Talk:Yigal Amir

Views in Israel

I'm not sure if the section saying: "Amir has never expressed regret for his act of murder. Amir is viewed by many in Israel as a hero for his act particularly amongst the Right wing but is hated by the Left who worshipped Rabin as an idol. Rabin is seen by many as being responsible for the deaths of 1200 Israelis through the Oslo accords that gave the PLO terrorist organisation both guns and territory. Rabin is also remebered for his younger days when as commander of the Palmach (underground fighters) he ordered his men to fire at the Irgun ship the Altalena, that killed 11 Jewish fighters from the Irgun."

is a totally balanced view. It seems to imply that Rabin was despised by all but a small fantical following. Many viewed him as an only hope for peace in the middle east. Further more the dividing up of "the left", and "the right" is really a fair way to state things. Finally the writer makes "the left", sound unreasonable, for hating a murderer. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.206.116.123 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Bernard Avishai's new book, The Hebrew Republic (to appear from Harcourt in the spring of 2008), says in a discussion of increasing fundamentalist ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel (on p. 97), that "About a third of Israeli Jews would have Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, pardoned." He doesn't cite a source for this specifically, but he does cite several polls elsewhere in the discussion. (I'm presently copyediting and indexing the book.) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trembovler's name was misspelled

The explanation can be found here. Unfortunately the linked article is not so easy to correct, because the title itself is wrong. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.117.3.51 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

This page should mention www.barrychamish.com which is the website in english that shows that Yigal Amir shot blanks and Rabin's bodyguards murdered Rabin. In hebrew the website would be www.yigalamir.com -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.175.65 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 July 2005 (UTC)

It already links there, and to other Chamish sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Fringe rubbish. Discard.

Murdered? Killed? Assassinated? Or what?

I think it would be better to let the reader to decide whether it's a murder or an helpful killing. In the article JFK the word "murder" is not used as well. --Haham hanuka 17:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• A "helpful killing"? You really test my ability to avoid personal attacks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Haham Hanuka, if this is the case than the JFK article should be corrected. The reason however could be that the murderer of JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was not convicted of his crime, while the murderer of Yitzhak Rabin confessed and was convicted of murder by an independent court in a democratic country. So, even if killing is upheld in the article JFK, m-u-r-d-e-r should be clearly spelled out here. In all cases, an error on one page does not justify an error in another entry. gidonb 18:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the word "assassinated" would be better than either "killed" or "murdered"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Murder is fine, as it was established by the court. Yet to alternate word use, assassination can be used. gidonb 19:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think "assassinated" is probably the best fit term for this. Lankiveil 05:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC).

I am not against the use of assassination next to the word murder. I believe it would be misleading, however, to include murder only as the verdict. The murder was established in an independent court of justice and is how this case goes down in history (so far). It also coincides with the core definition of murder (from below): The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Watering the event down would damage our NPOV. gidonb 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that "murder" is a correct term in the legal sense, but it seems to me that "assassination" is more to the point. Regrettably, murders happen all the time. But not every murderer gets a page in Wikipedia; the reason that we have a page on Amir is not that he killed somebody, but that he assassinated the Israeli prime minister.

Another reason why I think it would be better to replace the current "murdered" in the first sentence by "assassinated" is that the word "murder" carries the connotation of being something wrong and bad, while "assassinated" is a more technical term without moral connotation. I happen to share the view that what Amir did was morally reprehensible (sorry, I can't think of a stronger word at the moment), and while I personally condemn his deed, I think it is not for wikipedia to assign blame or guilt (even when the courts have done so already). "Murder" represents a point of view -- "assassination" does not. There are people in Israel (few, I hope) who consider Amir a hero. I think they might object to the term "murder", but they might accept the more neutral term "assassination".

Instead, the part about the court sentence should mention "murder" (assuming that this is indeed the term used in the sentence).

-- Aleph4 17:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)

n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders

v. tr.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

v. intr.

To commit murder.

Ergo, Yigal Amir is a murderer, regardless of how many people consider him to be a hero. However, assassination (which means " To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.") is probably the best fitting word for the first sentence. DirectorStratton 16:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see what the dispute is with the terminology.

1. Was Rabin "killed"? Yigal deliberately caused Rabin's death. Ergo, I believe it is accurate to say that Amir "killed" Rabin.

2. Was Rabin "murdered"? I have yet to hear anyone argue that Amir acted in self-defense or that his actions were accidental. Ergo, I believe it is accurate to say that Amir "murdered" Rabin.

3. Was Rabin "assassinated"? Amir wasn't personally acquainted with Rabin so the traditional motivations for ordinary murder don't really apply. Amir specifically targetted Rabin for political reasons and killed him to bring about political change in Israel. While there is no universally-accepted definition of "assassination", this seems to fall well within the generally-accepted definition that can be summed up as "politically motivated killing".

It seems to me that each of those three terms could be used accurately, but that "assassinated" is the most specific of the three.

What is the dispute again? I thought ( and have been consistently proven to) that murdered is not used in wikipedia vocabulary. Why is this then allowed on this page? The correct term for what happened is assassinated. Why is this page even locked?

last night met with person with more documents, photos and evidence than I have ever seen. It seems that the whole Yigal Amir pulling out gun and shooting is a "photo montage." We will all know the truth very soon. If you examine Kempler video you can see a bit. but there is actually more evidence. Kempler video 02:54, 7 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish, and has no place on the TP.

David Cohen/Rutstein(real name) and the Knesset

Last two days roaming the halls of the Knesset and just chatting with office staff and Knesset members. How exciting for an American Jew to be teaching Israeli politicians about their history. Obviously, the killers were not going to alow me to continue this education tour indeffanately. To get into the Knesset one must be spensered. I was spensered by a Knesset member who has knowed the truth but a bit afraid to get on the podium and start talking. But that member wanted me to educate other members as to the Rabin murder. On the third day, as axpucted for an unkown security reason, even with the MKs permission, I was not permitted in the Knesset. -- written by User:217.132.117.120 on July 28, 2005

Coniugal visits?

The current text says In January 2004, the Israel Prisons Authority announced that it would prohibit Amir from marrying in jail, despite a law permitting all prisoners to wed and have children. During April 2004, the Tel Aviv District Court reviewed the decision regarding a request by Yigal Amir to get married in prison. The Israeli prison authorities rejected the Amir-Trembovler requests to marry and to have conjugal visits, although this right is normally given to prisoners held in Israel's jail system.

First: I do not understand the point of the last sentence, it just repeats the first sentence.

Second: What was the outcome of the district court's review? As there is still a controversy, I assume that the district court upheld the prison authorities' decision, i.e., rejected the Amir-Trembovler request? --Aleph4 17:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC) I am not spending so much time on wiki, you can tell. We just made the first big headline. Barry Chamish was charged for incitement against Shimon Peres and it is making headlines. Barry has always said Shimon Peres was responsible but never was charged. stuff is happenning.. user/Kempler video

To be researched is the issue why Yigal Amir would receive significantly more severe punishment than others accused of taking lives for criminal, political, passion and other reasons. This issue is especially problematic in Israel, where Palestinian terrorists are exchanged in terms of agreements. It should be clarified if the exceptional punishment of Yigal Amir, such as denying him conjugal visits which others convicted for murder are apparently allowed, is politically motivated or if it is indeed legal that the alleged assassin of a Prime Minister be sentenced differently than others accused of murder. This issue is especially significant since many in Israel don't give credence to the official report of the assassination. The Rabin family too expressed doubts at the official version. There are too many unanswered question marks on the version stating that Amir's bullet killed Rabin. A Citizen's Committee to Investigate the Murder of Yitzhak Rabin discovered a long list of discrepancies and called for an apolitical official board of inquiry. Regretfully Israel doesn't have a Constitution, and in Israel frequently it is not clear what is right and what is wrong. Israel struggles against constant threats to its survival and is plagued by corruption scandals at the highest levels. Consequently it is at best surprising that the Knesset would find the time to legislate a law specifically against Yigal Amir. In some ways this indicates that Israel failed to mature into a state with sober and stable governance. Amir's unusual punishment is also strange considering that the instigator for the assassination, Avishai Raviv, a secret service agent provocateur, received no punishment and enjoys all rights of a free man. Regretfully these and other serious aberrations lead many in Israel to have no faith for the justice system and to even feel contempt for it. This is a severe problem which Israel needs to correct.Emesz 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kempler video

Words from David Cohen- Rutstein. I actually know the Amir family. Geula Amir, Yigal's mom really well. As well as Barry Chamish really well. I am the one who built www.BarryChamish.com and www.YigalAmir.com. In fact, all email from both sites go to me. Email from Barry's site gets forwarded to Barry as well.

The first month of Yigal Amir's arrest, Yigal denied doing the murder. After some friendly persuasion he was all into blaming the Rabbis and admitting everything. I am not sure what was discussed, money and threats. But that is what happened. Yigal will never show remorse because he did not do the murder. The evidence is really overwhelming. The Kempler video of the murder is now online and even in that video you can see weird things happenning. Look at the back passenger door of the limo close from the inside. There was a fourth person in that limo. Israeli TV showed the 10 minute video of the murder, "the Kempler video", for one week in 1996, and has not shown the video since. In fact Yigal played an exaggerated non-defense in which he seemed to want to get convicted. This exagerated desire to be convicted seems weird and will cause Yigal eventually to be freed because anybody who studies the case realizes that Yigal shot blanks.

As well, Yigal Amir is not viewed as a hero by anyone. Most right wingers realize that Yigal did not murder Rabin. Barry Chamish has been giving lectures in Israel for years. Almost every right winger in Israel has heard of Barry. The left wingers are different. There is a complete censor on this subject in the entire Israel media. Since there is a big inclination for left winger to be "happy" that a religous Jew did a murder, the left wingers are less likely to have read one of the conspiracy books or heard Barry's lecture. As well left wingers get their information from TV and newspapers. Rabin conspiracy does not appear on these news vehicles. Right wingers watch less TV, read less newspapers and are less likely to believe what they see in those media anyways. It may seem that right wingers are "idiots" for not following the news. Right wingers in Israel is another word for religous Jews or those closer to the Jewish religous observance. The religous Jew studies Torah and study of Torah takes alot of time. End of comments by David Cohen- Rutstein -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.186.183 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A pile of propaganda-conspiracy-theory half-fact

That's what I can say about the text above by David Cohen - except for the final paragraph.

The facts: On November 4th, 1995 Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir. Fact. Yigal Amir fired three hollow-point bullets, two hit PM Rabin and one hit a bodyguard. Fact. Yigal Amir is a right-wing extremist. Fact.

Yigal Amir is currently in prison for the awful crime he made against Yitzhak Rabin, against The State of Israel and against Democracy. By assassinating Rabin he hoped to stop the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. I can sadly say he probably succeeded. Rabin was replaced by the right-wing Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rest is history, full of blood and tears.

This preposterous conspiracy theory is well-known in Israel, and had its share of media coverage, in contradiction to what Mr. Cohen says. Israeli news media is free and uncensored, it is STILL a democracy. Most of the Israeli public, left-wingers and right-wingers, religious people and others, heard it and understood it's simply a bunch of lies. It is even much less accepted than the "shooter on the grassy knoll" theory on the JFK murder. I can only explain its existence as the extreme-right-wing's version of psychological repression and projection.

Procedure 20:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A reaction in English to Barry Chalamish/David Cohen's latest claims and actions can be found at this page of the Dutch Wikipedia. gidonb 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Was later on moved to the archive of that page. gidonb 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

totally disputed nonsense Failure to give equal time to loony conspiracy theories is not a violation of NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; this is covered in WP:NPOV under "extreme minority views". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The political chitchat inserted here by David Cohen/Rutstein (he is running for parliament and needs signatures etcetera), not in any way related to the article, has been deleted by gidonb. Those who wish to read or verify the validity of this action (please do!), are encouraged to read it in the edit history, at the date and time in my signature---> gidonb 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Y'know, this isn't a chat board or a political forum. Please reserve this page for discussion of the article Yigal Amir, not your own political opinions, ambitions, desires, or interests. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No more running for Knesset, now walking around Israel, especially Jerusalem with a sandwich sign that reads "the killers are free" "kempler video" "10 minutes" "there is a fourth passenger in the limosine" "www.yitzhakrabin.co.il" I am recruiting more volunteers.. It should be international news eventually Kempler video 00:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Could we please stop adding this nonsense to the article?

Guy Montag 00:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

hey Guy, go to the Kennedy assasination or Lee Harvey Oswald and start deleting the video of the murder. Afterwards tell them that is nonsense. Actually this video is more important, this is the last 7 1/2 minutes of a free Yigal Amir and shows the crime that Yigal committed. plus, the video is banned from Israeli TV. brings up suspicion. right? Kempler video 6:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

last night met with person with more documents, photos and evidence than I have ever seen. It seems that the whole Yigal Amir pulling out gun and shooting is a "photo montage." We will all know the truth very soon. If you examine Kempler video you can see a bit. but there is actually more evidence. Kempler video 02:54, 7 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gidon and Jayjg, good news, this story is being picked up by international media in the very near future. Shimon Peres called me a "sycko" "that should be institutionalized" so I filed a $50,000 slander lawsuit against Shimon. As well I put big headlines on all my sites that say "Shimon Peres ordered the murder of Yitzhak Rabin". these sites include yitzhakrabin.co.il, yigalamir.com, shimonperes.net, arielsharon.co.il and barrychamish.com (english) Hey guys you have to appreciate my sense of humor. If what I am claiming is false Shimon will sue me and I will look stupid and loose money. But if what I am saying is true.... oy va voy....G and J.. believe me, I am not happy to be correct.. but the preponderance of evidence is really overwhelming...--Kempler videoOctober 5

Background

The article states that "one of Raviv's closest supporters was Amir who was groomed him into a group leader," and, while I presume that the author intended to write "was Amir who had groomed him," the article should obviously be updated by someone who has some understanding of the specifics of this relationship.

Neither is correct. But, thank you for drawing attention to this point! gidonb 21:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not whether the anonymous who puts the POV message on top of the page, is the same as the one who made justified claims about this page or the one who thinks Amir is a prisoner rather than a criminal.

In any case, I agree with the above anon who had serious reservations about the nature of the "Background" passage. It rearranges facts so to make conspiracy theories more likely and does not provide a balanced background to the murder. No sources are mentioned, while the murder and its backgrounds have been extensively addressed by the Shamgar judicial inquiry commision, the court that convicted Amir of his crimes and the press. Also there are later statements by Amir explaining that he murdered Rabin because he was concerned about Rabin's popularity (by being "laid back", I believe were his words), which would allow him to continue the proces. I believe the article is better served without this chapter in its current version. I copied the chapter below so that anyone can form her or his own judgement. gidonb 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point in time, the factors that resulted in Amir's role in the assassination of Rabin are mired in some controversy, and not all the facts are clearly known. '

What is known is that Amir perceived the Oslo Accords as national treason, and a threat to the existence of the state of Israel, which led to his decision to assassinate Rabin.

A complicating factor from his days as a university student was his warm friendship with a known agent of the Israeli Shin Bet Avishai Raviv. One of Raviv's closest supporters was Amir who was groomed him into a group leader. This has also given rise to a number of conspiracy theories, see below.

Another factor complicating the drama is that Yigal Amir served as his own lead defense attorney during his trial, and appeared to be "covering" for Raviv according to all accounts. Yigal Amir's brother, Hagai Amir, and his friend Dror Adani, were his accomplices in the assassination plan. Amir had apparently attempted to assassinate Rabin twice throughout 1995, but those plans fell through moments before implementation.

Moved from article

for the following reasons: 1. part of marriage, 2. POV, 3. no sources cited, 4. current event. 5. not updated because Amir seems not to be at hunger strike right now. gidonb 14:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

== Hunger strike == Yigal Amir began a hunger strike on June 28, 2005. The hunger strike has been started because of the refusal by the Israeli Prison Service to allow him conjugal visits in prison with his wife, Trembovler, and the tight restrictions placed upon them during their meetings. A representative of the Prison Service told Yediot Aharonot, a leading Israeli newspaper, that the main reason behind the restrictions is the concern that Mrs. Trembovler-Amir might become pregnant. A group of 400 persons, among them leading figures of the Russian-speaking community in Israel, signed a petition demanding an end to what they see as a violation of Amir's "basic human rights".

The personal website promotion and POV pushing (spam) inserted here by David Rutstein/Cohen, not in any way related to the article, has been deleted by gidonb. Those who wish to read or verify the validity of this action (please do!), are encouraged to read it in the edit history, at the date and time in my signature---> gidonb 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) For the overall clarity, the following comment by Guy Montag refers to that spam:

When did this discussion page become your personal blog?

Guy Montag 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't a blog. If the person calling himself Kempler video insists on using it as such, his contributions will continue to be removed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Computer Science student

I don't think Yigal was a computer science student, I've never heard about it and there is no source for this on Israeli press. He was only a law student. --Haham hanuka 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read this in several articles. I provided one source and can provide many more. It seems as if his major was law and his minor was Computer Science, but I have not seen a precise breakdown of his coursework. That would also for us be an overkill. gidonb 19:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot learn law and computer science together in Bar Ilan. --Haham hanuka 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I earlier added another bio of Amir that claims the same. This one details that Amir had an excelling 90 out of 100 average in CS, but a low average in law. There are many more references to his CS studies, also in Hebrew. gidonb 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

sidenote: last hit of the small correction was accidental. gidonb 17:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Websites by Amir supporters

The location of these websites in the external links changes all the time. Haham hanuka claims that the websites by Amir's supporters need to be first, because they are official websites. Possibly he thinks about rock singers and the like. Kempler video (David Rutstein, who operates here under at least two logins, and accused me of murder and other weird things) removes these websites as they contain justification for why Amir murdered (killed in their language) the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, while the conspiracy website that he operates claims that another person murdered (in his language) Rabin. Others may agree on removal for other reasons. I believe that Amir is not a rock star and that the supporters sites are not official sites. I do not know official policy which states that "official" sites should come first. But even if they were official and there is such a policy, I do not see the reason why the sites glorifying a murder should come first, after all we have neutral sites (legal documents and press), and supporters sites, but no sites against. It is a question of balance I believe. However as I am sick and tired of the continuous back and forth, I think a consensus can solve it. These pages have almost become a day job and I have so much more to contribute. Thus, I would like to hear different opinions on the place of inclusion of these websites in the external links: on the top, on the bottom, or not at al. Please do include your rational this time next to your vote, but comments to others under "comments". For the good or the bad, if a consensus emerges, I think we can keep it. gidonb 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Amir supporters sites on the top

1. --Haham hanuka 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) beaccuse they are official websites of Amir family.

Amir supporters sites at the bottom

1. Amir is hardly a rock star, the most NPOV descriptions of this person and his actions are provided by the press and the courts, not by his brother, mother or spouse. Other criminals seem not to have supporter sites before NPOV descriptions of their actions. The websites are a curiosity, I would keep them in, but at the bottom. gidonb 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
2. No "in the middle of the list" option? I doubt the order matters, but since there is a "balance" problem, they should defenetly not be first. Yonidebest 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep them, but at the bottom. They are notable, but they are not the main sources for all the information. IZAK 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Gilgamesh he 21:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Idan d 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Definitely relevant and worth keeping. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
7. I agree that as a curiosity, they should be kept; as clear POV, at the bottom. jnothman ^talk 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep the sites, at the bottom. HI VAS FREMT! Tomer^talk 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Eranb 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete websites by Amir supporters

1. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
2. F16 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

What does it matter whether it's at the top or at the bottom? ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yellow up, thank you for the excellent question. I am concerned about the neutral image of the article. The Rabin assissination articles are closely watched by the press and conclusions about the overall quality of Wikipedia have already been made only based on these articles. Regards, gidonb 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well...my first inclination would be to just remove 'em. But then I looked around for a comparison, and discovered Charles Manson includes sites for his fans and supporters. So maybe a link or two would be acceptable, with a neutral comment like "Amir supporter site". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, like the he wikipedia has done. Idan d 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved this warning on the majority of the voters because it is factually incorrect and added a signature for the person who made the allegations gidonb 18:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Warning - most of voters here have less than 20 edits and may be sockpuppets. Haham hanuka 18:39, 6 February 2006

The text appeared under the header "Amir supporters sites at the bottom". gidonb 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... at this time, the users in question have the following number of edits:

LINKS ON TOP

Haham hanuka (4,133 contribs)

LINKS ON BOTTOM

gidonb (4,217 contribs)

Yonidebest (197 contribs)

IZAK (28,139 contribs)

Gilgamesh he (674 contribs)

Idan d (37 contribs)

Kuratowski's Ghost (2,109 contribs)

jnothman (4,073 contribs)

TShilo12 (10,341 contribs)

REMOVE LINKS ALTOGETHER

Yellow up (15 contribs)

F16 (28 contribs)

It would appear that, while some caution is warranted, only one editor had fewer than 20 edits (although 2 others are equally new, two of whom comprise 100% of the "censorship" crowd). I would encourage Haham hanuka to exercise more caution and to assume better faith in the future. While Yonidebest and Gilgamesh ה seem to be fairly new users, it's quite clear that those accounts were not created specifically to vote on this issue. Yellow up also is pretty clearly not a single-issue editor. Despite the relatively low edit count, is he:משתמש:צהוב עולה, with 1,750 contribs on the Hebrew Wikipedia; clearly not a new or single-issue editor. Additionally, the account was created on English WP over 2 weeks before this issue raised its head here; during which time Yellow up did not participate in stirring the controversy. At the same time, F16 is almost certainly he:משתמש:F16 who has [ 2,411] contribs on the Hebrew Wikipedia, also, clearly not a new or single-issue editor. The F16 account, in fact, has been around on the English WP since July 2005. By comparison, I have about 2 dozen edits on the Hebrew WP, IZAK has under a dozen, jnothman has half a dozen and I'm pretty sure gidonb has all of us collectively beaten there by several hundred times. Tomer^talk 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Yonidebest is HebrewWP's Yonidebest, who has over 7100 contribs there. Tomer^talk 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomer, thank you for your detailed research. The Wikipedia where I have been most active is by far the Dutch Wikipedia. I believe that Haham hanuka is indefinitely barred from using the Hebrew Wikipedia. I would appreciate if he can be more careful in his claims and edits at this project, as they do not contribute in creating a pleasant working atmosphere. gidonb 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Beware the Haham

See the following IZAK 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC) :

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka (lot's of info about disputed and disruptive behavior on Wikipedia)

• User:Merovingian/archive-5#Search Engine Fraud:

Hi, my name is Eran and I'm a sysop in the Hebrew Wikipedia (he:משתמש:Eranb, also User:Eranb). I just noticed that User:Haham hanuka is pulling the same ploy he did in the Hebrew wikipedia - he published a list of words in order to raise his page's rank in Google (he also presents there the bios of several porn stars - the content he originally wanted to add to the Hebrew wiki, and was rejected by the community). This user has long ago been declared a troll by the Hebrew wiki, where his most notorious action was to replace the featured article's image (it was Leon Blum) with a pornographic one. We had enough of his pranks, curses, and defacments. I don't know what are the English wiki's rules about search engine fraud, but I hope you have such a policy. I'm not that familiar with the ropes in the English wiki, but I noticed that you were one of the person who edited his user page, so I would appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of somebody thay can take appropriate action. Thanks in advance

• User:Nadavspi/Haham Hanuka is most informative, to quote in full:

This is a rough translation of User:Haham hanuka's userpage on Hebrew Wikipedia (he:משתמש:חכם חנוכה), where he has been banned, as done by me.

Here it is:

Haham hanukah is an internet troll that has taken upon him the goal of designing wikipedia in his way, during which he argues about it with all of the other wikipedians. Haham hanuka does not hesitate to hurt Wikipedia through fraud of search engines, and insertion of pornographic photos to the main page. All attempts to peacefully discuss a settlement with him failed, and therefore the other users have to treat him with a "strong hand".

This page contained, until September 30, 2004, a list of words whose purpose was to pull in random surfers from the internet. This list could've caused Wikipedia heavy damage, for search engines do not act with forgiveness towards attempts to cheat them. Because of this, he:משתמש:דוד שי was forced to clean out this page, and to lock it.

Coping/dealing with Haham hanuka

In order to save the time of the wikipedians, one should treat Haham hanuka, in any costume he may choose, in this fashion:

• Any petition/approach by him in talk pages should be ignored, because dialog with him has been discovered to be fruitless.
• Any user that thinks Haham hanuka has hurt a page (article) in any way is allowed to revert it without a detailed explanation - "Hahan hanuka" is sufficient.
• Any sysops are allowed to delete any page he creates using speedy deletion, without the need to hold a discussion and a poll on the subject. Still, it is suggested to treat him as described in he:ויקיפדיה:התמודדות עם טרולים (literally, Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls).

Haham hanuka - criminal case

The actions of Haham hanuka are in the category of criminal violation, with the punishment of imprisonment (I'm assuming this is their lingo for banning — Negative: the reference is to incarceration based on what is alleged to constitute violations of the Israeli criminal code El_C 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)). Here the history of these actions will be documented:

• Offense by the law of the computers: malicious vandalism of a computer site:

• • December 13, 2004
    • Insertion of a pornographic image to the main page
    • Vandalism of the Village Pump
    • Vandalism of the user pages of: [3 user pages go here]
    • Vandalism of the talk page of: [user talk page goes here]
  • January 28, 2004
    • Vandalism of a Wikistress image
    • Many other instances of vandalism, including templates of the main page, the featured article, random articles, and help pages.

• Offense by the law of the punishments: extortion through threats:

• • December 14, 2004: "let me write articles on 5 porn stars and I'll leave you alone"

• Impersonation

• • January- impersonation of community memeber, -insert user here-

How to identify Haham hanuka - a friendly user guide

• Username: Often a paraphrase on a known user such as "bla bla". Sometimes the username hints that something is not right - "hidden user"
• Subjects of interest: other than the obsessive interest in sex, there are also "legitimate" topics such as "colors", "numbers", or even "flags". The legitimate contributions are mostly broken translations from the English wiki. Occasionally he adds bland trivia information on unimportant TV shows and old movies.
• Userpage: Empty or without any content, or with very little content ("every lense is a microscope")
• Errors: spelling and grammar mistakes are typical

• Usage of narrow legal arguments to allow (literally, to make kosher) inadequate content. "All of the facts are true and are linked to other articles." "Claudia Bombila is a porn star but there is a decision that women that begin with "C" are allowed, and she doesn't have a nude photo in the article."

• Confronation with other users. His favorite disgraceful names: "idiot" and "liar."

He has just listed the Israeli author Amnon Jackont for deletion, see here. 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please sign your full name with the four tildes, ~~~~ Thanks. IZAK 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Sorry Izak, that was one tilde too few or many. For those who doubt it, the Jackont reference was mine. gidonb 17:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed to quote

this is PoV and might be copy vio, pls do not resore. --Haham hanuka 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The text is brought as a quote and therefor it is irrelevant if it is POV or not. It is very helpful in understanding the crime and the verdict. Please do not delete again without first polling your collegues. gidonb 19:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

no it is a propaganda. what can we learn from this about Amir or a the assassin? none. --Haham hanuka 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We learn from this particular section that Amir acted from conviction, took pride in his action, that he showed no remorse also after the murder and that the court took this point very seriously. gidonb 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote belongs in the article; it's important in understanding the subject of the article, and a paraphrase would not be appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1970 or 1971

According to my sources he was born in 1971, we should check it. --Haham hanuka 09:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

my mistake. --Haham hanuka 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With the infobox, pictures and references the next rating step should be considered. gidonb (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The pictures seem not to have been legal. Start will do for now. gidonb (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Criminal

An anon user keeps removing the infobox from this page, claiming it is not appropriate. I looked up the usage recommendations (also to be found by clicking here):

==Usage== Misuse of this template may cause Neutral point of view policy problems and Biographies of living persons policy problems. Thus, this template is used in the upper right corner of an article. This template is generally reserved for serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, convicted murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.

As Yigal Amir is a convicted murderer the infobox is specifically and explicitly applicable to this page, according to usage recommendation at the infobox page. Anon, I request not to remove the infobox and the vandalism warning again without prior discussion. gidonb (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This template should be used on people with "criminal career". Amir has no such "career". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.142.151 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is untrue. As a convicted murderer, the infobox is specifically and explicitly applicable to Yigal Amir according to the recommendation above. You would have to disprove that, to remove the box. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that by adding this infobox you're trying to say "Amir did a bad thing". In other words, it seems that you're so eager to re-add this infobox just to make this article compatible with your agenda. I suggest an arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.62.131 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon, my sole agenda is keeping the policies and recommendations of Wikipedia. You are welcome to raise your concerns anywhere you want or suggest changing the usage recommendation of the template. Until the recommendations change, however, removing the infobox of this page is blatant vandalism. This vandalism and the use of unlicensed images - claimed to have been taken by oneself - damage Wikipedia by taking away valuable resources from other pages and potentially giving it bad publicity. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1.Be polite!

2.I didn't use unlicensed images. I didn't upload any image to this article.

3.Why are you so afraid of arbitration ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.62.131 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm being very polite, but I fail to see even the beginning of a case for arbitration. That is 100% the opposite from being "so afraid". For your convenience, just a short recap. You have deleted time and again the infobox from this page. In response I referred you to the usage recommendations of the box, which explicitly include the case of Amir, i.e. that of a convicted murderer. In response you tell me what you believe the usage recommendations should be, rather than what they are, but nevertheless deleted the infobox. The place to address your general reservations with the usage recommendations is at the talk page of the template. gidonb (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

rabidly racist

Rtd2101 (talk · contribs) added several sentences which I removed because they seem to be POV (or nonsense) to me, such as a characterisation of Dror Adani as "rabidly racist", or the claim that the "Attorney General had ordered the Interior Ministry to register Amir and Larissa sexual deviants". --Austrian (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing and taking immediate action! gidonb (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

It seems that his wife's biography is totally non-notable except for her marriage to Amir. Thoughts on merging?--TM 18:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Raviv and Shabak

The text claimed that Amir was friends "with Avishai Raviv, to whom he revealed his plan to kill Rabin. While Raviv posed as a right-wing radical, he was working for the Shabak, the Israeli secret service." It cites this article from Ha'aretz. But the Ha'aretz article doesn't mention Raviv, or Shabak. Perhaps because I'm reading this in the U.S., I'm seeing a different version of the article. Or, maybe the article has been edited since its publication and access. But the cite, as I see it, doesn't support the claim, so I removed the cite. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"responsible for the assassination of"?

Is there a reason why the first sentence is phrased so tepidly? Is there a legal, political, or philosophical argument against simply saying he "assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin"? MatthewBurton (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP vio

Stating, via category, that an individual is in category - "Jewish religious terrorism" - requires iron clad sourcing. At the moment - the article doesn't even mention terrorism, nor does it make clear that there was a religious motivation (the main motivation, in any event, would seem to be nationalist).Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone who proclaimed himself that he was acting on orders from God wasn't religiously motivated? Oh yeah. (Anyway, people like Amir don't see a distinction between religious and nationalist motivation because their nationalism derives from their religion. You know that. He declared during his trial that he "acted according to din rodef"; Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism [that word again!] in Israel, p107.) Someone who is listed in every book and academic article on Jewish terrorism isn't known as a terrorist? Good one. BLP violation? Bullshit. If there isn't sufficient sourcing, add some instead of making excuses for removing something that you know perfectly well to be true and easily sourcable. Zero^talk 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Then this should be sourced in the body, prior to adding a category. I will note that some sources do not refer to him as a terrorist - we would have to figure out the balance here. As for din rodef - as I am sure you know, much has been made of this by those less versed in the subject matter - however rodef itself is merely a justifiable homocide defense in Jewish jurisprudence (with the classicial application being killing someone who is chasing (rodef) someone else attempting to kill him) - it is a homocide defense with parallels in many other legal systems. What is relevant is why Rabin was considered a rodef by Amir and whether such consideration was religiously or nationally motivated - per secondary sources analyzing this.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The interpretation of din rodef adopted by Amir both according to himself and according to his colleagues is that it is a command, not merely an allowance. That is the traditional understanding too; at least three of the 613 mitzvot are relevant to it. Note #489 in particular (our numbering), which says that one must not stand idly by, not just that one is allowed to not stand idly by. Zero^talk 05:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"As Amir would state, 'I acted alone on God's orders, and I have no regrets'. He continued, 'I know Jewish law and din rodef means that if you have tried everything else and nothing works, then you have to kill him'. That was Amir's explanation to the court..." (Efraim Ben‐Zadok (2001) State‐religion relations in Israel: The subtle issue underlying the Rabin assassination, Israel Affairs, 8:1-2, 139-145.) Zero^talk 05:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"I acted alone on God's orders" - is much more convincing in this regard than din rodef.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish religious terrorism

He said he "was acting on the "orders of God"" (this article even says it). He is orthodox. He studied at the religious Bar-Ilan university. Still, there is no reference to terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.35.210 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom, not the top - follow the rules.

law student

He is not a law student anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.35.210 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom, not the top - follow the rules.

Update for ref. N°6

This is a more recent statement from Amir, regarding having no remorse for the murder. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/255564 Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding Bar Ilan University

The article states that Bar Ilan is a religious university, however, although Bar Ilan caters to the religious community, there is no mandatory participation in any religious class or program, as such, it has a diverse student body and should not be considered a religious university.

Source: https://biuinternational.com/religious-life-on-campus/#:~:text=Although%20Bar-Ilan%20University%20is,%2C%20spiritual%20traditions%2C%20and%20cultures. מיכאל אליהו ק (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting information in article regarding life sentences in Israel

I am not familiar with Israeli law, so cannot untangle this myself. The article states that "In Israel, a sentence of life imprisonment is usually reduced to a period of 20–30 years by the president". Later we have this sentence: "They noted that several Palestinians serving multiple life terms for crimes such as murder have been permitted to marry in prison."

So which is it? Is there a distinction, that *Israeli* citizens are customarily immune to life sentences, but *Palestinians* kidnapped by Israel are not? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Netanyahu no longer prime minister

The article says current prime minister but it should be former prime minister

Edit: this has now been fixed

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

It's specially for him, not especially for him. See article 2A02:F6E:4B03:0:195:9111:8737:A6DE (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Not done. For one instance, the words are synonyms in the usage of "for a special purpose". For the other instance, "especially" is correct for "in a greater extent than normal". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Although both words are arguable, I think "specially" is better. The intent in this sentence is not "in a greater extent than normal" but "for him alone". Zero^talk 07:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Netanyahu not former pm

Netanyahu is now the current pm but it says former pm The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Length of pregnancy

How can it be that they had a conjugal visit on October 24th, 2006 and his child was born on October 28th, 2007 ? As far as I know, human pregnancy is 9 months ... with all the margins, more than 10 months between visit and birth seem unrealistic to me. 78.48.170.207 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

The caption beneath Amir's photo misspells Yitzhak as "Yizhak", and as a result the Wikilink is not correct either (it redirects to the correct page, however). 37.169.1.34 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done and adjusted the links as well. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)