Talk:Baruch Goldstein

message: Would it be possible to explain in the article why there is confusion over his Date of Birth? it currently says "9 December or 12 December 1956" ... why? --Storkk 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DOB

message: Per :Category:Mass murderers, any one person should not be in both categories. Only one or the other. Please come up with a consensus and stick with it. Thank you. -- Avi 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, err, why are we voting on this? What happened to what reliable sources say? Terrorist is a stretch, imho. Mass murderer seems to make more sense, but again, why not just defer to reliable sources like we are suppose to? Anyways, carry on. --Tom 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date . -- Avi 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as I see, you have to check out the reasons. Mass murderers kill people because of the different reasons, but they are scarcely driven by extreme political ideas, such as extreme national ideology - people, who kill other people to cause international war, are called terrorists. This nazi motherfucker (baruch goldstein) killed a bunch of people exactly because of this reason. So, he's a terrorist no doubt.85.250.249.58 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Terrorists]] vs. [[:Category:Israeli mass murderers]] 

message: Support -- Avi 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support  [[:Category:Israeli mass murderers]]

message: We have various things cited to "Shamgar Commission Minutes".  Can someone provide evidence that those minutes are published so that they pass the requirements for article sources?  We aren't allowed to cite unpublished archives.  --Zerotalk 11:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamgar Commission Minutes - published? 

message: When doing a google search for Baruch Goldstein, the first thing that comes up is the wikipedia article. That is well and good, but the summary text is "Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul ..." A cursory review of older edits does not seem to show that this text was ever a significant part of the article. Does wikipedia have any control over what appear in google searchs, or is this just some strange artifact of the googlization process? Wachholder 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. Nevermind. Wachholder 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary text appearing in Google

message: I don't like the way it is phrased, it would lead one to believe that the Mosque is inside the cave when in fact it is built over/around the cave.  I like to avoid editing controversial articles without talking about it first, does anyone have an opinion one way or the other?SJMNY (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do reliable sources say about this since I have no idea? How have other sources refered to the Mosque? This seems like semantics but I will defer to others with better knowledge. Thanks, --Tom 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the page on the cave itself says that "The Cave of the Patriarchs...is a series of subterranean caves located in a complex called by Muslims the Ibrahimi Mosque or Sanctuary of Abraham ..." this would indicate that the cave is within the mosque complex and not vice versa  SJMNY (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragrap 

message: This article contains lots of stuff cited to "Shamgar Commission Minutes" and other unpublished sources.  This is a very clear violation of the Wikipedia rules and all of that stuff is going to go.  I know where it comes from: it is copied out of the adulatory pamphlet of Simmons which doesn't come close to meeting the Wikipedia definition of a "reliable source".  Now a question: does anyone know where the report of the Shamgar Commission can be found?  Zerotalk 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice regarding this article 

message: The link redirects to http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/4555/goldstein-s-grave-draws-extremists/, and the text on that page is corrupted. The closest I could find is Segal's article from 1996 for the JTA, but that is no longer accessible on the JTA website and highbeam is a pay site http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3125751.html. Suggestions? -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goldstein’s grave draws extremists" 

message: This was in the lead: he carried out the attack "after receiving word of an impending large Arab terrorist attack against Jews in the city." but doesn't occur elsehwere in the article.  As it is a contentious claim, it should not be in the article until a citation is found for it. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  motivation 

message: Shuki is removing the following material, supported by citations from the Jerusalem Post and Yediot Ahronoth's web presence, Ynet News.
:In 2010, Jewish residents in east Jerusalem's predominantly Arab Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood celebrated Purim by singing songs of praise for Baruch Goldstein next to their Arab neighbours. The party took place in a house from which an Arab family was evicted in August last year. 
His argument is that the video is faked. However that is clearly original research on his part. If he can get a source to say that, then great, otherwise we can't accept his personal research on this video. Factsontheground (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheikh Jarrah celebrations 

message: Certain right wing extremist groups like to use the words "murdered" and "victim" with Goldstein, however real sources do not do so. Could Shuki please explain why he or she has repeatedly reverted to include the cat "Israeli murder victims"? nableezy - 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a tough call. He was the victim of vigilante justice while unarmed, certainly, which could technically be called murder, however richly he may have deserved it. IronDuke 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vigilante murder is still murder. FWIW, I did not insert the cat, but merely reverted its unjustified removal. --Shuki (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What reliable source says he was killed in a circumstance that any reasonable person would call murder?  This is just a myth.  Zerotalk 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I say make a cat "People killed in the West Bank" that "People murdered in the West Bank" is a sub-cat of and include Goldstein in the "killed in the West Bank" cat. Calling this man a "victim" is not something that most, if any, respectable sources do. nableezy - 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Goldstein was disarmed, then beaten to death and, I believe, torn to shreds, after he had been subdued. I wouldn't call that self-defense, though "murder" implies malice aforethought, which was obviously not the case here. What about "manslaughter?" Does that make sense as a compromise position? IronDuke 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but manslaughter is also not ok.  Only what the reliable sources say is ok. Anything that suggests a crime was committed against Goldstein needs a damn good source.  So far I have not seen one.  Zerotalk 00:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Source from Haaretz provided. Zero, this is a RS. Why are you taking this personally and getting emotional. Murderers are murdered also. There are hundreds of articles on WP about criminals who were later ex-justice murdered. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interview with "an extremist West Bank settler" in which the "extremist West Bank settler" argues that Goldstein was murdered and that the death certificate backs that up. Haaretz doesnt say that, an "extremist West Bank settler" does. And "murder" implies a crime. Was anybody charged with a crime for killing Goldstein? And can you provide a real source that calls this man a "victim"? nableezy - 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: And just so we put this "extremist West Bank settler"'s views in perspective, this is what he says:It wasn't a massacre, only one person was murdered, Goldstein. Since the State of Israel is a state of law, there is only one body allowed to declare that a person is a murderer, and that only in an official courtroom. Baruch Goldstein, may God avenge his blood, was not brought before a court, so it's impossible to say legally that he murdered.Compare that with Shamgar commision:The massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron was a base and murderous act, in which innocent people bending in prayer to their maker were killed. It is an unforgivable actShuki, you are using an "extremist West Bank settler"'s warped view that what Goldstein did was perfectly acceptable and he was the only person "murdered" in this act. You really want to do that? nableezy - 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree with Zero here: at best, the interview with Pinner establishes that Pinner says the death certificate indicates murder -- hardly sufficient for the category.  In my judgment it would be WP:UNDUE to add "Pinner says" to the article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we can depend on Haaretz, a reliable source on WP, to not include a lie or to mention if an interviewee is not telling the truth. In this case, the Haaretz article journalist does not deny this. Essentially, the articles confirms that the Goldstein was murdered as does the Shamgar Commission that investigated the event. --Shuki (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaretz does not support this claim, an "extremist West Bank settler" does. And where does the Shamgar Commision use the word "murder" for Goldstein's death? nableezy - 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuki, there is no reason to expect Haaretz to remove lies or criticize them in interviews. This is not journalistic practice.  Haaretz doesn't even criticize the settler's bizarre, impossible, logic: one can't call Goldstein a murderer because he wasn't declared one in a court - but one must call his death a murder just because Pinner says a death certificate says so.John Z (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is journalistic practice, certainly these days when every single media outlet has an agenda and/or journalists who feel the need to educate the public. His death was murder because he was unarmed and 'harmless'. I can understand (not condone) the rage, somewhat like Natan-Zada's murder too, though that was pathetic since he was handcuffed at the time. Anyway, the Shamgar commission ruled it was murder and apparently that is what is on Goldstein's death certificate. I suppose in due time someone will be able to provide verifiable sources for this ti counter the OR and POV decisions by Zero0000 and you. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You won't find a reliable source that "the Shamgar commission ruled it was murder" because it didn't.  And the death certificate was issued long before the Shamgar commission started. Death certificates are issued soon after death and include a cause of death according to a physician's examination of the body. I'd like to know what that certificate actually says, since "murder" is not a cause of death and would not normally appear there even in cases where there really was a murder. Zerotalk 05:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "murder" 

message: By chance, I found this picture of the man. Perhaps someone can install it on the page?
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=goldstein4sf.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/i/goldstein4sf.jpg
Hope this helps.
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.108.134 (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Baruch Goldstein 

message: The words Israeli Extremists was used. Aren't there Arab Israelis? Would any of THEM be encouraged by what this man did? I doubt it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.75 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Extremists? 

message: Not that i don't think this man falls under this category per se but it is almost universal for wikipedia articles to not use that word when describing a figure in it's header. I mean even osama bin laden is not referred to as a terrorist in his introduction. Duhon (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's a defect with the Bin Laden article that ought to be rectified.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of the CAT Jewish Religious Terrorism is pointy. The He's a Kahanist ergo that is not needed is specious.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The categorization of his act as terrorism and the person as a terrorist, is supported on the vast majority of reliable sources, and therefore I suggest keeping this category. Bin Laden was obviously also a terrorist and belongs in the category. Marokwitz (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist? 

message: I'm still very new at editing stuff here, or I'd give this a try myself; since I don't trust my ability to do it correctly yet, I'm asking somebody else. At the moment, there exists zero in this article about the reaction to Goldstein's massacre by anyone except the small cluster of Kahane supporters. This leaves a strong impression that that's the *general* reaction among Israelis or among Jews, which was certainly not the case. There was an overwhelming outpouring of shame, guilt, revulsion, and sorrow among the vast majority of the Jewish population both inside and outside of Israel; and anyone who sees an article which ends on a section about veneration and celebration of the murderer isn't going to have the slightest idea that any of that is true.
Almost every Wikipedia article about a single, sudden incident in world history ends with a section about the reaction from the world at large. The lack of such a section, while -- in the same position -- there is one about one specific *type* of reaction, is deeply misleading. The article's objectivity and completeness would be much improved by placing the "Veneration and celebration" section as a subheader under a general "Aftermath" header (much the way the 9/11 page, or the Oklahoma City bombing page have), and adding another couple of subheaders under the same category -- one for mainstream Jewish reaction, and perhaps one for reactions from around the rest of the world as well (I don't even know what the response was within the Muslim countries of the Middle East, for example; and I'd like to).
Here's a few starter sources for the response section, just to prove the basic point about the mainstream Jewish reaction in Israel. I'm sure there are more and better out there:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/27/world/west-bank-massacre-massacre-leaves-israelis-shamed-sad-scared-what-s-ahead.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/26/world/west-bank-massacre-american-jewish-groups-horrified.html 
In addition, for context, it would help to mention somewhere the size of the Kach/Kahane Chai groups of which Goldstein was a member, and which are being described as celebrating. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the State Department claims them to have "an overlapping core membership of fewer than 100 members." http://www.cfr.org/israel/kach-kahane-chai-israel-extremists/p9178 That makes a serious difference in the way a reader would understand the large section on Goldstein's veneration by the group, and it is nowhere in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PocketNaomi (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It gives a lot of space for a very very small minority. It's certainly notable, but should be more or less proportionate to its scale. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on mainstream reaction? 

message: I don't think this category is justified, and it seems to me like blatant Overcat. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Jewish physicians 

message: Why the double standards against Jews, Wikipedia? If Muhammad's a hero, then Baruch Goldstein is also a hero.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.249.162 (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Criticism of Muhammad, many do call him a terrorist. Regardless, the comparison is inept. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad slaughtered entire tribes of Jews, but he's not called a terrorist. 

message: :In the early 2000s, the street was completely reopened to Palestinian vehicular traffic, however the shops remained closed. The street was closed again to Palestinians after the Second Intifada began.
This doesn't make any sense.  If the Second Intifada began in late September 2000, that's less than a year of time when the street was reopen (also assuming that the government opened it on January 1, 2000). Plus the fact tag is two months old so I've removed it pending better information. hbdragon88 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Shuhada Street 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baruch Goldstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051114140828/http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.goldstein/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/29/israel.goldstein/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Baruch Goldstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230634/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112230634/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/COMMISSION%20OF%20INQUIRY-%20MASSACRE%20AT%20THE%20TOMB%20OF%20THE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reading the BBC news website provided as a citation for this claim indicates it came from a single Jewish extremist. Any specific claim about the number of visitors is on its face extremely dubious given that it is unlikely anybody was ever actually recording such data. Moreover the man who made the claim had a strong incentive to exaggerate the number. It is quite likely he would invent this datum for sake of making his particular ideology seem more popular than  other data, say for example the fact that he was one of only about 40 people celebrating at the grave on one particular Purim, would make it seem. Whichever Wikipedia editor then converted the BBC's factual reporting of one man's evidence-free claim into some kind of proven fact with the formulation "At least 10,000 people had visited the grave by the year 2000" committed a grave error. A simple attribution of the claim to its source, one Mr. Marzal, Jewish extremist, would be enough to correct this misinformation. As per our rules I shall assume it was simply an honest good-faith mistake. Nevertheless it a mistake that deserves to be corrected.
04:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Im on two minds as to whether to remove it entirely or not, but for now Ive attributed it as you are quite right. Thank you, nableezy - 05:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  10,000 visitors claim 

message: Please remove "mass murderer" from Baruch Goldstein's wikipedia page.  This title is not even used for many other people featured on Wikipedia who were mass murderers of millions of people.  At least Baruch Goldstein shot the Arabs in question because they were planning a massacre against Jews that very day, knowingly giving up his life to save many other Jews, despite the fact that he had a wife and six children, aside from his well needed role as physician who helped both Jews AND Arabs.  If you have questions on this, you can contact me at sboyer972@gmail.com. 184.103.203.192 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2020 

message: In the section "Immigration to Israel" on the words "against Jewish laws" I suggest adding a sorce reference: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912369/jewish/Avodat-Kochavim-Chapter-Ten.htm#v2 --HaMagiah (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add citation 

message: Hello,
It seems that the article is mistaken in that it says a tomb has been reconstructed for this individual. Rudimentary research shows that he has a gravestone, inscribed with Hebrew text, similar to any other Jew or ultra-Orthodox Jew in Israel, but I would not call it a tomb. It is just a grave.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.229.17 (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to correct note about tomb reconstruction 

message: :"Mass murderer" should be dropped as no other terrorist biographies hold such a downplaying term. I propose changing "mass murderer" in the first line to "terrorist", on par with the Ayman al-Zawahiri article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me. I don't think it downplays whatever Goldstein did. It just looks like bad English and unprofessional for an encyclopedic project. Perhaps -- "was the culprit of a mass-murder" is a reasonable option. 77.137.73.171 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mass murderer"

message: The term "Extremist" is one of the contentious words that should be looked out for when in the lead. Seeing as these terms should only be used in the body, should the term be removed from the article's lead? --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few exceptions, and I would suggest that this may be one of those instances. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What might those few exceptions be? If you look at my previous edits on removing the term "Terrorist", they seemed just fine. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the thread above, this page is probably getting off lightly not getting the 'terrorist' label. 'Extremist' or 'fundamentalist' is actually the lighter touch here. Let's see, in the lead alone we see that the subject participated in a terror attack of such magnitude that it got his entire political group designated as terrorist, and his tomb was dismantled after an Israeli law outlawing monuments to terrorists. On the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, we have Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer" and "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism". So yeah, it's a light touch. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

text: We've "looked out for" it.  Now it can stay.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Extremist" be in the article's lead?