Talk:Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well

...by zionist Jews

For reasons of NPOV, I have removed these unsupported words from the last sentence, "...was killed on November 16, 1979." and added the template for citation needed. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the cited source doesn't say who murdered him. It says that Jews threatened and insulted him, but doesn't say that they murdered him, and that no one was ever arrested. So the article shouldn't say who murdered him, unless there's a source that says who it was. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the unreferenced claim. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided a couple of sources to reference this claim. Is it NPOV now?

Zezen (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because an unsolved murder case, is by definition that they don't know the perpetrators. The sources cited, are simply peoples' personal opinions about what they think might have happened. Personal opinions are different to factual findings. Also misuse of the word 'Zionist'. Most any Israeli who lives in Israel is a Zionist. The word is 'Settlers'. Avaya1 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Avaya1: I have noticed that in many Jewish-related articles you have reverted edits, or used weasel words, e.g. "allegedly".

Then you claimed they were not weasel words: "It's not a 'weasel word' - it is an allegation"

Here's what Wikipedia rules say about this very word:

Spurious authority: use of the passive voice without specifying an actor or agent (e.g. saying "it has been decided" without stating by whom), and citation of unidentified "authorities" or "experts" provide further scope for weaseling. It can be used in combination with the reverse approach of discrediting a contrary viewpoint by glossing it as "claimed" or "alleged". This embraces what is termed a "semantic cop-out", represented by the term allegedly.

-> Please refrain from using weasel words.

In addition, I have noted that you have been repeatedly warned about edit warring.

If in doubt, please consider the voices from other Wikipedians, and not only mine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

Zezen, it's interesting to note that you focus on the fact that I edit Jewish-related articles, while also leaving rude and aggressive message on my talkpage. It presumably says something about your own motivations in editing this page. The issue of edit warring is either to do with matters of style or of substance. This is a matter of substance. They are indeed allegations, and none of the sources would count as reliable (they don't even seem to understand the meaning of the terminology Zionist). It is an unsolved murder case, and anyone claiming to have solved the murder case is making allegations in the most technical and legal sense of the word. Avaya1 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Avaya1

As you may have noticed, another Wikipedian is dealing with our dispute right now.

Because both s/he and you asked me for the key quote, here it is, again, in full: The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, says verbatim: "Philoumenos [...] was murdered by Zionist extremists determined to remove Christians entirely from this sacred Jewish site [...]"

Here is the direct URL with this quote, still accessible as of today: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631232032_chunk_g978063123203220_ss1-39 and here is its archive, for good measure: http://archive.is/ai3gy

See also the referenced Reuters article from 08 Sep 2006: http://archive.is/YVai3

Please answer my other non-personal concerns: the weasel words (see again above), misatributions, misspellings you introduce, etc. If you do not want to address them here, then please at least do not engage in another edit war. Zezen (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

More sources, non-Christian Orthodox ones, for the claim that it was religious Jew(s) who murdered him

Given Avaya1's repeated edits claiming that all these sources are "Christian Orthodox", hence POV, I found many new ones.

• One of them comes from... Israeli scholars, Mr David Gurevich, University of Haifa and Yisca Harani, Independent Scholar, who when discussing antisemitism in their academic paper about this very death and its political consequences Philoumenous of Jacob's Well: New martyr and modern anti-semitism , write that it was Jew(s) who murdered him:

"Perhaps the fact that the murderer was a Jewish observant person [...]"

• Rupert Shortt, a non-Orthodox religion editor of the Times Literary Supplement, who in his book Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack writes:

"Jewish settlers occupied parts of East Jerusalem at Easter in 1990 and jostled the then Greek Orthodox patriarch. Also, in 1979, Fr Philoumenous, an Orthodox monk near Nablus, was visited by Jewish settlers who demanded removal of Christian signs from the temple an threatened him. He was then murdered: his eyes were gouged out, and the fingers of his right hand were hacked off .... "

• William Dalrymple" writes in his book A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East : "A mentally ill Israeli from Tel Aviv had been charged with the Jacob's Well murder, I learned, as well as with two other killings"

• Newspaper article " a settler had poisoned his dogs, attacked him with an axe, then incinerated his remains with a grenade." The Spectator, 1994

• And yet another official Jewish source: "After a police investigation the murderer was caught, tried and convicted. He was a Jew, not a 'settler, and a pathological killer"

Helen Davis, Britain Israel Public Affairs Centre The Spectator, 1995

See the refs in the article for the detailed biography thereof.

I hope these are enough.

— Zezen (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jewish version of this article

I noted that the Jewish version hereof adds interesting facts about the murderer, confirming his (their?) anti-Christian motives. Quick, dirty and unfaithful Google translation follows:

Murder
A penitent [?!] deranged rabbi from Tel Aviv roamed the area and visited the Be'er Ya'akov [monastery]. One day he climbed over the wall of the monastery, and as he noticed Philoumenos he threw a grenade at him. Then, to confirm that Philoumenos was dead, he smashed the monk with an ax. Afterwards he fled the scene. Having broken his leg he was brought in by a taxi in the evening to the Tel Hashomer Hospital. Before that, in April, he had thrown a hand grenade at a group of pilgrims there and injured a nun. Then he managed to escape to Mount Gerizim, where was hiding for two days. Rabbi was caught by the Israeli police in 1982 for the murder of the gynecologist David Kogan. During interrogation he [also] confessed to the murder of Philoumenos. Rabbi rationalized that he acted according to a "divine order" and was sent to hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital. 

Can a Hebrew speaker update the English article accordingly using original Hebrew sources? Zezen (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Date confusion (now fixed)

The OS/NS notes for St. Philoumenos' feast day were mixed up in a few places, but should now be fixed. The cause of confusion might be that we are not used to dealing with feasts for saints glorified (canonized) after the invention of the so-called "New Calendar." For most saints---those glorified before the unfortunate calendar division---the "Old Calendar" feast date is numerically the same as the "New Calendar" date, but "New Calendar" jurisdictions reckon that date as occurring earlier in actual time. But for St. Philoumenos, the dates are numerically different, while reckoned at the same actual time (to coincide with the anniversary of his martyrdom). Does that make sense? (Please forgive any mistakes or incompleteness in my edits.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.126.7 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Blood libel

This article uses sketchy sources to assert and antisemitic of Blood libel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Philoumenos of Jacob's Well: The Birth of a Contemporary Ritual Murder Narrative. [1] is an article in a WP:RS academic journal unpacks this anti-Semitic blood libel in scrupulous, academic detail, showing this story for what it is: a hoax. (a serial murderer, an Israeli, show had already murdered a series of Jews, was neither a settler nor an ideologue but, rather, a man who was well-documented mentally ill (I mean unbathed, dressed in rags, walking the street muttering strange things to himself, and commanded by heavenly voices to commit murder - a tragic mental case) and who was NOT a settler, not a person with the mental ability to be a member of anything. Just a very, very sick man. And a serial murderer. the article documents the first appearance of this canard/hox/bllod libel, shows who published, and then traces its spread into a limited range of extremist Eastern Orthodox websites and small publications. New articles from back in today also document the facts of the case. I templated the article as "in use" and began to edit out the badly sourced blood libel and write a rational, properly sourced article - then stepped back to my day job in the real world for a couple of hours - when I returned I discovered that an editor had reverted my edits and reverted the page to an overt farrago of unreliably-sourced lies and misinformation. Wikipedia, this sort of hate-mongering is beneath us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888: and @Zezen: Could you please offer your opinions on this topic? I prefer the state of the article as it has been on 18:24, 17 July 2017.‎ Informationskampagne (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Times Literary Supplement and The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity are credible sources which make no specific reference to the term "Blood libel" which you charge in your comments above; nor has this term ever been used in the article itself that I can see. The article stands balanced and should remain as is. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear @ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888: and @Informationskampagne::

I have reviewed E.M.Gregory's changes. As a major contributor to this article (and researcher, including onsite, see the History and the discussion above), I am NOT happy with this sudden substantial change without prior consultation herein, which luckily seems to have been reverted in time.

It contained grammar and other errors:

"Philoumenos was murdered on 29 November 1979, intruder who entered the Monastery.[7] "

inter alia.

However, if anybody obtained "New articles from back in today also document the facts of the case.", I am very happy to see this article updated with such newer wp:rs. If not, please continue to protect it - it had been mangled beyond recognition enough some years back... Zezen (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN, Brewcrewer, Drmies, Debresser, Malik Shabazz, Icewhiz, Davidbena, Galatz, Coretheapple, Bolter21, K.e.coffman, Pincrete, OtterAM, TheGracefulSlick, Sir Joseph, and RolandR: editors who have been active in Blood libel, antisemitism, othhr antisemitism and Israel-related topics, and on Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, to which this page is linked with the assertion that Philoumenos was "killed in the Israeli-Arab conflict"; when he is documented as having been killed by a deranged serial killer. I am not objecting to an article that discusses the veneration of Philoumenos - indeed, I was in the process of re-writing this as a well-sourced, NPOV article on the subject when I was rudely interrupted. I am arguing that the page has to present this as the story of a murder by a deranged serial killer which was recast as a myth about a monk killed by anti-Christian "Jewish Zionist settlers."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping: I noticed some POV, redundant language ("Jewish Zionist") and removed it, as "settlers" suffice. Can you clarify what specific text is at issue in addition to those two words? Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:Coretheapple, My objection is to 1.) The framing of the article as committed by a "settler" - murderer was a mentally ill serial killer from Tel Aviv (his previus vicitms were Jewish). 2.) the framing of thie murder as connected to the I/P conflict: although the murderer did hear divine, there is no indication that he every belonged to any religious movement or organization (see article liked form JSTOR), or that there was any "motivation" at all beyond the kind of tragic, extreme mental illness that confined him to a mental hospital once the police caught him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reliably debunked canards should be treated on WP as canards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that study and other sourcing. The article currently contradicts itself, saying in one place that it was by a nut and another by politically motivated settlers. Coretheapple (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also: isn't this covered by the Arbcom case on Israel-Palestine, and if so, why isn't that noted at the top of this page? Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article is about Philoumenos, not about blood-libel, antisemitism etc. I have little involvement or expertise in this topic area, but it appears that there are two competing narratives. TLS and Blackwell's cannot be dismissed as sources, I cannot comment on the competing ones since I know nothing about them. How to present those competing narratives appears to be the solution, not reject a substantial part of the article, because it is 'blood-libel'. Pincrete (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job to determine if there was a "blood libel," but merely whether the article is fairly sourced and written. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading the journal article cited above it is plain that it is not fairly sourced and written. I have so tagged. See "NPOV issues" below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I was summoned here by E.M.Gregory. For those of you who don't know either of us, he and I typically disagree about almost everything. I wasn't able to access the journal paper he cited above through JSTOR (despite my institutional access, JSTOR wanted a $15 fee!), but I found it on Project MUSE. It's 30 pages long, and I will read it this week. I can't comment about the paper until I've read it, but here is its abstract:

In 1979, the Orthodox monk Philoumenos Hasapis was violently murdered in Jacob's Well Church in Nablus. His death was described as a ritual murder performed by a fanatical Jewish-Israeli group. Philoumenos was later sanctified by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The story gained publicity among Orthodox Christian communities around the world and was accredited by various NGOs and scholars. However, the factual basis of the event dismissed any ritualistic motives or collective accusations for the murder. The development patterns of the popular narrative are assessed against the backdrop of similar accusations levied against medieval Jewish communities in Europe, as well as contemporary framing of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in the media. The conclusions suggest reasons for the wide publicity that the narrative received, based on the cultural context of its target audience, the interests of the Orthodox Church, and the role of political actors involved.

While I encourage editors who have access to use JSTOR or Project MUSE, if you don't have access and would like a copy of the paper, please e-mail me and I will send it to you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted "see also" linked

[2]. Note that the two monasteries are far apart, that Father Giorgios was killed wile driving home, not at his monastery, and that Father Giorgios was shot by a Palestinian terrorist while Brother Philoumenos was killed by a deranged serial killer and his murder has no link to the I/P conflict.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You were quite right, my addition was based on a misunderstanding that the two monks were killed in the same area. The degree to which either killing was connected to the I-P conflict seems to be precisely what sources are discussing, certainly both were killed during that conflict. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that there was no link to I/P. Frankly I'm a little unsure as to the problem with the see-also link, given that they were both Greek Orthodox prelates slain in killings that have been linked (even if temporarily and not conclusively) to the conflict. If indeed the best sourcing is that it was by a serial killer, that is what the article should reflect. What is the objection, if any, to that academic study noted by EM Gregory? Peer reviewed studies are given great deference on Wikipedia, certainly more than dictionary entries and contemporaneous news articles. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One problem: the Israel Studies article is not available full-text from Jstor. May be through ProQuest, but the latter is experiencing technical difficulties. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I downloaded a full-text pdf from JSTOR. No difficulty. I connect via a major library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty through my institution. But ProQuest should be able to access it, once their system-wide issues are rectified. I imagine my library might have it too. Coretheapple (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I just went to check something else on proqest. We need an conspiracy theory that explains Who Took Proquest Down?: The Freemasons? the Zionist settlers? La Mano Negra?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ProQuest is back up. I found the journal article. But even though I have very good (very broad) ProQuest access I found nothing else. Clearly my search terminology is wrong. If you have any suggestions on search terms, I'd be most grateful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Success! Rescued by Project MUSE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Bravo!E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Here [3] this stable link to the pdf can be accessed via JSTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reading the article now, and one thing that stopped me in my tracks is that it mentions this article. That needs to be noted at the top of this talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues

After a review of the Israel Studies journal article brought to our attention by EM Gregory, which inter alia disputes the sourcing of this article, I have concerns about the NPOV of this article, in particular the "death" section and the sourcing thereof, giving excess weight to political motives and insufficient to the killer being deranged, given the factual basis of the homicide that is the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• So it seems that this JSTOR article (which I cannot read behind the paywall from here yet) is circular. Can it thus be used as a wp:rs? ;)

• At any rate, I am grateful to all the colleagues, User:E.M.Gregory y compris, that we discuss the pros and cons of such edits first here, and do not rush to prune this article and its references before seeking WP:CONS. Kudos to us for following WP:PRINCIPLES! Zezen (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Zezen, paywalls are admittedly a problem. Perhaps you can access that article in a public or university library, the journal is widely circulated, but even if you personally cannot, academic articles are given a great deal of weight on WP, especially when, as here, the article is sourced to medical records that predate the murder, to news accounts that predate the "ritual murder" accusations, and to the origin of the falsehood about this being a murder perpetrated by politically-motivated "settlers". Users should be aware that this is a heavily sourced, detailed, 28-page academic article that explores the history and mental illness of the deranged individual who committed this murder; that finds no evidence whatsoever that he was ever a member of any religious group or organization; and that he lived in Tel Aviv and therefore cannot be described as a "settler." Murderer was a deranged serial killer whose previous victims had been Jews. He did operate under the tragic delusion that he heard heavenly voices urging him to attack this specific holy site/monastery. The bulk of the article is devoted to tracing the origin of what the authors characterize as a politically-motivated accusation of ritual murder (a blood libel).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, blood libel is the analytical point of the article. What concerns me on a more immediate basis is that its recitation of the facts shows without any question that this was the act of a deranged individual. That needs to be clear in the article, and the counterfactual narrative, ditto. I wouldn't over-weight the "blood libel" aspects. Worth a mention, but that's about it in my view. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've also tagged for factual accuracy and unreliable sources. I think this article requires a rewrite, as at the present moment it is problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Undertaking rewrite now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Academic fact-checking of this Wikipedia page

The scholarly journal article: Philoumenos of Jacob's Well: The Birth of a Contemporary Ritual Murder Narrative, addresses this page in the form it was in until very recently in some detail. Among the details is a fact that I had noticed when I came upon this page and began to examine the sources: a 2006 Reuters article used as a source for asserting facts about the murder cannot be found on the Reuters website. I note that is is highly unusual for Reuters articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Philoumenos of Jacob's Well: The Birth of a Contemporary Ritual Murder Narrative goes through the sources used on this page to support the narrative of a brutal-murder-by-Zionist-settlers, as as a Wikipedia editor I want to say that it's a pretty embarrassing critique of out editing and sourcing standards. Not to mention those of writers William Dalrymple and Rupert Shortt, who are shown to have accepted the details circulating in limited, largely online, Eastern Orthodox circles without checking news or police and court reports. Reuters, to their credit, appears to have removed it's similarly credulous echoing of these rumors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory Please do not "revise" it like this yet again. You removed most of the other sources in fell swoop. That is not what the consensus arrived at here. Zezen (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note that, as I state above, and as will be apparant to anyone who looks at the page history, the page was templated in use and I was in the process of revising it according to RS when I was rudely reverted and and the template removed. Editors should respect an active in use template. And not fling accusations based on the false narrative that I had completed my edits. I had NOT! I am now revising. Please respect the in use template.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The preexisting sources are problematic on multiple grounds, and a BOLD rewrite is amply warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a Reuters news article from 11.09.2006 (in Ekathimerini.com), quoting Abuna Ioustinos Mamalos, the priest who had overseen the monastery of Jacob's Well for 26 years up to that point, who said that Jacob's Well has been a site of contention between Christians and Jews since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank:

"...Only in 1998 did the Palestinian authorities give final approval for work to be completed. Worthwhile wait For Ioustinos Mamalos, the priest who has overseen the monastery for 26 years and lives there alone, it has been a worthwhile wait, even if it has been accompanied by tragedy, including the murder of his predecessor. «It's been a long time, so it's a very good feeling to see it finished,» he said, sitting in the garden in front of the white stone building, drawing patiently on a cigarette. «I think in three to four months it will all be done, after 100 years. Although a church is like a house - it's never completely finished,» he added wryly. Mamalos says the work was held up for decades because the Israelis, who have occupied the West Bank since 1967, did not want a Greek Orthodox church built on a site that some Jews consider sacred. Many believe the grisly murder of Mamalos's predecessor in the monastery's crypt was linked to this dispute, although Israel has not elaborated on why it opposed construction..."1

Ostensibly you can certainly argue that the troubles in this part of the world, as well as this priest's opinions, have nothing to do with the mentally-ill murderer and his actions; and yet the week before father Philoumenos' murder, according to Orthodox Christian sources, unidentified fanatics demanded that the site be vacated. And so although the murderer was "without any connection to a religious or political entity" as the article now states, it appears that for him (and those with him) — although being mentally-ill or deranged — apparently there was still some sort of personal or political or religious or other motive, evidenced by the demand to leave the site. In that sense, IMHO a brief mention still needs to be made in the article about this point, as the Reuters article above does neutrally. (Also you can not arbitarily discriminate against and dismiss all Christian sources out of hand as being non-valid or extremist just because they are Christian Orthodox). ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• All the Reuters story asserts is that "Many believe....(that the murder) was linked to this dispute." To assert linkage, you would need a direct link.= I looked, and could find no evidence that this murderer had done anything like writing a manifesto or making threats. What I did find is that the investigation showed that he had ZERO ties to anythingn not to any group or organization, presumably because he was deranged, low-functioning, severely delusional and incapable of joining groups. There is also the fact that this documented serial killer killed this one Muslim and a series of Jews. Look this is a horrible murder, but all reliable sources show that it was committed by a mentally ill man. sd. Jusyt tragic. Not a political act. Just a human tragedy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article you cite was predicated on the erroneous initial belief that "Zionist fanatics" murdered the priest. That was purely speculative, and it was wrong. This strikes me as a rather low-grade source to utilize in an article of this seriousness. Your claims concerning this murderer are based upon your own original analysis of the sourcing. Do you have any verifiable sources that indicates that the murderer was indeed motivated by something other than being nuts?Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not everything has to come from a Ph.D. Even if Reuters is a low-grade source as you say, it quotes the abbot who was there on-site 26 years at that point, who in that interview identified the tensions present in this region. So if you you re-read my comments above you will see that my point stands and that a brief mention should be made of these tensions for a more complete, balanced and fair account. ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've cut back substantially on the ritual murder aspect, which deserves a mention but, in my opinion, not so much detail. No, not everything has to come from a PhD but an opinion piece that perpetuates canards does not meet our standards. This is not to say that tensions in the region should not be reflected in the article. On the contrary, they are relevant. But it needs to be properly sourced. Indeed, the Israel Studies journal article gets into that, as do other sources. I've looked without success in ProQuest, my lack of success probably due to poor search terminology. To address one of your points: no, by no means is Reuters not a reliable source - but we don't blindly use as sources sensationalist articles, major portions of which are demonstrably false. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article requires serious and quick copy-editting

Just wanted to point out, the article has some grammer mistakes, broken sentences and repetative information. I've started copy-editting myself, but there are simply parts I don't fully understand and since I have no access to the source (and hell no I ain't no spending my 15 shekels on that article), someone with access to this Yisca Harani article should re-write the paragraphs which use it as a source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. My apologizes, I am the world's wort typist. Worse, I am a lousy copy editor. In my defense, I constanlty go back and cleanup my editing, and I did have the "in use" tag in place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the article is available from two other sources that may be available to you. In addition to Jstor (which I couldn't access) it is on ProQuest and also Project MUSE. The latter is widely available through libraries. The article is clearly in need of further editing, but at this point it is much improved, and suffered greatly due to the absence of good sourcing only recently made available. Kudos to EM Gregory for finding it and then pinging a bunch of editors to work on the article here. I wasn't sure, but after reading the Israel Studies article I have to say that this article was a disgrace in its previous incarnation. Tertiary and POV sourcing, and a general absence of "truthiness," as we say in the States. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both, I'm done here, at least for now. I think that we can remove the page templates. I would like to think that the POV-pushing on this page is over. But I do want to note again how embarrassing it is to have that kind of fisking of a WP page in a scholarly journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, except that I am not sure all the questionable sources have been removed. Fine job and yes, it is embarrassing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've cut back some of the details on the ritual murder aspect. Still mentioned, but far too much detail. Over-weighted, in my opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One-sided article, with WP:RS removed

Apart from minor spelling errors, the article is too slanted towards one source now. The recent edits removed most of the WP:RS that existed in this elegant version for years, which mentioned the underlying tensions, the goals of the attacker(s). We need to add the subsequent events (the attack on the nun, etc.) by the same perpetrator(s), who confessed thereto.

I plan to restore these sources and sentences from that other version, to add balance to the current narrative.

Do you have any arguments against their reliability, then? (I am pinging mostly Coretheapple and ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 here, who mentioned these aspects hereinabove.) Zezen (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? They were far less than "reliable." They were patently false and POV. That "elegant version" was factually inaccurate, largely because of erroneous sourcing. E.M.Gregory should be thanked, not raked over the coals, for finding a peer-reviewed study that contained an accurate factual recitation of the events. Previous sourcing was so terrible that in fact it was mentioned in the peer-reviewed study and held up as perpetuating a Blood libel anti-Semitic canard, which probably should be mentioned (briefly) in the article. Yes, it is not ideal to rely so heavily on one source, but there is not a lot else. The previous version of the article relied on sources that were factually inaccurate, and you don't get much less "reliable" than that, whatever their other qualities (such as being POV and tertiary sources). I searched ProQuest and, apart from the peer-reviewed study, all I could find were three Jerusalem Post articles, which I added to the article.

I am pinging E.M. Gregory as he located the peer-reviewed study, conducted the lion's share of the editing, and is familiar with the subject matter more than I am. My contribution was mainly adding the Jerusalem Post articles and cutting back substantially on the "ritual murder" discussion which I felt was excessive. Perhaps I went too far, however, in removing that text. Also I think we may need to add about how Wikipedia was part of the story. Not at length, just a sentence will do.

I would strongly caution against adding back sourcing that contains anti-Semitic canards and false accounts of the slaying. There is no need for "balance" between factually accurate and inaccurate text. However, I do agree that the tensions and context can be added, if reliably sourced. The sources previously relied upon were either POV or tertiary (encylopedia/dictionary) sources. We can and must do better for an article on this sensitive and difficult subject. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I examined what the other editor removed and I've added back in some of the sources, placed in the context of their role in advancing the false account of the slaying, and added in a quick and I think proportionate reference to Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• @ScottyNolan, Avaya1, and Thomas.W: editors whose previous comments in editing this page over the last couple of years show that they had engaged with the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The recent article in a highly regarded, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal was a thorough fisking not only of the martyrdom/hate crime/anti-Christian attack narrative, but of this Wikipedia page and the sources Zezen wants to reintroduce. The scholarly article demonstrates in detail (some of which was summarized in material I had added to page, but that was, quite reasonably, cut by Coretheapple when he tightened the page. It can be found in this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philoumenos_(Hasapis)_of_Jacob%27s_Well&oldid=791224045} old version - scroll down to Ritual murder narrative). In it, the authors show how rumors that began in Greece at the time of the murder were consolidated in an article written by an Orthodox at the Paradise Monastery in Ellisville, Mississippi in 1989 and the allegations in that article (eg., a group of "settlers" "tortured" the murder victim by cutting off his fingers; documentably untrue on all points) This article appeared in a small church publication, but the recent scholarly article not only discredits the factual assertions made by the monk in Mississippi, it traces the way in which his account grew into a widely believed myth that was echoed by seemingly reliable authors and publications. It is not all tht unusual for rumors to circulate and even to be reported as fact by reliable publication (See: Rationale for the Iraq War#Weapons of mass destruction, or Tawana Brawley rape allegations for example,) but to then be disproven. The scholarly article heavily sourced and is cited not only to period news accounts but to police blotters and investigators reports. So, while the article does and can discuss things like the veneration of Philoumenos as a martyr and the origins and spread of the ritual murder narrative; it cannot have what Zezen proposes, which is the reinsertion of a debunked myth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've restored some of the sources to which I think he referring. However, that was done in context, given that they perpetuate an account of the killing which is simply false. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse Coretheapple's contextual restoration of sourced, used the show that an erroneous narrative about this murder was in circulation. I would adamantly oppose any effort to present old sources as evidence of this murder as a hate crime or anti-Christian attack, a narrative that has been thoroughly discredited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The version of the article that was being re-inserted constantly by user:Zezen was really misleading though, I don't know if this was intentionally so. It seemed to deliberately claim that the murder was a mystery and only used sources written before the investigation had occurred in order to create a narrative that presumably suited the editor's emotional viewpoint.Avaya1 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another Israeli source

Well, the perpetrator killed dr. David Kogan, the gynecologist who "murdered Israeli children", killed the Christian monk, and the other people, attacked the nun, etc. precisely because he was a fanatic, who hated such "enemies of the (Jewish) mankind". After living for a while in the area, procuring the grenade, jumping over the fence, pursuing and hacking the monk, he escaped to a military compound, after which he was quickly released.

As for the "hate crime and an anti-Christian attack" - this "narrative" as you call it, is perpetrator's himself, the investigator's and the Israeli reporters, see e.g. to this Israeli press article from 12 February 1982, from which I quote the some of the above details.

BTW, such reports and books are secondary sources, while David Gurevich and Yisca Harani's publication is a tertiary or even a quaternary one, which is analyzing these analyses.

Anyhow, I leave it to the WP administrators and more engaged parties to protect this article. Life is too short. Zezen (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't "protect" articles, we improve them and fix factual inaccuracies, which in this case have been whoppers. As to your points: a peer-reviewed study in a notable academic journal (Israel Studies) is not a tertiary or "quaternary source" (whatever that is). The policy on sourcing states specifically that "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Tertiary sources are defined by policy as encyclopedias. This is a peer-reviewed study, not an encyclopedia. As previously pointed out, the Israel Studies journal article contains a detailed discussion of the non-English sourcing, including the article you cite (footnote 54 in study: Ma'ariv: "The Police Reinvestigates Unsovled Murder Cases that Were Conducted Using an Axe" ). The Israeli sources, including the English-language Jerusalem Post articles now utilized in the article, state very clearly that the perpetrator was a mentally ill serial killer and not politically or "hate crime" motivated. The study goes on to observe that the confessed killer was confined to a mental institution, a fact not reflected in the newspaper articles, which helps explain why academic studies are so valuable in articles on history such as this one. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I like the way the man uses the words of the perpetrator to seemingly push the narrative of a hate crime. Let me quote some words from that 1982 Ma'ariv article (Which by the way seems pretty reliable): "He [Raby] claimed he visited Jacob's Well, by lord's orders and in one of the times he saw a monk with a group of pilgrims. He had thrown a hand grenade at her group and then went up to Mount Gerizim and learned Torah for two days. Rabi's is just like Michael Steven Sandford, a mentally ill person, claiming a political motive for his actions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Mad or bad? It's a question that gets asked when looking at many crimes. The question isn't even framed here, nor apparently by the study referred to above, nor any source used. Excuse my scepticism, but I have never heard of a mental disease that causes one to attack the enemies of one's religion, though of course there are many incidents where fanaticism and pathology merge. I don't set a lot of store by many of the orthodox sites describing this murder, but I set almost as little store by the account of two academics, whose words are even used to characterise the 'sanctification', just in case anybody hasn't already got the message that these two don't think very much of orthodoxy or its practitioners.

I suspect that it would take the patience and care of a Job to sort out the competing narratives here, but this article doesn't even attempt that. Two Israeli academics (expertise?) are right, not simply about the facts of the case, but about the motives of those with a different narrative, including several notable publishers. Israeli/world papers and police apparently had nothing at all to say for three years about the case, they didn't investigate, didn't conjecture. The story here is not about an individual monk killed, rather it is about the vilification of a people. That's what the two academics think, and are entitled to think, but it should be phrased in their voice not WP's.

This topic area is outside my comfort zone and skill area, however the impression I get is that something that leaned toward orthodox-mud-slinging, has been replaced by Israeli white-washing. But, like Zezen, I think "life is too short".

Re: a “vile man“ a "heterodox fanatic visitor” and, inaccurately, as an individual who “with an axe, opened a deep cut across his forehead, cut off the fingers of his right hand, and upon escaping threw a grenade which ended the Father’s life .... What about that is inaccurate? Except perhaps the details of what was done with the axe, which is marginally inaccurate according to the earlier description of the crime. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentally ill, not just allegedly so

Mental illness has been diagnosed, the man has been forcibly institutionalised ever since his trial. Unlike the USSR and Soviet satellites, Israel has no record of using hospitals for the mentally ill as a surogate for prisons or "reeducation centres", it hasn't been accused of doing so, and this would be a first time Israel would "hide" a sane criminal in such an institution for the purpose of sweeping an unpleasant issue under the carpet. Never happened. So cut the crap with "allegedly" or "supposedly": it's a dangerous mentally ill criminal who hears voices and follows their commands. Let it rest at that and wait for the next, better blood libel opportunity. In Ration We Trust (who is we...?). Arminden (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)