Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:49, 22 February 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 25, 2009.

Archives

1, 2

Categorisation

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

The West Bank is in Palestine my friend.Nwe (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

another response

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

Misplaced Pages is based on fact - there is no reason to cite a bigoted diatribe like "Blessed the Male".204.130.0.8 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no book with that title. The title is Blessed is the Man (Jeremiah 17:7), which in this context can also be understood as Baruch the Man in the sense of "macho". Since many of its articles were written by people who knew Dr Goldstein, and had personal knowledge of the circumstances, it certainly should be cited where relevant. The main problem is getting hold of a copy, since it was banned in Israel and never had a large circulation. -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Yitzchak_Ginsburgh#article_name_2. I have both at home. Debresser (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Prelude"

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

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

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

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

First of all, Israel is not "occupying this land illegally by force of arms". And the Israeli government position was and is extremely hostile to the Jewish residents of Chevron. The Israeli judiciary is a respectable institution whose official findings of fact are reliable sources; the PA "judiciary" is not. The Shamgar commission bent over backwards to paint Dr Goldstein in the worst light possible; but facts are facts. This is what was going on in Chevron in the days leading up to the incident, and it is vital to understanding the incident itself. It is necessary to know that the Arabs were openly declaring their intention of slaughtering the Jews, and that everyone in the Jewish community took these threats seriously; it is not necessary to know that one witness claimed that Jews "shouted hostile slogans", whatever that is supposed to mean. -- Zsero (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I must have missed that. "The" Arabs were threatening, so "the Arabs" deserved to die. How wise. Still, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this land is not occupied by force of arms? DBaba (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing illegal about it. It was occupied by Jordan for 19 years, then Jordan attacked Israel and got chased out. Legally it's not part of any country, because Israel chose not to annex it unilaterally, but Israel is the lawful authority. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• In my opinion a government document is an acceptable source in Misplaced Pages. If anybody thinks it is not impartial enough, just add additional sourced opinions, or use a variety of tags available for this purpose. Debresser (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The inquiry report is admissible. However, so far no editor has claimed to have a copy of it. I suspect the text is copied from a hidden intermediate source (and I can guess which). This is not allowed. Moreover, no evidence at all has been given that the context of the information as presented here matches the context in the report. Above I give evidence that the context does not match. Zero 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is an intermediate source, that should be mentioned, and the source checked for its reliability. Obviously. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The "intermediate source" is here--an official Israeli gov't website. Since the gov't conducted the Shamgar report, it surely qualifies as a RS. The attempt to censor out this relevant info. is blatant POV. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry: nobody will be able to remove such a good source. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I really appreciate all this involvement. I would like to reiterate what is troubling me, in case it has been lost in the dialogue. This "Prelude" would more aptly be termed "Israeli report" or something along those lines, would it not? And as for it constituting a Reliable Source, surely it is a reliable source for the Israeli government's stance, and an unreliable source in regards to its having any claim to objectivity. Also, it troubles me to see suggested, if it is being suggested, that I would want to "censor out" this addition, as it is useful in demonstrating the Israeli take on the situation, however utterly useless it may be in offering serious background info on the massacre. DBaba (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli judiciary is about as neutral and reliable a source as one will find. It was certainly not biased in favour of Dr Goldstein. As for the government, it was heavily biased against him; it classified him as a terrorist, destroyed his tomb, banned any praise of him, and didn't even try to prosecute his murderers, as it does regularly when someone kills a terrorist after he has been captured and neutralised. -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Prelude" means "what relevant events had been happening immediately before" the attack. This is unarguably relevant. Whether there is a direct connection between this event and the attack, or the innocence or lack thereof of the worshippers, is up to the reader to decide. Moreover, the official report, which as mentioned was very condemnatory of Goldstein, also saw fit to mention this fact, so it deserves to be included. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not correct when you say that this report is only a good source in respect to the "Israeli government's stance". It was made by a committee that was supposed at least to give a neutral account. If you want to say that it was biased, then you shall have to bring proof from unbiased, reliable sources for that opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure you are not wriggling away here, I am suggesting that "Prelude" be retitled "Shamgar report", and be included subsequent to the present text. Do you disagree with this? Why is the article more neutral, with an Israeli report entitled "Prelude" in the foreground?

I don't think my point is dependent on sourcing, because it has to do with the misleading presentation of information, and the misleading organization of the page, in an apparent attempt by someone using racist language ("the Arabs") to mitigate the severity of a mass murder. In any case, here is an example of criticism of the report as biased. Thanks again for your help! I will give up very soon, I assure you. Thanks to all for talking this out with me! DBaba (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The Shamgar report is at least as legitimate as any other source cited, so in explaining the prelude to the events, that's precisely where it belongs--in the prelude. If there is a conflicting report from a reliable source, feel free to add it in. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't question the legitimacy of the Shamgar report. Would you care to reply to the actual criticism? Zero 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a rename to "Shamgar Report" is logical and imperative. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Shamgar Commission happened afterwards, and issued its report about what had happened. That report is a reliable source for the facts leading up to the incidence, i.e. the prelude. Omitting these reliably-sourced facts would be highly POV, because it would create the false impression that Goldstein acted inexplicably, out of some sort of evil in his heart or something. Zero0000 and DBaba have as much as openly said that this is the impression they want the article to create, and that is why they want these facts omitted. The truth is otherwise, and that truth can be proven from a reliable source, so the facts from which the reader can understand what happened need to be in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't think so what? The indentation seems to suggest that you disagree with a rename of the section, but your arguments have nothing to do with that. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with renaming the section. This section is about what happened before the event, what was its prelude, and that's where it belongs. Renaming it to "Shamgar Report" makes no snese; the Shamgar report is a source for that, but the section isn't about the commission, which happened afterwards and belongs later. -- Zsero (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Zero wants to push his POV that Goldstein was nothing but a crazed racist murderer by dismissing a RS for facts of what happened in the prelude, nor does he even have a counter-source concerning those events, even from a non-RS. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Omitting these facts is the greatest POV, because it leads the reader to think there was no prelude, and this just happened out of the blue.

PS: Could people please be very careful with usernames, lest someone confuse Zero and Zsero! -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the structure of this article, I agree that a rename is not the logical thing to do. But I am not sure whether bringing this in a separate section and in this place is appropriate. Debresser (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically: inclusion of this prelude suggests a connection to the massacre. However, the source itself does not seem to imply that. It may better be added as a reference to "There were, as claimed by some Jews seeking to justify Goldstein's actions as a preemptive strike, substantial warnings of a coming Arab terror attack against the Jewish communities in Hebron and Kiryat Arba." and/or "In Hebron, many Jews claimed that Goldstein's action was a preemptive strike in the wake of dire warnings of a Hamas attack Prelude.", later on in the article. Debresser (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a relevant fact that belongs right where it is. What it suggests is neither here nor there--that depends on one's POV. Leaving it to the end and relegating it to the status of a footnote to the opinion of the "extremist settlers" is POV. That's aside from the fact that the name of the article, "massacre", is POV and needs to be fixed. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What do sources call it? Debresser (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which sources, and why would that matter, if it's a POV and not a fact? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules require us to use the common English name used by reliable sources. In this case "massacre" is overwhelmingly the most common including 27 times in the Shamgar report extract on the mfa.gov.il site. Zero 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this argument. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Zero 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Try and keep lagnuage NPOV: not "excuses" but "reasons". Debresser (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV rule does not apply to talk pages. But a reason rather than an excuse would be also welcome. What is it? Zero 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue. But Misplaced Pages does require us to be civil, and that includes using NPOV language in talk page discussions. Debresser (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• The part of the Prelude that mentions an imminent Hamas attack does not belong. If a reliable source could be found that explains *why* that information pertains to the massacre, then that source could potentially be quoted here. As it is, there is nothing definitively "connecting the dots." What does that information mean in the context of the massacre? You need to quote a reliable source that answers that question, or the information is irrelevant. MarkNau (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is there already, and sourced. You must have missed it in Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Other_reactions. Debresser (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it only appears in the report in another context. No causal connection between the warning and the massacre is even hinted at in the report. Zero 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently your POV blinds your eyes from seeing the following words, sourced to the Shamgar report "In Hebron, many Jews claimed that Goldstein's action was a preemptive strike in the wake of dire warnings of a Hamas attack Prelude. They cited not only the known threat of a terror attack but the failure of the army to provide proper security even under the threat of attack". Debresser (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problematic section

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

However, the Shamgar report does not corroborate that Goldstein's motivation had anything to do with these issues. On the contrary, it refers to evidence of premeditation that preceded the incidents of the day. So this part of the article needs rewriting. Zero 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Something like: The Shamgar report later showed that such a threat was indeed existent at the time. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is better, but still it isn't good. One problem is that this issue is in 3 places in the article and 1 place is plenty. Another problem is that it has an element of original research. The report does mention a warning of an attack, but it does not contain an assessment that the warning was of a severity that makes sense as a motive for Goldstein's action. (On the contrary, the report is not even much concerned that no additional security was provided or that the commander of the tomb guard was in bed asleep.) The whole case starting from the mention of a warning in the report is a construction of Goldstein's defenders and should only be mentioned in that context. Actually it is already mentioned in that way: in the "Shamgar report" section; therefore I am deleting this mention. Zero 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

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

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

Everybody has been very calm here for the last two weeks, if you hadn't noticed. But I am sure all will be happy to hear your proposals and see your edits. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I did notice, and I just wanted to give fair warning that I'd made my way over to this, and that I'm not interested in starting a flame war. It'll be a couple days (I'm really pressed for time in the next two days), but I'll do what I can to work it. It's really not a huge thing, just a couple wordings here and there. I'll see what I can do. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to have two parts to this, and I'll address them separately. Goldstein's perspective is given simply because we know it; if you have some source giving the background on the murderers in the Hebron massacre, please add them, but I don't know of any. If we knew what they were thinking, I think that their perspectives would be included in much the same way that Goldstein's was. I do have an interesting idea on this, though. Instead of putting Goldstein's motives at the beginning, why don't we do the same thing that the serial killer pages, such as BTK's does, and put that after the main article? Not only would it make the article read better (given that the current version has two paragraphs which can only be linked to the topic after reading the following paragraphs), but it would also help resolve some of the neutrality issues.

The second part of what you said is true. If one page uses murder, and the other doesn't, they need to be reconciled for the sake of consistency. I will defer to those who care on which term to use, but I'd like to keep it off of WP:LAME, if you know what I mean. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my first point, why don't we put all of the Shamgar investigation evidence after the massacre itself? The investigation took place after the massacre, so that makes more sense chronologically. It also improves the flow of the article, as it gives the event itself, then goes on to describe the resulting investigation. That's how most of the other articles of this nature are formatted, to my knowledge. Please give me your feedback on this, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I'll do it. It may take me a few tries to get it to look how I want it, and of course I want feedback on how I did. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with NSix - in the very first sentence, "was an attack on" should be replaced with "refers to the murder of". Logicman1966 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All right then, here it goes. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mabye it's just me, but I think it definitely reads better. Please review it and make sure I'm not just going crazy. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work - that's much better. Logicman1966 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, indeed. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

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

He was eventually overwhelmed and beaten to death by survivors. State Attorney Dorit Benish refused to prosecute those who killed Goldstein after disarming him.

1. A. Pasko (2 March 2004). "Baruch Goldstein and Hebron Ten Years Later". Retrieved 2008-07-18.

The reasons are as follows:

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

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

What you say sounds logical, especially since I have not found any independent confirmation of that claim, yet. Nevertheless, the fact that a source is POV is reason to mark it with {{Verify credibility}} rather than dismiss it alltogether, and you could have changed "refused" to "decided" yourself. That would have been the optimal edit, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't leave in material that we know relies on poor sourcing. How would that be 'optimal'? Fences&Windows 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

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

Please

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

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

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

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

The sword doesn't cut both ways. But let's try to stay on topic.

A massacre is persecution. Dressing up like the killer to mock the Muslim locals is persecution. Building a shrine to a mass murderer in the face of the victims, a hundred of whom survived gunshots and had to live with the presence of that shrine, this is what persecution is. The occupation is itself persecution.

This article is about relevant aspects of this massacre. You are blanking those aspects that do not suit your political goals here on Misplaced Pages. I am including what is relevant about this incident. Clearly, the shrine and its political import are of central importance to this article.

Kach is linked to at least ten times on that page. Please refrain from using sources associated with racist activist groups in the future. And please refrain from the introduction of any historical revisionist, fringe views, as though they were reputable. Also, Lubavitch is commonly referred to as a sect, even if this is in conflict with your religious views. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1. the sword does cut both ways.
2. Lubavitch is commonly refered to as a "movement" within Judaism, definitely not a sect. The word "sect" has its definitions, which are not for you to make up. I may add from personal experience that the Russian police has definitions for designating "religious sects" as oposite to "religions".
3. A massacre is not persecution, nor was this massacre part of any persecution. To say otherways is POV and/or OR.
4. Kach is defined on Misplaced Pages as a "far-right political party". If you think it is racist, and disagree with it, that is no reason to turn this article and talk page into a forum for your political opinions.
5. What is wrong with the sources you removed? You removed three New York Times, one book by Bouckaert, Peter and one BBC reference.
6. I introduced nothing, least of all fringe views (what are you talking about). I just restored part of the version before your massive edits, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is the second time in the history of this article that you make edits not in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and then vehemently protest my reactions to them using all kinds of unrelated arguments and generally ignoring Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I would recommend you to consider your tone of interaction with me and in general this time around. Debresser (talk)

1)Google "Lubavitch" and "sect". 2)You're mistaken about me removing these sources. 3)Kach was banned by the Knesset for its racist views; you know this, and you are trying to mislead third parties by suggesting it's my opinion. 4)When you use Kach-affiliated websites as sources to promote your religious interests here, you are introducing unreliable material to Misplaced Pages.

Are you almost ready to talk about the text you are blanking? DBaba (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by thanking you for being more reasonable and to the point now.

1. Try Googling "Arab sect"... :) Anyway, please see Chabad, where it says "Chabad-Lubavitch is a Hasidic movement in Orthodox Judaism".
2. You are right, and I was mistaken, you didn't remove those sources.
3. I would like to know what sources it is you claim I am adding. I repeat that I have added nothing today, apart from restoring parts of the old version of this article, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And what is the source you claim is Kach affiliated? And why would any material from a Kach affiliated site be unreliable, or a fringe view? Debresser (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The shrine, and the dressing up like Goldstein to celebrate, is important. It is in the media in the Middle East and in the West, it has everything to do with the legacy of the killings, and their lasting political impact. Why would it not be significant to the article? This is your argument, correct, that it is immaterial, or undue weight? It seems to me to be the soul of the matter, rather than a tangential item. DBaba (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it has some relevance to the subject of the article, albeit definitely only secondary or even tertiary (massacre > Goldstein > grave > visits). That is why I kept the general mention in the lead that "his gravesite subsequently became a site of pilgrimage for Israeli extremists" and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre#Worship of Goldstein subsection, even though that already comes close to undue weight, IMHO. You added even more examples and details to that, and that definitely falls under WP:UNDUE, not to mention that it leads to suspicions about WP:POINT. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you concealing things. I do not see how representing the facts of the matter constitutes WP:POINT or WP:UNDUE. These are the facts, important to the article as well as to the broader conflict. What you have done is cut the section to suggest that the shrine dismantling was the end of the celebration of the murders; this is untrue. You have also covered for the radicalism of the activists at the scene. A sobbing father is acceptable to Debresser, but not a bloodthirsty activist, whereas I seek to include each. DBaba (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have that with close to undue detail. You seek to add more, which is contrary to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and leads me to suspect ulterior motives. Anyway, our points of view are clear; let's await outside input. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you blanking references to the role of the Lubavitcher movement in defending the murders? Aren't you affiliated with this movement? I saw that you introduced a source referencing Baruch Hagever, the Lubavitch revisionist account of the massacre... But you suggest I have an ulterior motive? DBaba (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, who was one of the main authors of that pamphlet, is by no means an official spokesman for Lubavitch. Do not confuse him being a Lubavitcher chassid with that.

And yes, I do, with all respect, suggest that. Would you like to comment on that, please? Perhaps it would be relevant to have that information on the table. With all due respect, again. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV language

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

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

I don't think its POV to note that those visiting his gravesite are extremists. The article states that over 78% of Israelis found his actions to be wrong, clearly they are not visiting his gravesite. The less than 4% who think his actions were defensible are.

I have to also say that there is a huge prroblem in this article with undue weight gien to the idea that Muslims were about to attack Jews (providing by its repetitive emphasis on this idea a kind of justification for Goldstein's actions). This needs to be addressed by cutting down and condensing the references to this.

About the dispute above, I agree with Dbaba that some mention of the continuing pilgrimages to the site of his grave and the activities of those who view him as a hero do deserve more representation in this article. Leaving it out does give the impression that such pilgrimage has ended, and that's simply not the case. Tiamut 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While I have no problem with your additions and reorganisations, I reverted your edit to cut down on the subject of the Muslims attack. You have only just raised this subject here, and you must be aware that this page is rather sensitive at the moment. So please await consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that since that subject is directly related to the massacre, as it concerns possible motives of Goldstein, it should be treated at some length. Definitely more than the subject of visiting his grave by others after years... Debresser (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your position. I'd like to point out however that I did not delete anything. I only reorganized the information already in the reactions section into what I believe are more representative categories. I am going to restore the edit so that others can see it too. It shows just how much weight we give to Israeli opinions (and Goldstein's supporters within that) and how little is provided for others. Tiamut 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case I am sorry, and please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I won't delete anything without placing it here for discussion first. I just wanted to collect all related information under the subsections to which they belong. Previously, the section "Other reactions" was comprised primariyl of Israeli public reactions with just one or two paragraphs that were Palestinian reactions. I've separated those out now, creating a Palestinian reactions section. I also split the "Protests and violence" section between the Palestinian reactions section and a new Arab public and governments reaction section. I placed the Shamgar report section under the Israeli government section since its a government report. Tiamut 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That small paragraph about Yitzchak Ginsburgh that was added today looks like it can be deleted, if you ask me. The other reactions in that subsection seem appropriate to me, being that they address different issues. The only two that could (and probably should) be combined are about Lehman and Hebron Jews. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Ginsburgh paragraph. It seems relevant, is reliably sourced, and does not repeat information elsewhere. You are right though about the Lehmann's comment about the impending Arab pogrom and the paragraph following it on how some Jews viewed the attack as a preemptive strike against such a thing. Those could be placed together and condensed. Tiamut 22:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Then with your permission I shall do so. As to the small paragraph about Ginsburgh, I think it is too far off the subject. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Some smallish comments

• I don't think the section heading "Worship of Goldstein" is good, since "worship" is usually only used in regard to deities. We need a replacement word; what about "adulation", "hero-worship", "glorification", "idolization"? In general information about Goldstein's following, including events at his gravesite, are relevant and do belong in this article.Zero 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence as to whether Ginsburg should be mentioned specifically. He is the most prominent amongst his extremist circle but he is far from the only one. The reference to Schneerson should go, though, as it is too vague to be useful. Zero 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• We are not allowed to use blogs and self-published writings as sources, which eliminates the web page of Manfred Lehmann. If Lehmann is quoted by some news outlet (for example), that would be admissible. Zero 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. "Glorification" sounds good to me. I have stated my opinion about the second point above. May I understand that you basically agree with me? I disagree with you about the third point, because the blog is used only to source Lehman's own words. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Ginsburg should be mentioned as the author of the pamphlet and a contributor to the book. But Schneerson should not be mentioned since we don't have any direct connection between Schneerson and the massacre, and in the fairly detailed sources I have Schneerson is not specifically indicated as a source of Ginsburg's philosophy. As for Lehmann, in order to quote his blog we need a reason to elevate him to this status. After all, hundreds or thousands of people wrote stuff about this massacre and we have to choose. Was Lehmann (died 1997) some sort of spokesperson for a significant group of people? Incidentally, Lehmann claimed that the Shamgar report verified the claim that Goldstein acted to prevent a massacre, but I have tracked down his source (a Jerusalem Post article of 11 July 1994, page 6) and it does not contain relevant information that isn't in the MFA website summary of the Shamgar report. It does not quote anything from the Shamgar report about Goldstein's motivation. Zero 05:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• One issue that created quite a fuss during the Shamgar commission sittings but isn't mentioned in our article: it was testified that the Border Police had standing orders to never use violence against Jews. It should be included; I will find good sources (including the denial). Zero 05:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser reverts

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

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

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

Thank you for inviting me to discuss my edit. I'll be happy to explain myself. But please be assured that Chabad is not "my movement", and furthermore, the fact that I am an adherent of the Chabad movement has no relevance to my editing on Misplaced Pages. Now, as to your question:

The point you were trying to make, as I understood it and as you say here yourself is to show the condemning points of view of leaders of Israeli politics from both sides of the political spectrum. That point was made in the original text as well. There is no need to elaborate beyond what is necessary to establish that fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we do not publish speeches. The opinion of the editor of the New York Times how to characterise that speech is even more irrelevant. Let the words speak for themselves. You are right that you didn't remove any text; that was a mistake of mine.

I would like to add that I have perceived your edits here as POV for some time now, and your above post admits this saying that you find it important to stress a negative view of Goldstein. Perhaps you should consider whether you should continue to edit this article when you are having a POV. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of my undo of DBaba

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

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

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

I will try to be more discerning. But your claims are not even consistent with the edits I made... I did not leave the phrase "for others". I did not choose the word 'extremists', it is derived from the citation. I believe it is significant that Goldstein was associated with an FBI-named terrorist group prior to his attack; why should this determination be grounds for impugning my motive? The Muslim worshippers are not allowed to bear arms into the cave, so that the killer knew they would be unarmed; how is that irrelevant? Please, Debresser, review the edits more carefully before making your reply. Eliscoming1234 simply removed cited text consistent with his usual modus operandi; he's even been using Misplaced Pages to promote the Facebook pages of the JDL. Your suggestion for a rewrite of the sentence is misleading, because it neglects to mention that the "visitors" are Israeli radicals celebrating a mass-murderer as a hero by the thousands (as the BBC citation indicates). To call your suggestion "more neutral", well, I quite disagree. The word 'pilgrimage' is cited so I don't understand where you get off claiming it is unacceptable. And as far as "putting Goldstein in a bad light", well, wow, I guess I did not know there was a neutral alternative. DBaba (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2009)