Talk:Baruch Goldstein/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: "Itbach al Yahud"

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: One-sided

message: 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)
replies: text: Palestinian murderers are terrorists. Lies about them do not alter the terroristic nature of Goldsteins' actions. Jeremy Nimmo 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terrorist or Militant

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV Word Usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terrorists category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits by catstail 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citing properly 

message: Regarding my recent edits:
* 2006-03-15 22:59:48 Nmagedman m (→Gravesite and commemoration - cleanup)
* 2006-03-15 23:11:40 Nmagedman m (→Gravesite and commemoration - more cleanup)
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gravesite and commemoration -- Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deaths following 

message: 'Massacre' is an acceptable and frequently used Wikipedia term.  A search for this word returned 8691 entries including Peterloo Massacre, 
Indian massacres,  
Tlatelolco massacre, 
Nanking Massacre,  
Malmedy massacre, 
Montreal Massacre, 
Qibya massacre,  
Osaka massacre,  
Dili massacre,  
Ma'alot massacre,  
Tadjena massacre,  
Acteal massacre,  
Srebrenica massacre,  
Massacre at Hue,  
Gwangju massacre,  
Rais massacre,  
Beni-Messous massacre,   
Tenes massacre,   
Aramoana massacre,   
Bentalha massacre and the Munich massacre.
The essence of "massacre" as opposed to "killing" is that it refers to killing a lot of defenceless people all at once.  The fact that a lot of people were killed at once is disputed by nobody.  The fact that they were defenceless was established by the Israeli commission (the best the victims could manage for a weapon was a fire-extinguisher) and not even the apologist Simmons claims that the Arabs were armed.  So it was a massacre.  Even if, against all evidence and simple logic, Goldstein thought he was saving a lot of people by his actions, it was still a massacre.  We do not need to pander to the needs of a few fanatics. --Zerotalk 10:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "Massacre" is not a pov word, it is a neutral word that describes the event objectively.  Calling it "killings" is losing key information, like calling something an animal when you know it's a horse. --Zerotalk 23:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I took care of it. You can find the article at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and redirected from Mosque of Abraham massacre. —Aiden 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aiden. Guess I'll learn how to do that later :) I sort of left that on the back burner. The "new" title does seem more appropriate doesn't it? I am NO expert though, thats for sure. --Tom 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I think so, the entire complext is known as the Cave of the Patriarchs, with the Mosque comprising only a section. —Aiden 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cave of the Patriarchs massacre]]

message: It's funny (not really) how this was discussed 4 months ago and here it is again. First off, I hate these lists because they are subjective. I see this also listed in the List of massacres. Man, what to do, what to do..... --Tom 16:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that category doesn't belong. Sorry. --Tom 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist Category...again

message: During the last few days I have on several occasions put the following contribution on this Talk page. Each time it has immediately been deleted by Gidonb. After each deletion Aiden has been very critical of this deleting by Gidonb. I am therefore now putting before the users of Wikipedia my contribution together with  messages between myself, Gidonb and Aiden. I ask the users to decide whether my contribution should or should not be on this Talk page. Thank you.
************************************************
MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE TALK PAGE
Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs?
As a person who has over the course of a number of years made a very detailed study of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's act in the Cave of Machpelah on Purim (25 February) 1994 and has subsequently written a fully documented book on the subject entitled "Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs?" I feel that I can speak on this subject with some authority.
It is a most fundamental tenet of justice that a person is innocent until proved guilty and such guilt can only be established in an Court of Law. Not only has Dr. Goldstein never been found guilty of perpetrating any massacre, no opportunity has ever been given for anybody to put forward a defence for his act that Purim. Yet despite all this, he is continually being labelled a "terrorist", a "mass murderer" and so on. The only "trial" he has had, has been by the media and the politicians who have their own agenda.
It is true that a Commission of Inquiry (the Shamgar Commission) was set up by the Israeli Government immediately after that Purim. However the way it conducted its activities has much to be desired. Although the Israeli law on "Commissions of Inquiry" clearly states that should a situation arise where the name and honour of a deceased person could be harmed by the results of such an Inquiry, then the relatives of such a person have to be informed and given the opportunity to put forward a defence, including the right to cross examine witnesses. Despite this law, the members of Dr. Goldstein's family were NEVER given such an opportunity.
It also goes without say that judges or members of a Commission of Inquiry may not decide on the guilt of a person until they have heard all the evidence. Yet, in this Commission of Inquiry, the majority of its members were already calling Dr. Baruch Goldstein a "murderer" before they had heard all the evidence. One of its members, Judge Abed el-Rahman Zouabi, who is a professional judge of the State of Israel, used this term from the FIRST DAY of the hearings and in the course of the hearings used it no fewer than 17 times in just the open sessions.
I dedicated my book to "Truth and Justice. In the interests of truth and justice, a Commission of Inquiry should be established - the composition of which to be acceptable both to the Israeli authorities and to the Goldstein family - whose sole function would be to determine whether the killings by Dr. Baruch Goldstein should be classed as a massacre of Arabs or a pre-emptive strike to prevent a massacre of Jews."
I should mention that this is not an empty statement, since there is much evidence that Dr. Baruch Goldstein did a pre-emptive strike to prevent a planned massacre of Jews that Purim morning in the Cave of Machpelah.
Many of the questions raised in the above "Talk" have been answered and fully documented in my book. I therefore suggest that you read this book which appears in its entirety on the Internet.
I will be very happy to hear comments from readers after they have studied the book.
*****************************************************
MESSAGES BETWEEN MYSELF AND GIDONB
Dear Gidonb Please let me know why you deleted my contribution to the "Talk: Baruch Goldstein"? Is it any less relevant than the other contributions which appear on this talk page? Simonschaim 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, have no problem keeping the post above. Just like its important to have the 911 conspiracy folks, neo-nazis, and every other group express their opinion on what should or should not be included in an article and what sources are relevant. I have been in debate with another user who says ALL of Wikipedia should be NPOV, while I say that talk pages are the EXACT place where ALL aspects of the article should be discussed and by that very nature, POV/opinion is going to come out. SO WHAT?? I don't support personal attacks, spam, AGENDAS or hmmmm, what else?? Anyways, you think Goldstein wasn't a massacrer/terrorist since he was stopping a planned attack or he did a pre-emptive strike or whatever, very good. Make your points, provide reliable sources, don't do original research, keep it civil, gain consensus and carry on. Thanks! --Tom 15:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you referring to my comments as positive?? After reflecting some more, this project is TRYING to be an encyclopedia of sorts. Way too many "hot" topics, ie Bush, 911, Arab vs Jew, ect, ect have turned into POV/soapbox central. I am VERY against censorship. But SOME type of moderation/mediation is important. IMveryHO, ANY defense of Goldstein's actions are VERY radical in view and DO NOT warrant the amount of talk page discussion that has gone on in here lately. The best example is the WTC Towers and how that talk page is trashed. I won't even go there. Again, what I was saying above in my first comment was that hearing from "radicals"(sorry but thats my opinion) helps show us the dangers that lurk out there. --Tom 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Your opinion piece really does not belong here. All the comments except for one are copied from various talk pages into this page. All this is against our policies and simply not done. Your abuse of Wikipedia led to more abuse by you and may very well lead to abuse by others, since it is a precedent. Your misinterpretation of Tom's polite answer and Aiden's procedural disagreement for ideological support and your duplicate insertion of the text, prove to me that we should have been bolder in applying our relevant policies, not weaker. Please take your political debates elsewehere. We are not a forum, we do not want to become a forum and come to think of it, we are pretty bad at it too. There are plenty of sites that are designed for this function. gidonb 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did or Did Not Dr. Baruch Goldstein MASSACRE 29 Arabs? An opinion piece 

message: I think we should really consider what of the "response" belongs here and what belongs to the massacre article. Much of the response may have been to the messacre, not to the person, and therefor the long or complete form of the reaction could also belong to the other article. gidonb 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one responded one way or the other, so I have moved all the response material to the massacre article, where it is imho more relevant. I hope the results are to everyone's liking. Best, gidonb 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of the content does not belong here

message: I know I read somewhere on Wiki policy which term should be used and when. The header says killed vs murdered. Fine. So why should the term murdered be used later in the article when talking about Goldstein's death? They were both murders right? Thanks...
:We should stick to 'killed' in both instances. Nobody here knows for certain what happened. —Aiden 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. At Talk:The Holocaust there is a lengthy discussion going on currently on the topic. Not surprisingly, people are much more open to the use of the term "murder" over there. --DLandTALK 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Murdered vs killed??

message: Just removed was a claim that she had said that Goldstein made a "preemptive strike". Ian Lustick, however, quotes her: 
:"Don't let anyone say he was a psychopath," she said. "He planned to do this in order to stop the peace talks. He did this for the sake of the people of Israel." 
::I removed a claim that said he did what he did to prevent a planned mass murder of Jews by Arabs...--Tom 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldstein's widow

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

message: I don't think it's that POV to say that he was an anti-Arab. I'd like to point out two paragraphs from "The Real Significance of Baruch Goldstein" by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky:
Amir Oren, who subsequently became the military correspondent of Haaretz, provided the most complete story of Goldstein's relations with the Israeli army and the entire Israeli political establishment in his March 4 Davar article. According to Oren, after the 1984 elections and the subsequent formation of the national unity government, then Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and then Chief of Staff General Moshe Levy learned about Goldstein's refusal to treat non-Jews in Lebanon. Oren wrote:
:When Goldstein's refusal to treat non-Jewish patients became evident to his commanders, both the artillery corps and medical corps commanders quite naturally wanted to court-martial him and thus get rid of him. They took it for granted that this could be easily done, because Goldstein had graduated only from the army's course for medical officers. [Goldstein did not have combat officer training, which is normally a prerequisite for admission to the course for medical officers.] The two corps [commanders] also knew that Goldstein, while attending the army's course for medical officers, had become notorious as an anti-Arab extremist.
—Khoikhoi 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Anti-Arab people seems to be about to be deleted. If so, this article should remain in its supercategory :Category:Anti-Arabism. —Ashley Y 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I am going to go ahead and include him in :Category:Anti-Arabism or :Category:Anti-Arab people. Any objections? Yas121 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, with ANY list/category you have to provide SOURCES. Just because you believe him to belong in that category based on his actions doesn't work. Just as people want to include Mel Gibson in the category of Anti-Semtic people based on his comments, that doesn't work. Goldstein never gave anybody ANY reason for what he did. There has been LOTS of speculation and THERORIES put forward for what he did (see above) but nothing concrete, imho. Again, provide reliable SOURCES that label him as Anti-Arab. Thanks....--Tom 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khoikhoi just gave one, above. In addition, since Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is listed as a terrorist incident, perhaps he should also be in :Category:Terrorists. —Ashley Y 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed my mind on this, see my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#People by group-hating. —Ashley Y 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, yes of course I agree. See above example. Yas121 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-Arab" 

message: I added an image I found at the BBC web site.  It can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm
I think it's a good idea to have an image.  I'm new to Wikipedia, but maybe somebody could help me make sure I do this right, because I think the image is a great addition to this article. I8pgump 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added image 

message: I can't believe you have addedd this mass murderer to Category:Israeli murder victims|Goldstein, Baruch!!! Yes what a poor victim he was and you have removed him from category Hate Crimes and Anti-Arab!!! because you know he must be protected!!! You can not be serious!!! Yas121 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool down. Remove the category. —Aiden 14:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, settle down. Lets not attack. Lets not defend. Lets provide reliable sources :) --Tom 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh my God are you people serious???!!?? 

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

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

message: Noticing this edit war - Threeafterthree is indeed quite right that Goldstein can not be labelled a terrorist on Wikipedia until a reputable source is provided that calls him a terrorist, regardless how much Wikipedia editors wish to call him that. Please do not respond to this post with a long discussion. I do not care about your opinion on the subject, it is completely irrelevant to the article. A response should involve citing a reliable source says Goldstein was a terrorist. Mad Jack 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a source is provided, it will only support the point-of-view of the source. According to WP:NPOV, we are not to advocate one point of view over another. Labelling someone as a terrorist via a Wikipedia category is in effect creating a list of people Wikipedia considers terrorists. This is a clear violation of that policy. —Aiden 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia cannot "consider" anyone "anything", because Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, nor are we a first-hand source. We can't just say "Oh, these are the people we have decided are terrorists, transexuals, Catholics, etc." because we don't have the power to make that call. What is needed, I guess, are reliable sources that indicate that Goldstein is widely considered a terrorist, which you may well be able to find. Mad Jack 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he could go in either, but per :Category:Mass murderers, he cannot be in both. I'd support either one. -- Avi 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist

message: For the lead, I proposed something to the quality of 
:Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli mass murderer who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank.
Several people keep reverting the lead to
:Baruch Kappel Goldstein was an American-Israeli physician who killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 shooting attack in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, West Bank.
This guy is *not* being remembered for exceptional achievements as a physician. Virtually every other mass murderer (31 or so out of 34 in the American mm cat) has this type of lead. Why do you do this? I sincerely hope no one is trying to make a statement here, or even attempting to protect that monster. Kosmopolis (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that  virtually every other mass murderer has this lead. In fact, the converse is probably true. Timothy mcVeigh does not have such a lead. Kozo Okamoto does not have such a lead. Lee Boyd Malvo does not have such a lead. Terry Nichols does not have such a lead. Dalal Mughrabi does not have such a lead (this mass murderer has a lead that says "was lionized by Palestinian nationalists."!!). Let's keep this POV label out of the lead. Isarig 15:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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