Talk:Baruch Goldstein

Previous Unorganized Discussions

What about the wounded and those subsequently killed during rioting?

What does Hanadi Jaradat have to do with this?

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

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

Questions

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

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

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

What is the purpose of these questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the article Conch Shell 08:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clarify the article in what way? Are the claims written unclearly? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, but they don't 'add-up'. I try to see things from as many perspectives as possible, even though I don't accept Kach's conclusions I can now understand their reasoning.

You seem to be rather defensive about this topic, do you mind if I ask whether you accept the Kach explanation?

Conch Shell 08:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "defensive" about your questions; rather, I'm concerned that you are not using the Talk: pages for the purpose that they are intended. If your questions are intended for personal elucidation, rather than for improving article content, they would best be addressed by private correspondence of some sort. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure? Because I think there is no such thing. gidonb 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shamgar report says: "he wore his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty". --Zero 10:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Itbach al Yahud"

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

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

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

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

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

One-sided

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorist or Militant

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

Palestinian murderers are terrorists. Lies about them do not alter the terroristic nature of Goldsteins' actions. Jeremy Nimmo 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While terrorists are definitely militants, I believe the more specific word should be used across the board. I disagree with the idea that the definition of terrorist is POV. Goldstein was a terrorist, as is Osama Bin Laden, as is Hanadi Jaradat who was mentioned on this page. gidonb 10:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, I see what you mean. I do think that in this instance the word "terrorist" could be considered POV but does not necessarily have to be. Falcoboy7 05:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem is that currently it is considered POV. As a result, while the few Israeli terrorists are labeled correctly as terrorists, the many Arab terrorist individuals and organizations are usually described through terms that greatly reduce their actions in terms of the crimes against humanity that they commit. This creates an unbalanced picture throughout the articles on the Middle East and is also unfair towards the victims of crimes by all sides. Contrary to common wisdom, this does not necessarily have to do anything with Israel. Persons for example who are strongly against the war in Iraq, that has cost the US enormous amounts of human casualties and money, may be particular against clear wording on Al Qaeda. I can understand this but cannot justify the bias in any direction. As for myself, I am in favor of the terms that do not hide the nature of any destructive human actions. gidonb 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So Hamas is a "Palestinian Islamist movement," Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was only "considered a terrorist" by the US, EU, and Israel, in very few of the List of Notable Hamas Members can you even find the word terrorist, in the Hanadi Jaradat article there is not once the word terrorist, Qawasameh members of Hamas are "activists," in the Yasser Arafat article it's stated that "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians," but Goldstein can't be referred to as a militant? Don't get me wrong, they are all terrorists, but the double-standard is blarring. There should be a Wikipedia rule that anyone implicated in the murder of civilians must be labelled a terrorist. Aiden 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agree. Everyone is on the long-run well-served by calling things by their names, e.g. Palestinian terrorists and Israeli terrorists, even if some temporary discomfort is involved. It is our policy, but unfortunately our practice is different. Wikipedia should not have double standards, nor should it flatten out the severity of all violence, that is opt for the easy single-standard solution. gidonb 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well please explain to me why every time I change the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" to ""attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" in the Yasser Arafat article it is reverted by a Wikipedia administrator? Aiden 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha see my point? I removed the word terrorist from this article so that it just says "physician who killed 29 Muslims" it was reverted in a matter of minutes. I also changed the sentence "attacks carried out by Palestinian militants killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" to "attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists killed more than 135 Israeli civilians" in the Yasser Arafat article and it was reverted in equally short time. Aiden 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

"unauthoritative" claims

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

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

The metal detector at the East Gate where most of the Arabs entered that Friday Purim morning was damaged the night before.

Could Goldstein have known this? If not then it could have had no bearing on his actions.

An unusually large number of Arabs came to the Cave of the Patriarchs that Friday; around 500 men and 300 women. Because of this massive influx of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers were only able to search a handful of men for weapons.

Are Kach qualified to say that the number was unusually large? Did Goldstein know that only a handful had been searched? If not then once again it could have had no bearing on the supposed reasons for his actions.

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

Look, for better or worse, these are the claims that are made (see the links provided), and they're quite widespread in certain right-wing circles. The article already states that Goldstein did not make any statement regarding his reasons beforehand; "unauthoritative" implies that there is some body somewhere that "authorizes" claims made by various groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The fact that they are in a section named "Supporters' Claims" tells you that they are unsubstaintiated and may or may not be true. Aiden 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Authoritive' just means to speak with authority, which Goldstein's supporters can't with regard to his actions. Revisionist rubbish is regularly removed from holocaust-related pages, the same standards should be applied here. However it's faily pointless taking this to arbitration as you're on the committee and have already made your views clear. Conch Shell 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be more 'autoritative" than the opinion of Goldstein's a"h widow, Myriam? She has taken part in these claims. hasofer 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on when she first made them. Rabbi Dov Lior didn't mention anything about Goldstein acting to prevent a massacre in his eulogy, which suggests that the Kach claims were fabricated at a later date. Anyway, Wikipedia have strict rules about "canvassing opinion" so given the controversial nature of this topic I think its best if we limit the discussion to changes in the article. Conch Shell 09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the sh'loshim period... which obviously does not limit the validity of her statements,... to the very opposite in fact, they are more valuable. What looks controversial is your POV on what to keep and not keep about Baruch Goldstein hasofer 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any press reports of Goldstein's widow giving a reason for his actions in March/April 1994? (assuming the sh'loshim period is 30 days) Did she say that Goldstein told her what he intended doing and why? He could have been just another crazed American with a gun for all we know. I am applying the same standards to this page that are applied to others. Conch Shell 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Word Usage

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

Terrorists category

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

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

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

You said it yourself; it is plainly clear according to Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism that we are to avoid labeling individuals or groups as terrorists. The presence of a terrorist category is irrelevant, as it could have been created by anybody and its presence does not dictate new policy. Regardless of who is violating Wikipedia policy elsewhere, we as editors of this article should not follow in suit. Two wrongs don't make a right. And yes, the category should be deleted, or else a LOT of other names need to be added. Aiden 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misrepresenting the policy. Wikipedia:Words to avoid lists arguments for and against describing people and groups as terrorist and does not clearly present a policy that we should not. The overall impression is that there is disagreement on the issue. Personally I think we should avoid using this label and that is how I have been arguing for a long time. However, this category exists and Goldstein obviously matches it. As I wrote before, put up the category for deletion and I will vote in agreement. --Zero 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by catstail

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

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

Heptor _talk 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citing properly

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

Gravesite and commemoration -- Cleanup

Regarding my recent edits:

and Conch Shell's subsequent revert:

2006-03-16 12:00:49 Conch Shell m (→Gravesite and commemoration - removing POV

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

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

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

Deaths following

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

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

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

Massacre

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

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

If the fact that a lot of people were killed is undisputed, how is calling the killings "killings" a fringe view? Why use a POV word when we have a neutral word, Zero? —Aiden 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Massacre" is not a pov word, it is a neutral word that describes the event objectively. Calling it "killings" is losing key information, like calling something an animal when you know it's a horse. --Zero^talk 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

-Cyclo-

Citation policy

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

Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre

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

Never mind, I see that this incident is listed under Mosque of Abraham massacre. Still, how would you make it so the above title redirects to that article? I guess the best way to learn is to do so I will try. --Tom 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]