane, later killed by Arab terrorists, whose son and daughter-in-law were killed by Arab terrorists in a separate incident, blah blah." No, it is not acceptable. What happened to JDL later, without connection to Baruch Goldstein's participation, should not be in this article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We have 3 sources that meet WP:RS (Rand Corporation, FBI congressional testimony, New York Times) all saying that it was a terrorist group. The ADL's chronology details the various violent and sometimes lethal events and bombings tied to the JDL since the 70's. JDL was involved in terrorist incidents when Goldstein was a member and living in the US. The argument that the terrorist JDL was only the post '85 group is specious. Given the nature of his actions, JDL's public approval of them and their past history, this is relevant information. We can change the wording to match the timing of the sources but removing all mention is not helpful to readers trying to understand Goldstein. Sol Goldstone (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, please propose new wording here. No reason to have this discussion in circles (I already commented on the sources above). Keep in mind that JDL of that time was not banned, outlawed, or designated as terrorist organization. It was militant (already says that), involved in violent demonstrations and suspected of terror against Soviet targets. --Vicky Ng (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with Sol's proposal above: "later designated a terrorist organization by the US government". Debresser (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
JDL is NOT designated a terrorist organization by the US government. Even if it was, I would object to this wording, as it has nothing to do with Baruch Goldstein or JDL activities that took place at the time of his involvement. --Vicky Ng (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
All of my proposed wording would include references to the information you find objectionable/irrelevant. The JDL, during Goldstein's membership, wasn't confined to violent demonstrations. It was linked to numerous bombings some even resulting in American deaths (Sol Hurok bombing)and was shown to be illicitly acquring stock piles of weapons and bomb making material.[4] I like the idea of inserting "later" to reflect the source. What would you prefer? Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I inserted information about JDL violence and links to bombings, with references, without stating incorrectly that it is a designated terrorist organization or creating a false impression that Goldstein had anything to do with JDL after his emigration. What relevant info have I left out? --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I . . . don't have a big problem with that! I just felt it was important to keep the JDL link in there somewhere. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This latest version is not acceptable. We can't add information about every word we use in this article. Let's try it another way. Why, Vicky Ng, do you object to the word "terrorist organization"? I also seem to remember that this is sourced, and that I have seen the source at one time or the other. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That made me re-examine the sources. Thanks, Debresser. The Rand Corporation is explicit that the FBI considered them a terrorist group in relation to their "dramatizing the plight of Soviet Jewery". That's the Kahane period when Goldstein was still in the country. I think that satisfies Vicky Ng's requirement that they were labeled terrorists when Goldstein was still an active member. Here's the FBI talking about the JDL's activities in the 70's and 80's as terrorist acts (I forget if that was posted yet or not). So Goldstein was a charter member of a group that was labeled a terrorist organization by the FBI for committing terrorist acts during the period of his active membership. I think that justifies the revert. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Vague citations

"Some claimed that Goldstein, in his capacity of head medical officer in Kiryat Arba, was aware of inside information warning of an upcoming Arab pogrom and acted in order to prevent this.[who?][citation needed] It was also claimed that army failed to provide proper security before the attack.[who?][29]"

I just tried to follow this citation, and found a very long article. I'm just wondering if it's necessary to give more specific detail about where in the document the citation is pointing to? This source is cited a few times in the article.

Also, the information I actually did find is that the report concludes that the army provided adequate security. So is it really relevant that some claim they didn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was relevant enough for Goldsteine to go and kill some 30 arabs, so yes, I'd say it's relevant. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If the article keeps something like "was aware of inside information warning of an upcoming Arab pogrom and acted in order to prevent this" it should be made clear that the claim is restricted to Goldstein's supporters, and that it is contradicted by the official report which states that the evidence indicates premeditation going back much earlier (see section 2(a)). Zerotalk 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, all stages of the event, including his preparations and behavior on the morning of February 25, 1994, as well as both general, and specifically ideological conversations which he conducted with others, such as the arguments with Mr. Meir Lapid (exhibit 1088), and an interview with a foreign correspondent early in February 1994 (exhibit 1092), indicate that his actions were premeditated. (Zero, 02:54, 24 April 2011 UTC)
If, as you say, he was head medical officer of Kiryat Arba, the article should be corrected. As far as listing possible motives go, I find it strange that there's no mention of the mainstream theory that he was trying to derail the Oslo Accords (which doesn't suffer from the problem of the progrom theories, that they can't answer the question of why there is no evidence of Goldstein trying to enlist aid from anyone, including the IDF, to stop it happening). See, for example, the History Commons article Context of 'Early 1998: Oslo Peace Accords Break Down' :
February 25, 1994: Right-Wing Israeli Assassin Kills 29 Palestinians in Reaction to Oslo Accords: Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli-American physician and protege of the extremist right-winger Rabbi Meir Kahane (see November 5, 1990), has been in a deep depression since Kahane’s assassination in 1990. After the signing of the Oslo Accords (see September 13, 1993), Goldstein decided that only an act of Kiddush ha-Shem—ritual self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God—can change history and return the world to what he sees as the pre-ordained path of Israeli domination of its traditional lands in the Middle East. Goldstein enters the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Israel, a sacred site for both Jews and Muslims. He is wearing his army uniform and carrying an assault rifle; worshipers assume he is a reserve officer on active duty coming to pray. Instead, Goldstein opens fire on a group of Palestinians praying there, killing 29 and wounding 150 more. Survivors eventually overcome Goldstein and beat him to death. The reaction among many right-wing Israelis, particularly in the outlying settlements, is ambivalent. Many deplore the violence but express sympathy for Goldstein’s desperation and theological anguish. The spokesman for the settlers’ rabbis committee says he sees no reason to condemn the murders. [Unger, 2007, pp. 136-137]
    ←   ZScarpia   21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The Independent - The Hebron Massacre: Doctor who "vowed to take revenge", 26 February 1994: Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish settler who gunned down Palestinians in a Hebron mosque, had vowed to take revenge after treating a fellow Jew wounded by axe-wielding Arabs in the same place three months ago. He told Israel's army radio he was sick and tired of the army not protecting Jews in Hebron, an Arab town with a Jewish enclave in the occupied West Bank.  ...  He dropped a suicide note off at the local council office on the way to his mission of carnage. An acquaintance, who asked not to be named, said Goldstein had refused to treat wounded Arabs while serving as an army doctor during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s. He quoted Goldstein as once saying he had joined the army 'to help secure Israel and to kill Arabs'.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - The Hebron Massacre: The slaughter of the innocents: 'Preserve the sanctity of this building' reads the sign at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, where dozens died at Ramadan prayers, 26 February 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helms - The Hebron Massacre: Holy town where talk is only of vengeance: Yesterday's tragedy was all too predictable. Sarah Helm visited both sides in Hebron a few weeks ago. This is what she found, 26 February 1994.
The Independent - Charles Richards - The Hebron Massacre: Brutal birth pangs of a nation , 26 February 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Hebron Massacre: Hell comes to a holy place: Did Baruch Goldstein act alone? Eyewitnesses afterwards spoke of seeing another man, also dressed as a soldier, handing him ammunition, 27 February 1994: The tip of an Uzi sub-machine-gun would always be sticking out of Goldstein's open car window as he cruised the streets, and a large Star of David flag flew from the roof. He liked to drive slowly, hooting at Palestinian drivers and making eye-contact with those on the street.
The Independent - Robert Fisk - Hebron Massacre: Israelis can be terrorists too: The litany of Middle East atrocities, says Robert Fisk, reveals a double standard over 'enemies of peace' , 27 February 1994.
The Independent - Peter Pringle - Hebron Massacre: Brooklyn doctor with a prescription for hatred, 27 February 1994: They knew he had strong views about the Jewish Establishment being what he called 'weak' about the Arabs, and that he was a fervent supporter of the murdered Rabbi Meir Kahane, who inspired militant disciples to follow him to Israel - but they never dreamt of Goldstein as a mass murderer.  ...  In Israel, some say he had been plotting the massacre for at least two years; others that he was pushed into it by the recent murders of two friends in Kiryat Arba, the largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank, where he worked as a doctor.  ...  Goldstein joined the Kahane Chai, an organisation that brought together the followers of the rabbi, and he repeatedly vowed revenge for Kahane's death.  ...  In 1980, Goldstein was arrested for causing a disturbance at Hunter College in New York during the visit of the then Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin.  ...  Before leaving, Goldstein spelt out his feelings about Arab-Jewish relations in a 1981 letter to the New York Times. 'The harsh reality is,' he wrote, 'if Israel is to avert the kinds of problems found in Northern Ireland today, it must act decisively to remove the Arab minority from its borders.  ...  In Israel, Goldstein served on the local council in Kiryat Arba as the representative of the Kach party, founded by Kahane in the mid-1970s.  ...  Last November, after tending to a Jewish man who had been hacked by two men with axes, he spoke of his outrage to Israeli army radio. 'Again the Arab Nazi enemy, who strives to attack any Jew just because he is a Jew in the land of Israel, has hurt a Jew,' he said. 'The army does not do its job. It doesn't protect the Jews here and co-operates with them (the Arabs). We are sick and tired of this, and with God's help we will create the state of Judea here, and we will know how to handle them ourselves.' Friends say the killing of two of his friends by Palestinians in December changed Goldstein radically. 'He always made clear he was ready to give up his life for his beliefs,' said one settler. The deaths may have set him on the path of revenge.  ...  Mike Guzofsky, a leader of Kahane Chai in the US, said on hearing news of the massacre: 'Baruch Goldstein is the quietest, sweetest guy I ever met. He felt the Arabs wanted us all dead. That's where he got his hatred. He wanted to stop the so-called peace process and save the state of Israel.' Goldstein was totally opposed to the Israel-PLO accord, announced last September, and particularly to any Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Israelis admit security lapses: Commission of inquiry opens into Hebron massacre but Palestinians say they have no faith in the investigation, 9 March 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Israeli troops 'under orders' not to shoot Jewish settlers: Hebron massacre inquiry shocked by disclosure of army instruction, 11 March 1994.
The Independent - Charles Richards - Anti-Arab Kach group outlawed in Israel: Belated response to Hebron massacre is likely to help get peace negotiations going again, 14 March 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Rabin to be quizzed over Hebron warning: Israeli leader alleged to have ignored telegram from Islamic authorities about earlier attack by Baruch Goldstein, 22 March 1994.
The Independent - "Several settlers fired in mosque", 23 March 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Israelis kill four in Hebron, 24 March 2011: ...  Lieutenant-General Ehud Barak, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was giving evidence to the Commission of Inquiry into the Hebron massacre. He sought to spread responsibility for the massacre to Mr Rabin, telling the inquiry that decisions about the arming of Jewish settlers had been taken at the 'highest level'. Lt-Gen Barak confirmed earlier evidence that the army had 'not expected a massacre by a Jew'. 'We thought Jews only carry arms to protect themselves, while Arabs carry arms to kill a Jew,' he said. But in his evidence to the inquiry yesterday he stressed that soldiers had misunderstood orders that they thought forbade them from shooting Jewish settlers. 'A massacre is a massacre is a massacre. 'You do not need special orders to know what to do,' he said.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Hebron inquiry brings light to darkness: Israelis are acknowledging injustice in the occupied territories for the first time, writes Sarah Helm in Jerusalem, 29 March 1994.
The Independent - Sarah Helm - Israeli inquiry finds Hebron killer acted alone , 27 June 1994.
    ←   ZScarpia   18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"absolutely no reason?"

One piece of extremist literature does not make a trend. To include this here fails WP:WEIGHT. The article was written by Ginzburg, who happens to be linked in the section. The sources state the overwhelming majority of Israeli viewed the attack with repulsion, yet 90% of this section was devoted to support for Goldstein? Now you re-add another whole paragraph to further represent the 3.6%? Why do you feel it is appropriate to add reference to a book published by a fringe, extremist group here after it has already been stated that some rabbis praised Goldstein? Chesdovi (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Who claimed it was a trend? It was a book that got a huge amount of attention from the press and academic writers. Like it or not, it became part of the story. I only restored a fraction of what you deleted. Zerotalk 23:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet you have desisted from mentioning this fact (i.e. the "huge attention") which apparently makes mention of this book notable; i.e. - let's just mention the inflammatory material and leave out the resulting controversy it caused. That a sole racist Palestinian cartoon published in the press seen by thousands is not deserving of inclusion, but a single article/book that was maybe read by a tiny fraction of the religious settler population before it's content was exposed in the press does deserve mention...? I am interested to know why we are giving so much weight and exposure to this extremist material here. Have you considered finding articles or pamphlets which represent the opposite view and adding them too? Or do they not merit inclusion because they have not been sensationalized by the press or deemed to be of sufficient academic interest by sociologists? You accused me of POV pushing at WoW, yet it does not seem that you attempted to balance the section you edited here at all. Chesdovi (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You must be confusing me with someone else. My contributions to this article have been very few and very small. Zerotalk 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think they need to be made smaller still. Does mention of this book (with its full Hebrew title in two languages, alternative meaning and biblical source, etc.) fairly represent the overall feeling of the Israeli public? Or do we view it as a lone errant weed which is preferably removed like Condi's lone monkey representation? Chesdovi (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to strike your first sentence, which is beneath you. I hadn't paid much attention to which section the paragraph was in. Now that you drew my attention to it, I moved it to the "Veneration of Goldstein" subsection where its relevance is unarguable. Zerotalk 04:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking to weave it into the end of the 2nd para. (NB. I did not mean that your edits are not welcome, rather I meant to imply that the paragraph in question needed trimming if to be kept). Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it was just as well placed where it was, perhaps even better. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


When I compare on google scholar, I get much more results with "Hebron massacre" (removing 1929 events) than with "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre".

What is your mind about the best title for this article in respect with wp:principles ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As all of us name this 1994 killings as a massacre, we should describe the 1929 killings as a massacre too, and not "events". Ykantor (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What was the point of that comment? As to the point, Pluto, I dont think it really matters. Both names are used, and Hebron massacre is a disambiguation page that points to both. nableezy - 22:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Nb: 1929 was a massacre of course. Nobody says the contrary.
@Nableezy : regarding the title of this article, I was just wondering how this event is the best known but I agree with you : let's keep it simple and the current solution is not an issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion to Title Change

The title doesn't reflect the most popular name of the massacre, as the place where the massacre occured is best known as Ibrahimi Mosque, and thus the massacre is known internationally as Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The opposite is true. google it, and you'll see that your proposed name is 4 times less well known, INTERNATIONALLY. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That's weird, I get 106.000 results for "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre", but 127.000 results for "Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre", but I suppose that doesn't matter that much anyway, because the results are skewed towards "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre" thanks to Wikipedia. If we search Google books in the years 1994-2005 which is probably a better indicator which name is used more frequently in the relevant literature, I also get slightly more results for "Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre" (13 vs. 11). Via Google scholar it's 25 vs. 24 in favour of "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre" until today, but that name yields only five results for the 1994-2005 time frame, while there are 13 for "Ibrahimi mosque massacre", so I suspect the results for the recent years are again skewed due to the Wikipedia article. I would say that in the scientific literature referring to the shooting as the "Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre" was favoured until Wikipedia settled for "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre". (Thusz (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC))
Weird indeed. I got some 22,000 against some 6,000. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
That is because number of search results that are displayed are inaccurate, vary by location/time and therfore can not be used as a measure for anything, even for comparing scales. It is not uncommon that searching for "X Y" would report more search results than searching for "X" alone. -- Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing one sentence

I have no idea what this is doing here: "Some Jewish settlers in Hebron laud him as a hero and view his attack and subsequent death as an act of martyrdom.[10]" This sentence is complete POV. It is here primarily to spark the idea in readers' minds that some Jews approve of killing Arabs. That is akin to saying, "Many Arabs support killing Americans" in the 9/11 page. This is very misleading, as the stats have proven that a very tiny minority, a negligible amount of people, have this opinion. I am therefore removing it. In addition, the article it sources is from the highly biased anti-Israel "Independent", which would be fine if this weren't an opinion piece and had several factual errors ("Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of at least 43 Muslims at Ramadan prayers"). For these reasons I am choosing to delete this. I do not see what this adds to the article. For every nutjob out there committing a heinous act, there will be one or two people praising them. In this case, it was not at all a significant amount of people -- not even a vocal group. This is just here to combat the opinion of Rabin condemning Goldstein, but I see no need whatsoever not to let that opinion stand on its own considering most (read: almost every single one) Israelis and Jews consider it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjohnson111980 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your action is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:LEAD so I have reverted it. Your reasoning with respect to the Independent is also invalid. It qualifies as a reliable source and the article is not an opinion piece. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sean.hoyland. In addition, I don't think that is only 1-2 people, who think Goldstein died a martyr's death, but a whole lot more. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are such people. And it is important that Wikipedia report the truth, even if it may be painful. As evidence, I include this recent article.Press 1 for Tefillos at Kever of Tzaddik Boruch Goldstein who Murdered 29 Arabs. A prayer service would not make money with only one or two clients. (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I for one don't think this is unfortunate. I didn't want to go there, but since the previous editor decided he had to give his personal opinion, I feel the need to voice my opinion as well. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses: Israeli Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart Editing techniques

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


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

  • I agree; this also violates guidelines of generally not naming people who are not notable. There are further NPOV issues with lumping people killed in violent incidents elsewhere which followed with the victims of the massacre. I reverted recent edit about age of some of the victims as it is not found in source referenced, but Nishidani restored his edit in violation of 1RR. Separately, I would question Al Jazeera article as RS. --Wiking (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Debresser. Suspicions are not material to an objection. Wiking:none of your objections above are based on policy, and all happen to be wrong. (a) WP:NOTABILITY nowhere states victims, dead or otherwise, are not to be mentioned. All of the lists of dead in terrorism are given where available, and were it not for the incident remain unnotable. It's about page creation re non notable people.Read it; (b) the massacre had an immediate aftermath and this is always noted; (c) I did not break IR, read the policy and check the edit history; Al Jazeera is regularly cited on wiki pages, as are Haaretz, Ynet and other similar newspapers. No serious editor questions it. I might waste more time checking for parallels, such as Ben Yehuda Street bombings where non-lethal fatalities are noted in later incidents. (d) you complain that 'several as young as 12' is not in the source. Well, 'several' means generally four or more, and 4 children aged 12 were killed. If you wish to write 4, you're welcome to do so.
So, there is no policy substance to these objections. Judgments are based on policy, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is evidently the case here.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not object to either four or several, but that's not in the linked source. Please add another source there. I also do not object to including brief info on the casualties of violent protests that followed, as well as of Hamas bombings claimed to have been carried out in retribution, but I object including those killed and injured in separate incidents in the total tally. That's different from including critically injured who died a short while later without recovering in the number of victims. As far as listing the wounded, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. Thank you. --Wiking (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw it (by the way, an editor who changes his policy objection successively, after the first is confuted, is not doing his job. If the removal was based on erroneous policy, and then you adopt another policy objection, the problem is not policy, but the use of policy to keep the stuff out of the article on any pretext). The policy reads:

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

The names of the wounded or survivors come from a widow, or from the wounded, speaking directly in an interview with the press, here Al Jazeera, therefore the information was released to the public domain where it is reliably sourced. The accounts of survivors is self-evidently 'relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.'
As to your point that 4 or several is not in the source. Well, all you had to do was glance up at the list of the dead, where the dates are given, see that Nabeel Abraham, What About The Victims?, Lies of Our Times, May 1994, pp 3-6, provided those details, and either leave it at that, or make a ref name="Abraham" and adjust accordingly. Editing should be efficient, meaning one reads the page and figures things out, adjusting here and there, not removalist. In any case, I have B'tselem's detailed coverage, name by name, of people killed that day and in the immediate aftermath, and will be adding it. And yes, I'll include Hamas's retaliations, if nobody beats me to the 'gun'.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I did not know which source had explicit info about victims' ages, hence could not add that ref; it appeared as WP:SYNT at first glance, and certainly is not present in source referenced immediately after the statement. Will wait for you to add it.
As far as their names, the issue is has nothing to do with info being in public domain or with source reliability (bolding is mine):

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

So, I think my (and Debresser's) objection is well grounded and I am not sure what you are referring to as changing his policy objection successively. --Wiking (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That is your 5th mistake, you are confusing your several arguments with those of Dovid whose objection differed. Debresser made one argument, you are making several others. The fact that 2 object has no weight. What has weight is making a policy based objection, consistent with wiki practice, and getting agreement. Otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry can show up, and cast a vote arbitrary to swing stuff in or out according to the numbers game.
Debresser objected, on the basis of a suspicion about my ulterior motives, as to the purpose of adding details about the wounded or survivors. That itself was improper. I've never seen him object to the use, in a perfect parallel article to this, of photos of wounded survivors on the 1929 Hebron massacre. I don't either. In fact, I helped put some of the uglier details in. So Dovid can't have it both ways: objecting to an innocuous addition of details about the wounded when they are Palestinian, while keeping mum with an article that deals with the Jewish victims of a similar scale massacre in the same place, Hebron. In my view, one must be consistent here to avoid being an ethnonationalist partisan.
You quoted one part of the policy, I quoted the other. In both cases however, read properly, the WP:BLP entry does not say one cannot use such names. It says caution and judgment should be used. You say the content lost by erasure is 'insignificant'. Tell that to the survivors, who informed the larger world via a mainstream article of what they suffered. You may think wounded Palestinian are 'insignificant' and need not be mentioned. But the article is incomplete unless we include them, since the documentary record we base the article on mentions them. Finally, you have no answered my points. Address them. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not follow what you refer to as 'parallel articles'. No idea why you bring up that the fact that 2 object has no weight, as I have not used this argument. Not sure what relevant points I have not addressed either; your count of my 'mistakes' is also confusing. I feel that I am being very consistent, but once I noticed that you quoted irrelevant part of the policy, I quoted the relevant part explicitly, above. Indeed, as you pointed out, it does not prohibit listing names, but strongly discourages the practice. Please do not infer from my very straight forward objection that I think wounded Palestinian are 'insignificant'. While objecting to listing their names in this article or presenting quotes from a newspaper interview as facts, I have no objections to including information about the number of the wounded, their ages, or seriousness of their wounds, as long as it's properly sourced. Similarly, I have no objections to mentioning casualties of the aftermath clashes, but not in the same section of the article. --Wiking (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No, Nishidani, I objected not because of your motives! Don't put words in my mouth that never left it. :)
I object because those names and especially ages and the details about the wounded are superfluous, and not encyclopedical. I wrote that very clearly. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm afraid those words did fly past what the Homeric poets called your herkos odontôn, (barrier of the teeth). See (b) below

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

(a) is your objection? Then (I) answer my point about the photos of the wounded surviovors with names at the 1929 hebron massacre page. I find nothing objectionable, but logically you must exclude them, if that is your principle. If you don't then it means you allow for Jewish victims of terrorism what you prohibit for Palestinian victims of terrorism.
(ii) Your statement that it 'is not customary to add people who are wounded' is flawed. In 2 minutes I found 3 articles on Jewish victims of terrorism which add precisely this:
(a)(1) Mike's Place suicide bombing:'Critically injured Keith Trowbridge, 37, of United States'.
(a)(2) Beersheva bus station shooting:'At least one of the wounded Israeli soldiers, Daniel Harush (19), was shot and critically injured by fellow security officers who mistook him for a terrorist.'
(a)(3)) Lions' Gate stabbings under Victims
The dead were Aharon Benita, 21, and Nehemia Lavie, 41, who attempted to come to the couple's rescue.
Adele Banita and her small son were injured, Adele wounded seriously with stab wounds. Visiting Mrs. Benita in hospital along with Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Let’s make this clear,"... "just as we’ve smashed previous waves of terrorism, we will also smash this wave of terrorism."
On this evidence, it very much looks like you are trying to keep out the kind of detail on the Palestinian article which wiki editors find acceptable on articles regarding Jeweish victims of terrorism. So?Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not responsible for other editors. Please look at the good articles, and bring your arguments from them; do not look at the bad articles to bring your arguments from them. I can only state my opinion as it is, and at the moment I am trying to improve this article only. I might very well be of the opinion, that those article need to be improved too, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You are obliged under WP:NPOV to apply the rule as you understand them neutrally over all articles that come to your attention. You made a false statement, that it is not customary. It is, to the contrary, frequent, as a few minutes googling on comparable articles showed. A 'feeling' is not enough to constitute a legitimate objection.As to 'trying to improve the article', of your 84 edits, the majority consist of removal of information. The only substantial addition is this, regarding the 'good character' testimony for the mass murderer.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
And I am applying good editing rules to this article. As I said, if you see something wrong on an article, fix it. You can't use a few instances of bad editing to prove your point against simple rules of editing which are basic to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Try and focus, instead of drifting. You have given no policy basis in your remarks for objecting to the added content. This is a constant issue with you so please give and argue from policy not from self-esteem.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please strike that personal attack. I mean the "drifting" thing. I have given you the policy/guideline-based reason. Your reaction is as always to say none was given. This is WP:AE material, sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You open this with calling something a "POV inspired edit", and complain about "drifting"? Thats a bit odd. nableezy - 22:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I said that I can't escape the thought. Also, there is hardly an insult in saying an edit is POV inspired, while Nishidani was personally insulting, and not for the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • The question isn't whether Al-Jazeera is RS, but rather that a newspaper interview is (1) far from ideal as source of factual statements, and (2) per the guideline I quoted, When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media (...) --Wiking (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
To repeat. The perfect parallel to this article is that dealing with an earlier massacre in the same city, 1929 Hebron massacre. This deals with the slaughter of Jews by Arab fanatics, and details with photos of the wounded, extensive mention of the survivors, and even cites contemporary newspaper reports of what the survivors said. No editor has objected to this, rightly so. This article deals with a Jewish mass murderer in Hebron slaughtering Arabs, and I added exactly what the other article had. Namely, testimony re the wounded and from the survivors, and you, and Debresser protest. You objected to the use of Al Jazeera first as unreliable. Now you say it is reliable, but its use here violates WP:BLP. If it does then you and Debresser would be obliged to elide the use of eyewitness testimony mentioning people's names from a contemporary newspaper report in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The objection you raise here would apply, now, to 4 articles regarding Jewish victims of terrorism. No one in their respective edit history has ever objected to them on any grounds, let alone the one you adduce. The analogy is perfect, but the editing attitude is profoundly divergent. Palestinian wounded must not be mentioned. Jewish wounded can and will be mentioned. That is a total violation of editorial obligations to construct articles to ensure neutrality of representation.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've requested outside advice on this interpretation of policy here.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
To repeat. - Please, don't. You have not addressed my objections previously raised. I am not an active editor of what you call 'parallel articles'. Let's focus on this one. I am not as well versed in the en-wiki policy lingo as some, so needed to clarify on what grounds I objected to quoting Al Jazeera interview as facts. I never called it 'unreliable', and with proper attribution, of course it can be used. As far as naming the wounded, it is a separate issue. I appreciate your BLPN request, but do not appreciate misrepresenting my position there.
In general, per my understanding of BLP, whether the victims should or should not be named depends on the details of news coverage at the time of the event as well as the type of sources other than news media. As I checked some 'parallel' articles about events that took place same decade, I see that names of the wounded are generally not given. In some cases, a great deal of details is given, but that just reflects the news coverage at the time, particularly when there are fewer victims to describe (and may well be excessive). How scholarly sources will describe these events after as many decades as have passed since the 1929 Hebron massacre, remains to be seen. --Wiking (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me be clear. I don't care what the outcome is, as long as a policy is consistently applied across all relevant pages, without ethnonationalist description. If the verdict is not to name the wounded, for me, this just means a clunky name-avoidance problem. 'One man was paralysed by a shot to the throat, another man was paralysed after being shot three times' is stupid prose when you have the name from an interview where the person gives his name and the details, etc. I find nothing exceptional in the following:
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre

Shlomo. I was speaking with everyone and when I turned around I saw people flying in the air. My brother fell onto me. I didn't know if my brother was wounded or the blood of other wounded people was on him. All I felt was pain.

Eitan of the Magen David Adom recounted:

We arrived at the site and saw scenes of horror. Young children, old people, women, lying in the road without hands, without legs, blood everywhere and enormous destruction all about. Only some had the strength to scream or cry. The quiet was the thing I remember most... This was one of the worst attacks I can remember.

Livnat, the sister of Sofia Ya'arit Eliyahu who died in the blast with her seven-month-old son, described her experience:

On Saturday night, we went out for a walk with two baby carriages. Sofia's baby started crying and she bent down to pick him up, while I continued walking with her little girl. We were 10 meters from them when we heard a horrendous explosion ... I looked back and saw only a huge inferno. Sofia and the baby had disappeared."

I find suppressing those names ugly, indeed deeply distasteful but, if the consensus is not to use them, fine. I'll not add them there and replace Shlomo with 'One witness', Eitan 'A person from Magen David Adom', and Livnat = sister. etc.etc. This would be all unnecessary, but it would flow from the consequences of the interpretation of policy given.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Providing eyewitness accounts verbatim in general seems unencyclopedic to me. There needs to be some special reason to include them rather than summarize and paraphrase the sources. It helps solve the issue of attribution, but there are other ways. I would appreciate if we could also reach consensus that rioters shot and killed in the aftermath elsewhere should not be listed among the victims or in the same section. --Wiking (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Coming from BLPN. There is certainly no BLP violation in adding this material, and I don't see valid objections on other grounds either. Certainly not the fact that it is "unnecessary". There's no problem with the sourcing. What I see is a fair amount of sniping that is getting in the way of sensible discussion. Again, though, the main issue is that the material meets our policy requirements, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahimi mosque

[5] - thanks for the revert. Yes, I have been inside, if that matters. Merely trying to harmonize terms used later in the article and in the main Cave of the Patriarchs article, but here I made a mistake. --Wiking (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Before and after

The massacre immediately set off mass Palestinian protests and riots throughout the West Bank, and within 48 hours, nine Palestinian protesters had been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces.[6] Goldstein was widely denounced in Israel and by communities in the Jewish diaspora,[4] with many attributing his act to insanity.[7] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer", "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism".[8][9][10] Some Jewish settlers in Hebron lauded him as a hero and viewed his attack and subsequent death as an act of martyrdom.[11]

Rewritten by Wiking

The massacre immediately set off mass Palestinian protests and riots throughout the West Bank, and within 48 hours, nine Palestinian protesters had been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces.[5] Hamas terrorists carried out two separate suicide bombings a few weeks later, allegedly in retaliation for the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.[6]8 Israeli civilians were killed and 55 wounded in the attack, which took place in Afula on April 6,[7][8] and six more were killed and 30 injured Hadera bus station suicide bombing on April 13.

Goldstein was widely denounced in Israel and by communities in the Jewish diaspora,[9] with many attributing his act to insanity.[10] Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer", "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism".[11][12][13] However, some Jewish settlers in Hebron lauded him as a hero and viewed his attack as a preemptive strike and his subsequent death as an act of martyrdom.[14]

Leads summarize the content, they are not to be written to balance Goldstein's murder with Hamas murders later. Note that we do not add details of the IDF retaliation over the next 2 weeks, specifying the huge extra toll that took etc. It's not alleged with Hamas. They announced their intention of retaliation, etc.etc.etc. Nothing is gained by this. Condemnation choruses in the lead are useless. One just mentions that in a line. There are many things the lead should sum up but doesn't. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Im going to go through the edits later tonight and keep the improvements but revert the problems. nableezy - 22:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nableezy And who are you to decide what the "problems" are? I for one think that the fact that retaliation took place is lead material. The details of how many people died on those retaliations are not, but the fact itself is just as much lead material as the protests. By the way, if the numbers of people killed in the retaliations are removed, then so should the numbers of people who were killed during protests. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Im an editor like any other, but BRD would be one thing to keep in mind. nableezy - 02:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


let me get this straight. Hamas terrorists, but JDL, lets take out terrorist and hate group. Very NPOV. Im going to go through some of these changes in a bit and fix the slant thats been introduced. nableezy - 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization per US, EU, UN, etc, etc, etc. This is hardly POV. Kach and Kahane Chai were designated foreign terrorist organizations per US as well. JDL was certainly involved in violent acts, but it functioned legally in the US all along and was never a designated terrorist organization. Those are just facts. --Wiking (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read the Hamas article before stating which countries think it a terrorist organization.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahem. nableezy - 21:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The report linked there calls JDL a known violent extremist Jewish Organization. I do not dispute this. --Wiking (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you please just stop editing a while. You have made numerous errors. I just removed Hall of Abraham glossing the Ibrahimni Mosque. The Hall of Abrhama is one thing, the Hall of Isaac another, and both are in the Ibrahmi Mosque.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Thanks for the revert, see my comment below. I waited a few days for your promised edit, but it never materialized. --Wiking (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed the mention that the JDL is an extremist organization founded by Kahane. That is all in the link. If anybody wants to add it back in, then please also mention that Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries. We have to be evenhanded here. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't have. It adds relevant information about Goldstein's background and JDL is certainly not as well known as Hamas. --Wiking (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)