Jump to content

Talk:Hebron/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Merge proposal for Beit HaShalom

  • Merge Beit HaShalom is a part of the history of Hebron. In part, recentism led to it having its own article, though in a larger historical context, it is a small part and portion of the history and heritage of Hebron. As such, Beit HaShalom should be merged into the Hebron article in context. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The history of Hebron runs into thousands of years, and Beit Shalom is a small blip on the screen. Were it incorporated, the relatively large page on Beit Shalom would have to be whittled down to a line or two, and thus eviscerate the article, while adding nothing of interest to Hebron. Nothing gained for Hebron, and much lost for the Beit Shalom article.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Nishidani here; Beit HaShalom is a minor event in the very long history of Hebron. Huldra (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beit HaShalom is a stand alone article. The History of the area that Beit HaShalom stands on (with a Jewish connection) goes back further than appears in the article. Maybe some day someone will get around to expanding it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper Citation

Under the "History" section (see subheading "Antiquity and Israelite period"), a previous editor of this article used Genesis 13:18 as "proof" that Hebron was listed as an Amorite city in the Bible. Genesis 13:18 reads thus:

Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD. (KJV)

Strong's Hebrew #H4471 lists "Mamre" as "an Amorite". How does this necessarily prove that the Amorites actually held that city at one point? Aside from Mamre being "an Amorite", there are no other references to Hebron being governed or inhabited by the Amorites anywhere in Scripture. If the plain - and the accompanying "Oak of Mamre" - refer to a former Amorite owner, does that mean that the entire city was Amorite? Or perhaps an Amorite named Mamre sojourned there among foreigners (Canaanites/Kenites/Hittites) like Abraham did? If Hebron was indeed a royal Canaanite city (as the article states, without citation, I might add) that was accessible by one of the major ancient trade routes in that area of the Levant, then I would expect scores of non-Canaanite/Hittite/Kenite tradesmen to be streaming through Hebron en route to Egypt from Damascus. Surely some of them were Amorite, and one or more of them - such as Mamre, perhaps? - might have actually stopped to enjoy the scenery as Abram did.

I vote that the reference to this being an Amorite city be redacted in some way. Aside from the possible Amorite origin of the name "Mamre", there is little proof that Hebron was ever an Amorite city. Jerodian (SPEAK TO ME!!) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Joshua 10,5 has a more clear statement that Hebron was Amorite. However, all historical claims that rely only on the Bible should be carefully qualified as the Biblical version. There is plenty of doubt out there whether these parts of the Bible correspond much to fact, and also whether the "Amorites" of the Bible have much to do with the "Amorites" of historical reality. Zerotalk 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias in many sections of the article

It is not clear to me as to why in the "Post-Oslo Accord" section the statistic of (0.9% of all fatalities in Israel and the West Bank)" was added to "which saw 3 fatal stabbings and 9 fatal shootings in between the first and second Intifada". I can only imagine the intent is to downplay the deaths of the settlers as a minor fraction compared to "Palestinian Suffering". Perhaps this would be better suited to a opinion piece. "To shoot indiscriminately" is a term that is used to describe Israeli fire, "and thousands of rounds fired on it from the hills above the Abu-Sneina and Harat al-Sheikh neighbourhoods". However as just cited it is not a term used to describe the Palestinian machine gun fire into the Jewish quarter. Probably because using this term would require some insight into the shooters discrimination, which I can't imagine anyone had. "Israelis from the Jewish settlements found bordering Hebron (for example Tel Rumeida, Kiryat Arba) continually harass and provoke the indigenous Palestian population." I can't imagine why this does not require citation. I do not understand why Wikipedia editors consistently seek to paint Israel as "The Great Satan", I feel as though the anti-Israel UN justifies this absurd bias with it's continual, Arab and Muslim supported resolutions which rarely have anything to do with facts. The international community which gives peace prizes to Arafat and has the Iranian president come to it's stage with resounding applause to deny the holocaust, is hardly any longer a source to cite for unbiased opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.83.106 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias in hebron

i deleted the palestinain israeli conflict section as it was completely bias against iisrael. half o f the items were no cited and those that were cited were cited from well known anti-israeli websites. i call upon the immediate deletion of this article for not only does it have lies but it promotes hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.91.224 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


In what way does it promote hatred? Some of these sites speak about the truth. Those facts are about the truth... The truth happens to not be in favour of Israel.

You are not allowed to delete that part unless you can give some good reasons for it.

--Arsaces (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Population

The cited Palestinian population figure in the introduction and infobox recently more than tripled, from 166,000 to 552,000, an astonishing and spectacular change. How reliable is the new source? Could there be a benign "apples vs. oranges" explanation, such as the new figure including an entire region? The discrepancy should either be accounted for or the edit reverted. The figure as of 1997, cited under "Demographics", was 130,000; an increase to 166,000 in ten years, more or less, is believable. A jump to 552,000 strains credibility. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. The figure of 552,000 is for the Hebron Governate, not for Hebron city. (Can someone fluent in Arabic please read the source carefully and confirm this?) Another official source of PCBS statistics, in English, is here. Maybe there is a 2010 estimate somewhere else; meanwhile I put in the 2007 count from this source. Zerotalk 03:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Hertz1888 (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The figure by the Palestinian authority is probably also wrong too, but since no reliable source exists it is the best wikipedia can do. In the past the residents have avoided the census for tax reasons and the PA has often exaggerated numbers to get more foreign aid - and with the corruption statistics of the PA means more money in the pockets of many PA officials. Obviously, we'll keep a close watch for a good census. 8.19.92.171 (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Weird, I'd always thought the population of Hebron was between 70 and 110,000 people - that was from around 1995 though, and I suspect bigger now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What country is Hebron in?

A customer in Hebron wants me to ship something via DHL but I can't figure out what the name of the country is. This webpage didn't answer this simple question. :-( --TDKehoe (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) I'd ask your local post office or courier service. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of phrase "Jewish community"

The frequency with which the word is used is irrelevant, an if relevant justifies not using the word based on minimal use elsewhere.

Referring to the settlers as a community implies that it is a normally functioning society of people, as opposed to a militant foothold of 500 radicals, who don't live there most of the year, in a small number of streets.

Calling them a community implies that they are the same as the Palestinians in their in terms of their presence in Hebron.

Hence it is POV.Nwe (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The above commentator is clearly coming with a political agenda of delegitimization of the "jewish community" of Hebron. He says so himself: "implies that they are the same as the Palestinians in their in terms of their presence in Hebron". Surely, it is not for Wikipedia to take stance in such an issue!? As for the discussion below I think it misses the point. The word settler has a negative connotation, and the reasons for its wide usage are likely to be exactly those outlined by the above commentator. If a different cursom would become the prevalent, let's say calling the palestinian residents "usurpers", would that then become the suitable term for Wikipedia? Just as it's easy to think of arguments against a renewed jewish presence in Hebron, so it is to think of reason in favor of just, and Wikipedia should not take stance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.150.11 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Got any basis for these (seemingly strange) opinions?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis is as I've already provided, that the term implies that they are a normally-existing community, which they are not. It is also general practice to refer to settlers in the Palestinian territories as such in order to differentiate them from most communities in the world, which do not serve as political tools of occupation.Nwe (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Community is a simple and a neutral word to describe a group of people living together, which the settlers in Hebron, if I'm not mistaken, are. Any political, economical or military issue should be addressed separately. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Also kind of lost here. If a bunch of child rapists decided to live together in one geographic area they can still be described as a "community." I don't think Zionists should fair any worse.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about we take a look at how these people are described in reliable sources instead of attempting to determine a level of normalcy for illegal squatters in occupied territory. The BBC refers to them as "Jewish settlers" regularly: [7], [8], [9]. As does the Guardian: [10], [11], [12]. As does The Times: [13], [14], [15]. Haaretz calls them "settlers": [16], [17], [18], [19]. Why exactly should we not call this "community" what it is, Jewish settlers in a Palestinian city? nableezy - 02:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of RS's using the term "community."[20]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And if you place such an emphasis on a google search, this might be instructive. 11000+ for settlers compared to 3150 for community. nableezy - 03:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
[21] gets 4,560 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That is a general google search. The other two were google news, but if you wish to compare between general searches Jewish settler gets 70000+ nableezy - 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly why it is strange that an editor would not allow for the word "community" to be mentioned once in the article, when the term "settler" is spread throughout the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I hadn't given this one much thought before reading this. Erm...undecided and will read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
PS: Well they are an enclave as such, a demarcated group, so some collective term describing them would be useful rather than settlers, which implies a sprinkling of them to me - "enclave" is a word we can all live with? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think enclave is a great word to use in the article. From what I understand, the Hebron Jewish community is made up of a bunch of "enclaves" in Hebron, thus calling the community an "enclave" may just not make sense from a technical standpoint.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought it was just the bit in the centre of town, which is one demarcated bit (not counting Kiryat Arba up on the hill I guess...). I was there in 1995 so that was a while ago now and it seemed to be all together in one place then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
PS: this definition makes "enclave" more descriptive than "community" I feel, as it is certainly not well integrated with the city as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Enclave sounds more like the place, while community sounds more like it's population, isn't it? In the context, not the place comes under attacks but the people. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But we are using 'settlers' when talking about the people. There are some stages when one presumably wants to talk about the area the settlers are in (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess any synonym can be used in both cases, it's purely a question of style. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at the map of Hebron city center (by BTselem) for the settler enclaves in Hebron. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the phrase "Jewish settlers" legitimate in this context? I have been asked to provide a similar case elsewhere. Easy, the Northern Cyprus article, section on Demographics, uses the term settlers a few times, to describe Turks who migrated there since 1974. PatGallacher (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most important is how Hebron Jewish population is referenced in reliable sources (settlers, I guess). You can find a plenty of links in this very thread. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing to see the extent to which the Arabs and other anti-Semites will try to deny Jews' right to this city. It is not illegal for Jews to return to their historic city of Hebron and try to take it back from Arab colonialists and occupiers. Everyone except brainwashed ignoramuses know that Hebron was an Israelite/Jewish city for centuries long before the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs invaded in the sixth century. The Palestinian Arabs are illegal squatters, not the Jews.--FindersSyhn (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Geography

A geography section would be interesting; NPR reports the city is currently experiencing a severe water crisis, and some context would be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As would sections on the local economy; administration; transport; culture; education; and public services. The article is very heavily skewed toward history, to the extent that it is unbalanced. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy city status in Islam

I removed that the city is "also holy to Muslims" as the only sources I can find are from travel guides. Chesdovi (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

REstored, with citations. This is hardly controversial. You can't throw a rock over there without hitting something that jews, muslims and christians think is holy.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You asked for a source, and have now distorted it so that it's innacurate. I'll try another swipe at this shortly with different wording. You definitely are a POV pusher, aren't you?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The sanctity of the city is described in detail in the Encyclopedia of Islam article "Khalil". Zerotalk 00:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Hadith... And it's the city of the Muslim patriarch, Abraham. Surly if European Jews find it sacred, then Semite Muslims find it just as sacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.131.9 (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy to muslims because of the association with Abraham

Though it's holy to jews largely because of abraham as well, this does not mean that these are the same things. To keep it simple, i've spelled out abraham by name and that's why it's holy to Muslims. Accurate, direct, no ground for confusion that way (fascinating that someone who didn't know that hebron and abraham were venerated in islam yesterday -- and couldn't find sources on the matter -- now has such strong opinions about the matter).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statements about status

I've tagged the following statement.

However, Israel disputes that territories such as Hebron are occupied (as they are not the sovereign territory of any nation), and claims that because the Geneva Convention provides for retention of territory for security purposes, its settlements are legal.

The State of Israel in the form of the Supreme Court of Israel recognizes that "the territories of Judaea and Samaria" are under "belligerent occupation" and that they are administered on that basis. There's nothing controversial about it. The HCJ have said this countless times in their case rulings so it's unclear who the "Israel" in the "Israel disputes" statement is referring to. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know, Israeli officials aired the opposite position too. I guess the possible conclusion is that there is no clarity on the position of the State of Israel as such on the matter. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I know government officials have disputed the illegality of the settlement activity in the West Bank but I'm not sure about disputing the occupation status itself given that it's the basis of the military administration. Can you remember where this has come up before, assuming it has ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
May be MFA site. I'll check. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It was mentioned in WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. Please take a look at this MFA document, from the words "Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as".... Btw, Harlan called it "propaganda" and "outdated", so I don't know how much it worth really. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seal

Regarding this edit, this article is about the city of Hebron, not the settlers group. Chesdovi, you are surely aware that an article exists on the settler's council as you already added the same seal to that article. This article is about the city, which has an official seal. It is beyond absurd to replace the seal of the city with the seal of the settler's council, and it makes no sense for a user to insist that both seals be included. This article is not about the settler's council and as such their seal has no place in the infobox. nableezy - 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally disagree. You cannot wipe off one independant section of the towns population just like that. Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is wiping anything off of anything. The city of Hebron has a municipal seal. That is in the infobox. The city of Hebron also has a number of Israeli settlers illegally occupying an area of the town. That is detailed in the article. The settlers however do not decide what the seal of the city of Hebron is, and as such the seal they have designated for their council does not belong in the infobox for the city. That seal is used where it should be, in the article on the settlers council. Not this one. nableezy - 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The infobox seems to include the whole city. Israeli locations in the WB have seals, and so does their settlement in the Hebron. If you only want it to include the PA area, then rename to Hebron, PNA. Chesdovi (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Israeli settlements include the seal of the local council or town or whatever designation the settlement has according to Israel. The article on the settlers council includes that. That is not in any way analogous to what you are arguing here. The proper analogy between, for exapmle, Ma'ale Adumim and the settlers council in Hebron is the article Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron which includes the settlers seal. nableezy - 17:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. It is for the Israeli section of the town. Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron is a municipal body. Chesdovi (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no "Israeli section of the town". There is an area of Hebron held by settlers which they control and which the IDF maintains a presence. Whether or not the settlers committee is a municipal body or not is not all that relevant to this article. The council has its own article, as I have repeatedly said here. And that article contains their seal. The seal is not used by the city in any way and it does not belong in the infobox. The complete removal of the actual seal and replacement with the settler's logo was extremely tendentious. No matter though, your edit was, rightly, reverted. The infobox is about the city of Hebron. The city of Hebron has an official seal. That seal is in the infobox. The end. nableezy - 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I tried to add it to the current one and may have to now merge the image into one image. Wwhat you say s wrong. The PA seal is of the PA city council. The CJCH seal is for the Israeli held section of Hebron. How can it not be represented in the infobox. Indeed, more Israeli info may be added as the city is shared and both need to be represented. The End. Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That wont do. The image in the infobox is the image for the seal of the city. The article is about the city. The settlers council has its own article which has the seal for that council. The city is not "shared", a group of illegal settlers has occupied a portion of the city. Please stop with these word games that distort the facts. The city of Hebron is what this article is about. That city has a seal. That seal is in the infobox. That a group of illegal settlers hold a portion of the city does not negate any of those facts. You dont have consensus for your efforts to add the seal of a group of illegal squatters into the article on this city, and attempts to push it in without consensus will not end well. nableezy - 20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit is unbelievable. Your insistence is noted, but you do not have consensus for such an edit. nableezy - 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The CJCH articel is the same as Hebron Municipaltity. Hebron is featured on the Israel regional council template and directs correctly to the city. This is the same as all other settlemnt pages. You would do well to leave it, or must others make you see sense? Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hebron is not an Israeli settlement. There are Israeli settlers occupying an area of Hebron. The first statement does not follow the second. You would do well to not continue editing with complete disregard for consensus. nableezy - 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop it with talk of "concensus" when just you are objecting! Now, please explain further what is meant by H2 is not an Israeli settlement, even though Israeli settlers occupy part of it? Chesdovi (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I was clear on what I wrote. Hebron is not an Israeli settlement. I did not say that H2 is not an Israeli settlement. If you want to include an infobox in the section dealing with H2 you can do that. But Hebron is a Palestinian city in the West Bank, not an Israeli settlement. And you very obviously do not have consensus, given this discussion and this one. nableezy - 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So you do agree that H2 is an Israeli settlement? Chesdovi (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, H2 is an Israeli settlement. Hebron however is not. nableezy - 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And is H2 "in" Hebron? Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You going somewhere with this? If so, kindly get to the point. H2 is in Hebron, H2 is an Israeli settlement. Hebron itself is not an Israeli settlement. This article is about Hebron, not H2. The infobox is about Hebron, not H2. If you want, make an article on H2. I cant say I care. But this articles infobox is not about H2, it is about Hebron. nableezy - 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is about Hebron, a section of whch is called H2. H2 is a "suburb" and is part and parcel of the town. You seem to be saying the page is ony to be about PA Hebron. So as I said earlier, rename it then. Until then, all parts of Hebron will be represented. Even Shuhadas Street. Don't wipe away a whole section of the town just because it is under Israeli control. Learn to share. Chesdovi (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you dont seem to understand what I am saying. This article is about the city of Hebron, which has an official seal. A portion of this town is illegally occupied by Israeli settlers. That is covered in the article. The illegal part is not important for this next bit, and this is the important part. The article New York City has in the infobox the seal of the city of New York, because that is what the article is about. It does not however have the seal of Brooklyn, or that of the Bronx, or of Queens, or Staten Island, or Manhattan. Each of the articles on the sub-sections of the city of New York has its seal in its article's infobox. Their seals are not however in the infobox of the article New York City. Whether or not a sub-section of Hebron chooses to create a "regional council" and give that "regional council" a seal does not affect what the seal of Hebron is or what seal should be in the infobox. nableezy - 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The difference being that the seal is not for H2, its for Hebron. Again, if you feel that this is solely a palestinian town, disambiguate in the title. 4 sq. km of the town is represented by a different official seal which must be shown. It makes no difference what you say about the legalities. For all I care, PA hebron is the recently added sub-section. The pa seal does not represent Hebron in its entirety. Chesdovi (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually the PA seal does represent Hebron in its entirety, including the parts that most of the residents cannot go because the occupying army prevents it. To treat the legal and illegal as equal would be quite a travesty. Zerotalk 03:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No, a group of Israeli settlers in Hebron do not determine what Hebron's seal is. I dont actually care that you think the "PA hebron is the recently added sub-section". Hebron, the city, has an official seal. A group of settlers does not change that. Their seal is for the settlers council. The article on the settlers council has that seal. The seal in the article now is for Hebron. And the article on Hebron contains the seal of Hebron. You can continue to misrepresent what I have written, as in [I] seem to be saying the page is ony to be about PA Hebron, or you can pay attention to what I am actually writing. The illegal settlers in Hebron have no standing to designate a seal for the city. They can choose whatever they wish to be the seal of their community, or regional council, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, and our article on that council should and does include that seal. However, the article on Hebron will show what the city of Hebron designates as its seal. nableezy - 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The PA have a seal for the city and the Israelis have one for the part of Hebron they govern. You cannot have a infobox on Hebron with only one seal. Just as illegal settlers have seals for other illegal settlements which feature in the infobox, the illegal settlement of Hebron seal must also feature in the infobox about Hebron. The town is shared and therefore it is only correct that both sectors are featured. The seal of Hebron is the seal of Hebron PA council and it is used to represent the whole city. The same goes with the CJCH. The Israeli seal also represents the whole city, including the parts Israelis are verboten to set foot in. It says HEBRON on it, so this is clear. You are not helping to make the article NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Divided cities shows that usually there are two pages to disambiguate is a certain town is split, e.g. Laufenburg. Sometimes two separate sides form a union as in Lloydminster, but this is not the case in Hebron. The case of Hebron is rather like Nicosia, although there is also North Nicosia. If the town is to remain as a single page, like Ghajar, there will need to be changes to the infobox, as has been shown in Nicosia., or something similar to Saint Martin. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Topic ban)

For further study, or can anyone supply illumination?

Moshe Gil's book appears to cite a Christian manuscript's reference to (a) the taking of Hebron from the Byzantines in the 7th century, and (b) the retaking of Hebron from the Crusaders in 1199, as two distinct but identical events. In both a later tradition says that the Jews played a crucial role in supplying the Arab armies with inside information to take a a city that resisted facile siege. Certainly many books talk of this during Byzantine times (cf. the taking of Jerusalem and Cairo, to note two wellknown examples). personally I have often suspected that these reports reflect more Christian antisemitic post factum propaganda(of the type: we could have held out against the Arabs, but Jews stabbed us in the back, etc. But this is just my own suspicion, personal guess, and I can't object to it since RS say this. However, a close examination of Gils suggests he is using the same late medieval Latin manuscript for these two events, and indeed the same passage, and this may well be a lapse. Jewish comunities had good reason to help the Arabs since Christians expelled them on both occasions, and the Jewish hebronite community ended up in either northern Palestine or in Egypt.

On the other hand, I'm sleepyheaded today, and may be just paranoid. Thoughts? Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

In Andrew Petersen: "The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600-1600", "Number of households in Towns of Palestine during Sixteenth century according to Religious affiliation", for Hebron we have on p. 127:

  • 1525/6: 133M (Muslim) 0C (Christian) 0J (Jews) 0S (=Samaritans)
  • 1538/9 749M 20C 7J 0S
  • 1553/4: 969M 8C 0J 0S
  • 1562/3: 983M 11C 0J 0S
  • 1596/7: 687M 11C 0J 0S

Now; according to the present article, it only gives the population in 1538/9...and there it has exchanged the number of Christian and Jewish household! Either Cohen & Lewis (1978) has a printing error....or Petersen has. OR: it has been misquoted. Can someone please check Cohen & Lewis, it they have access to it? And the other numbers ought to be added. (I don´t think if we should add the Samaritan group, though, as there were none -at least during this time- in Hebron). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll check Cohen and Lewis. I see 7C 20J in a paper of Lewis so that's probably right. Zerotalk 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I knew the man -our last hope for the desperately needed ever elusive facts- would zero in on that! May be interesting adding the stats on pop stability earlier, you can get them here, scroll to page 31 Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, Petersen (the book was uploaded to archive.org a couple of weeks ago....I had no idea that it was free of copy-right....I recommend you to down-load it ASAP! It is a treasure trove.) Anyway, on p.125, Petersen writes that base his works on Ottoman records in Heyd, Uriel (1960): Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1615, Oxford University Press; Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977; Cohen & Lewis, 1978: "Population and revenue in the towns of Palestine in the sixteenth century"; Bakhit 1982; and the above Singer, 1994. All are well known (perhaps except Bakhit 1982: "Ottoman Province of Damascus in the 16th Century")
Anyway, here is a problem: according to Singer, 1994, p.31, the Hebron population was:
  • 1545: 969M 0C 8J .......... (That is the above 1553/4 result -with C & J exchanged)
  • 1560: 983M 0C 11J ........ (That is the above 1562/3 result -with C & J exchanged )
We better check the other sources, too. I suspect that one scholar has looked up the actual data ....then lots of others have quoted/misquoted(?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Where there's a conflict in sources one gives both versions. Where an error has been made, the cite should have an accompanying note to that effect. At least that's my practice. Singer's data looks like an inversion, but generally I have a good impression of her work, and coincidentally, as she gives it, the accords with Jewish records, which disagree with Ottoman census data. The stats' picture, these were gathered for tax purposes also, (remember that the Hebronite communities lived on handouts from abroad and were dirt-poor) conflicts with Jewish tradition, since Jewish sources give 10 Karaite families (Schwarz 1850) while the Ottoman records in Peterson give 0. Again, this source, which is not quite RS speaks of a large resettlement of Jews into Hevron in 1540, led by Hakham Malkiel Ashkenazi, who is given as setting up an institutional centre that flourishes, where Petersen p.135 Table 3 sets the year before and speaks of 7 households, which however immediately disappear from the registers for the rest of the century, when no Jews are recorded there. There must be a good book somewhere, or a PhD in the making on the intricate history of Jewish emigration to Palestine for 1500-1796, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I definitely do not think you should use Arutz7 as a source on Hebron history... The problem with books like Schwarz, 1850, is that they remind me very much of the type of books -and booklets- some Scandinavian emigrants to N-America wrote for the "home market" in the 19th cent.: They wanted to encourage more emigration, so they portrayed N-America as paradise on earth (or close to it). The reality could be very different, of course. I wonder how 19th cent. history of USA would look on WP....if we only used similar emigrants literature, aimed for the "home" market? Don´t get me wrong: I think we should use Schwarz, ...just put in context. Anyway, I have ordered a copy of Bakhit, 1982, (the others I can get at the library). (Btw: wonderful to see you back on I/P -area, Nishidani!....I gather your topic-ban was lifted :)  :) :) :) :) ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a lot of refs should be there, and that the best thing to do is to use a few fundamental books. However, as the page janitor, coming back after that strike that got me fired until a recent upturn in market opportunities made my CV acceptable despite the black record as a unionist, I thought the way to go was just to clean up the page, making one citational template, for whatever was there. Once that's done we can cut back the refs to the bare minimum, on the principle of trying to find just one soure for several points. Sure Schwarz 1850 and a lot of other stuff can be dicky, but unlike us, those chaps had no TV and had to spend several hours a day travelling or reading deeply and they still conserve a lot of material that goes by the board. I'm minded to get rid of most of the journalistic or web stuff including Arutz, who, in any case is a second hander. I thought of doing this a few years ago (I think I included him) but didn't and my reluctance is due to realizing the author has links to the Sephardic community of Hebron, and their story is never really given a hearing, ever since the Ashkenazi got the upper hand. There was a considerable degree of tension between the two communities from the mid 19th century down to 1929. The whole story deserves a short monograph, but this is not the page to divagate on it. Thanks for the welcome back. There's a lot of interesting company around, and it's nice to work a page cooperatively and thoroughly. Cheers, pal Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That Demographic chart's quite messy. I wish there was one good source, since the composite sourcing creates all sorts of problems. I'm not quite sure we should have the Jewish Virtual Library Hebron page as a source for difficult material like this. We need demographic specialists like Gad Gilbar's work on Ottoman Palestine:1800-1914 (BRILL 1990) and the others already mentioned. Can anyone more familiar with this make some suggestions for revision? We have 1,500 Jews in 1895 in one source, and 700 qua Ottoman subjects ten years later, in 1905, in another source. A 1,000 on the eve of WW1, 750 at war's end. This is all very fascinating but it only begs (answers exist) as to why these fluctuations, either in the record dissonances, or sociological reasons, occur. I'd like to see some objective evidence about those 1800-1850 stats, which is not the impression one gets from the many traveller accounts of the period. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two reasons. The most important is that estimating population correctly without actual counting is close to impossible. A lesser reason regarding Jews is that the Ottoman tax registers (somewhat inaccurately called "censuses") did not usually include non-Ottoman citizens. A large fraction of Jews in some places were in this category. Zerotalk 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that censuses, censurally indeed. I see that in Gilbar. But I would expect that the premodern communities must have been registered as Ottoman citizens. In any case, I just look at the Jerusalem page, with its neat demographic model, not divided by religious faith. Our narrative gives (unless we decide to revise) a quite extensive coverage of demographic fluctuations in the Jewish population, and I don't see why two or three lines describing the aliyah influx and its fortunes (1500(preWW1)/750 (post WW1)/one or two after the 1929 massacre) couldn't replace the mess we have.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I have Cohen and Lewis. It is a very technical analysis of the Ottoman taxation registers. It is clear that Petersen has Jews and Christians exchanged in all the years mentioned, as C&L present the data in fine detail even breaking Hebron into its quarters. I can also explain how the numbers in Singer agree except for the year. These were not censuses conducted at a given moment in the modern style but rather surveys compiled using the most recent data from each location. Thus the population data in year 945 (1538-9) of Hebron is reported in the survey of 952 (1545-6). I propose that we restrict the 16th century values to Cohen and Lewis source only. There are missing persons in our table too, for example as well as 749 Muslim households in 1538-9, there were 227 bachelors and 29 religious persons (there is disagreement amongst sources whether this category included non-Muslim religious), also 1 tax-exempt disabled Jew. Zerotalk 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Parfitt's book "The Jews of Palestine, 1800-1882" lists 32 population estimates for Hebron during that period. Zerotalk 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there any way we can just use these 3 academic sources, in one footnote, to reformat the demographic schema, so that we are given a good overall picture of fluctuations for the period surveyed. I'm uncomfortable with the patchy way it's been constructed, and the rather shaky sourcing used? I'm a hopeless numbskull handling anything to do with graphics, and usually suck the technical expertise out of people like Johnuniq and Nableezy when such issues arose. But if we could manage to adjust that, the data, grounded in academic works, would be a creditable net-gain for the page.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Fisk

In 1835, Mr Fisk, an American missionary, visited Hebron. He estimated that there about 400 Arab and 120 Jewish families; the Jewish population having significantly dropped since the 1834 rebellion.[1]

I haven't checked the source (1854) citing him but Pliny Fisk visited Hebron in 1824 not 1835, and his memoir Memoir of the Rev. Pliny Fisk, late missionary to Palestine, was published in 19281828, three years after his death. Pages 369-72 say no such thing. I've read his bio Heroes and martyrs of the modern missionary enterprise,P. Brockett, 1854 pp.373-384 just to check for other possibilities, and turned up nothing. A secondary consideration is that we have quite a bit about population numbers without harvesting too much detail, especially when it is, like thi, dubiously sourced.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it either and I agree we don't need it. Zerotalk 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably it was George Fisk, see this book, which however doesn't seem to have population figures. Zerotalk 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Chapeau. The original year for the data, however, was 1835, too late for Pliny Fisk while this Fisk visited Palestine in 1842 (?). Between 1824 and 1842 there must be then a third Fisk, unless, sorry for the untranslatable pun, we are taking fischi per fiaschi! Memorable that wording for the moving vignette on p.239 on miserably poor Jews trudging passing their tents towards Jerusalem, 'aliens from their own birthright'. Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict coda

I asked Hertz1888 if he could help on this, but haven't had a reply yet. If you look at many pages like Jerusalem or Safed, you don't get a huge barrage of note-taking on the violence in the recent histories of those cities. It was written in the usual POV tit for tat fashion, with someone giving a grievance incident, followed by another POVer 'balancing' that with some grievous incident on the other side and is not appropriate to an article with 4,000 years of history. There is a separate page for this, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron, and in my view most of these incidents should be removed there, with just a generic section on post-1967,(a) the move back to Hebron (b) violent conflict has occurred, illustrated only by events significant enough to have a wiki page already on them (b) post-Oslo accords. I imagine though that a huge POV donnybrook could break out, and therefore think this should be thoroughly discussed beforehand. Certainly, Hebron stands singled out, among cities in the area, for the highlighting it gives to incidents, versus narrative synthesis. Any suggestions?Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

General points

I've done most of a general reorganization, save for the last bit- here are some reflections.

  • (1)500 Jewish settlers concentrated in and around the old quarter.[2][3][4][5]

--I remember a long source battle to get the numbers up or down. Most sources over the last decade see a fixed if fluctuating population inside Hebron of some 500 people (roughly 85 families). We have far too many sources on this. If we can agree on 500 as the general consensus (so far), I would suggest that (a) we retain the one and best source for that statement and (b) move the others to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in Hebron page. --This would (a) conserve the work and details (b) get a lot of useless templating of one-off sources off this page. ?Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1929 massacre. Any questions?

In the archives here and on the specific wiki page devoted to the 1929 slaughter at Hebron, there was a long discussion on the wording and sources. Most sources give 67 murdered, yet most sources on everything merely copy and paste. I never noticed anything askew until one day, while reading a book by Martin Gilbert, I saw the figure of 59, which seemed odd for such a careful historian. He was apparently reporting directly the figures from the Palestinian Post's reports on the massacre for August and September 1929. I'd also elsewhere, but rarely, seen the figures of 64, 65, aside from the standard 67. So I did a long investigation on the issue, even going to the trouble of listing all the names of the victims, and checking (no WP:OR here, since I drew no personal conclusions, but simply wanted to figure out which of the sources got the facts straight so we could use them). I found out that the differences were due to (a) the number buried immediately after the event 59, then (b) as several of the survivors died of their wounds, increased to 67 over the ensuing weeks (c) of those included in the 67 figure two apparently died, one of a heart attack and another of the sheer shock and age, after witnessing the onslaught. My problem then was how to phrase this. Use 'kill', 'slaughter', 'murder' for 67 is just so slightly imprecise. Certainly 64 (as Kimmerling and Migdal report) died as a direct result of wounds suffered by the Hebronite onslaught. 67 remains the correct figure (I can't account for just one of the three that make up the difference) but it seems 2 or 3 weren't 'murdered', despite the best efforts of their assassins, but died of shock. I know this niggling looks clumsy, and I am not overly attached to being a precisian about such delicate matters of correct reportage of a massacre. It's just that I know some sources, eminently respectable, do report the different figure, and the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved if we give due notice of such dissonances in the literature. ? Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) I guess if the toll is widely cited as 67 then 67 it is (I guess it can be written as "Official toll is recorded at 67..." or somesuch). It can be elaborated upon as you spell out from sources like you have above. Detail is helpful here.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It can't be 'official' because the Mandatory statistics are not being used here. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I am thinking of something that conveys what sources say the usual number is "Death toll agreed upon as 67" or somesuch, which conveys this without the text conveying the number as gospel, IFYKWIM. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's late here. I won't give you the full Monty, but significant academic sources give a minority view of 64 murdered and 54 wounded (we have 60 wounded). Do we just ignore this?
  • Ted Swedenburg, Memories of revolt: the 1936-1939 rebellion and the Palestinian national past, 2003, p.220 (54 wounded)
  • J. Bowyer Bell, ''Terror out of Zion: the fight for Israeli independence, 1977 p.5 (64/54). Incidentally, Bowyer Bell was sympathetic to the Irgun. Swedenburg is, I think, sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative. None of which has much to do with the issue at hand, but does illustrate that the dissonance is not in itself a question of POV-mongering. Well, to bed. There's no hurry.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agh, you wanna just list all the sources here once and for all, then we can discuss, get a consensus for what the article should say...and stake this debate through the heart and consign it to the archives once and for all? I am a neophyte in this area, but did have a hankering to get Hebron to GA or FA as I spent one of the weirdest days of my life there (on a day trip from Jerusalem). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we need several experienced senior editors on board on articles like this, just to keep us honest, ensure that the rhythm of editing is relatively efficient, so that some of these tortured pieces in the I/P area become not only readable, but adequate to at least GA specifications. Much appreciated. I haven't the slightest idea of what GA/FA requirements entail technically, and invariably wait for experts to prompt me and others, point by point, or to fix the technical side, so if you can push me and others along with pointers, all to the good. We may not get there (GA, I think FA impossible), but the benefits of trying will improve the text. It should take several months, barring hitches!, since so far what we've got, and I assume some responsibility for this, leaves much to be desired. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that would be more appropriate at 1929 Hebron massacre? Incidentally, if there is an "official" death toll, it would be the one given by the Shaw commission. I think it was 67 but I can look it up if necessary (my library has the original). Zerotalk 04:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, probably it's best to work it out there 1929 Hebron massacre. But when I tried to work that page, I just ended up wasting months in futile controversy. At the 1929 Safed pogrom (wrong title, since 'pogrom' in the technical literature means, stricto sensu, a massacre with tacit government consent), whoever edited it had no problem noting that there is some dispute over the figure.(By the way, that page is disgracefully brief, and would benefit from editors taking some time to, if not memorialize, then certainly do justice to the historical facts and the victims).
I checked Shaw (1930) years ago, and if you could recheck it thoroughly we'd be in your debt. My notes just have the following: 'More than 60 Jews — including many women and children —were murdered and more than 50 were wounded.' p.64. I haven't got access to the vol. now, however, and perhaps there is more detail than I excerpted). The Peel Commission document of 1937 varies this, uselessly, with 'over sixty'. That's why I said we haven't got official figures here. I'm not quite happy with official reports since they are written with political consequences in mind, and indulge in vagueness or euphemism far too much. If we can't find an official source at the time establishing the precise range or figure, we are back to 'Go'.
I might add that Neil Caplan (he deserves a wiki bio) is very reliable for period reports, since he studied under Bernard Lewis and Elie Kedourie, and actually, unlike most, does detailed archival research, and he repeats the Shaw Commission's results in his Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, The Great Powers, and Middle East Peacemaking 1948-1954, Frank Cass 1983, vol.1 (Early Arab-Zionist Negotiation Attempts, 1913-1931) p.82 just says 'sixty orthodox men, women and children'. That is totally unacceptable, though official, because 64-5 were definitely murdered. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(nods knowingly without a clue what everyone is talking about) okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Cas. Shaw Report (1930) and Peel Commission Report (1937) were two British enquiries into Palestine, the former specifically on the massacres of 1929. Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Nish, your finding on page 64 of the Shaw Report is the only mention of casualties specifically in Hebron. There can be more in the accompanying records of testimony (which I have) but that wouldn't be official. One day I am going to get energetic and scan this report. It isn't trivial because it's on microfiche. Zerotalk 09:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for taking the trouble. I wouldn'ìt worry about getting energetic. The nice thing about this place is we don't have deadlines, and hurry's the ruin of many an article. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring afoot?

Brewcrewer. Your edit summary reads:

(rv. this massacre was far more atrocious and hence had long lasting infamy, that is drelevant and discussed in contrmporary times. clearly a "notable controversy" per LEDE policy)

The prior editor, a newbie who, after a handful of edits on one page, just manages to notice of 7000 articles, Hebron and popped in to plunk that bit about the 1929 massacre in the lede. Well, it's not exactly suspicious, but. . .this happens a lot round here, and I think all editors should be very careful in evaluating that kind of out-of-nowhere editing to a page that has a long history of POV battles.

  • (a)There is no 'controversy' about the massacre, so your justification per LEDE does not stand
  • (b) Set this kind of precedent in wiki articles on cities, and you will have virtually every lead in articles on towns and cities in eastern Europe opened up to the same edit. Vilna, Lviv, Budapest, Warsaw, all had atrocious massacres and pogroms after 1929. I don't think we should 'exceptionalize' this sector. Otherwise the lead at Lod will have POV junkies battling to get that figure of 250 Palestinian deaths in 1948.
  • (c)One should think thrice before supporting virtually anonymous edits that look distinctly like they are cueing for a pointless revert battle.
  • (d) In best practice, you don't fiddle round with leads that took several years to get consensus on, by barging in with a major change. You argue that, as an experienced wikipedian like yourself should know, by proposing it first on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seminal moment

Abraham's purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs from the Hittites constitutes a seminal moment in the development of a Jewish attachment to the land.

This is one of the lines that nag at me every time I read the page. I think it is now widely accepted that the narrative of Abraham, like the northern Joseph stories at Shechem etc., is embroidered out of tribal legends and mythistory as part of the Judean writing of the Biblical charter 8th-6th centuries BCE. It was, retroactively a seminal moment in much later writing on identity, which however reflected the intentions of the priestly drafters. Something like:-

The story of Abraham's purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs from the Hittites legitimised the immigrants’ purchase of land in the host country (Francesca Stavrakopoulou,Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Veneration in Biblical Land Claims, Continuum Publishing 2010 p.37) and came to be regarded as a seminal moment in Jewish attachment to the land.(source needed).

Stavrakopoulou's book is very good on all of this. There were three sites written up as marking by their (re)foundational stories the establishment of a purchase on the land, and Hebron was one. Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Subjective article?

I have a feeling that the article is nonobjective by being slightly pro-Palestinian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but throughout history there have been more Jewish settlers killed rather than Palestinians, and the article sends a feeling that it is the opposite. I am not making any political statement, that's just what I resent when reading this. 94.159.239.207 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

'throughout history there have been more Jewish settlers killed rather than Palestinians'. Could you clarify this? Hebron has a 3,000 year history, pagan, Jewish, Islamic Christian, etc. We cover this, not 4 decades of tension.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
notice you did not respond to the point raised.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, please note that you failed to see that the remark made was meaningless, and that by asking the anon for clarity I was being courteous. The remark, Brewcrewer, is meaningless because 'throughout history' refers to 4,000 years, whereas the reference to 'Jewish settlers' implies that he/she had in mind either the biblical myth of Abraham the sojourner's settlement in an imaginary year dot, or to events post 1967, when the binome Palestinians/Jewish settlers takes on a precise verifiable meaning. (b) The anon suggests, without any source, the number of settlers killed in Hebron since 1967 is higher than the number of Palestinian Hebronites killed. Highly questionable. Intelligent comments elicit responses. Remarks that are garbled are usually ignored. Neither the IP nor yourself in this case seem to care much about the natural construal of the English language. But, as courtesy demands, I have replied to both of you. Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pogrom in 1834?

Chesdovi. You've just created a highly suspect page 1834 Hebron pogrom, and now linked it to the mention of the 1834 assault on the town mentioned here. All of this smacks of POV point-scoring. A pogrom is a very specific form of violence, certainly what occurred in 1929 was a pogrom. But the events of 1834 were directed overwhelmingly at the Turkish and Arab population, as the histories narrate, and not with the specific intent of killing Jews, which is what the word pogrom suggests. If your slipshod usage were accepted, all death tolls of Jews over 4 killed in war, amidst many other slaughtered citizens, would count as 'pogroms', and historians of history, and Jewish history, are not in the habit of obliterating distinctions. I suggest you do a bit more work on that woeful article, or else it will go for deletion. It seems just tailor-made to provide a link to this page, has poor spelling as well by the way.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why Chesdovi would respond considering almost every sentence in your comment included a personal insult.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If I put into the Hebron article everything I document, on day to day reports, on what the settler enclave does, in order to whip the reader up into a lachrymose state, the article would be unworkable. Anyone who reads this stuff attentively knows that unspeakable thuggishness is a very one-sided activity there: as anthropologists and sociologists themselves have recently argued a culture of contemptuous harassment is a programmatic part of the settler culture there. But we keep it out because this is an encyclopedia, and not a page where people play games to crank up a POV. The substance of my remark was that he is abusing the word 'pogrom'. He can reply to that.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

8,700 Jews in 1816?

John Edwards Caldwell, The Christian herald, page 395. Or maybe 700? Chesdovi (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite excessive. Parfitt lists 32 population estimates from 1806 to 1882 and none of them are anywhere near that high. The estimates near 1816 are 1000 in 1812-16 and 500 in 1817-18, which Parfitt describes as "patently wrong" and "rather high" (for reasons that he gives). Actually 8,700 is in the region of the total population, maybe your source thought they were all Jews. Zerotalk 08:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Figures from tourists who hadn't even visited Hebron are best ignored, in favour of whatever data the modern specialists on demographics give. Most inhabitants there depended on halukkah handouts from the diaspora, and this set a severe constraint on the size of these communities throughout the Ottoman period. Many accounts, further, confuse figures for an sanjuk with those for the district's capital. Turner's figure is hearsay, he never went to Hebron. He even believed that apart from Jews, only Turks lived in Hebron. A second point, the large swings over a decade in reported numbers, besides being intrinsically odd, may have a vague connection with the attested function of most Jewish 'emigration' in this period, which was, at the end of one's life, to die in the Holy Land. Turner reports that the vast majority were old women. I.e. we are making no distinction between settled Jewish communities, and influxes of the aged, or sick there for religious purposes.Lastly, could editors please pay attention to the whole text. Dotting it with snippets regardless of the narrative flow just creates work. We jump from the economy and demographics into the events of 1834 without any transition making for an ugly leap, from Jewish population to 750 soldiers conscripted a decade later during the rebellion. Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Nishi, as usual you are confusing between reliable sources (documents) and reliable people. That is unfortunate. Please do not engage into WP:OR.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias in section Restrictions on Palestinian movement in H2

The section only refers to Palestinian movement restrictions, but ignores Jewish movement restrictions that previously did not exist in Hebron. The bias is neutralized with the simple addition of the section Restrictions on Jewish movement in H1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.223.112 (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo removal and expansion of Beit Hadassah as per Perera

Brewcrewer, you really should stop turning up at articles I edit content into, only to exercise your revert right automatically on specious grounds (a) atrocious style (b) bad writing replete with typos. If you find a typo, fix it, as everyone else does. If you think the style is awkward, improve it. It is an abuse of the revert option to elide edits on the grounds of trivial objections. Address, as you haven't so far, the substance.

  • The photo I removed I regarded, since it comes from an anon editor with a dynamic IP in Argentina, as probably the work of a sock (AndresHerutJaim?)
  • In a city of 170,000 people, there are several hundred settlers, and two photos (the settler's Shavei Hebron yeshiva, and a carved headstone of the Star of David) of 9 reflect their presence. The third meant that the settler POV was now represented as a third of the reality of Hebron in photographic terms. There are no photos of the overwhelmingly majority Arab population's institutions, or cultural sites.
  • Secondly the Hadassah building was the former Jewish run hospital for Hebron till the massacre of 1929. The caption has it that it is now the Beit Hadassah hospital. It is actually a building with several functions, one of which is a clinic. The rubric suggested otherwise.
  • Perera was an eyewitness to the takeover. I left the text in a footnote to facilitate consultation for a few days. It need not remain. But thus doing, I save editors like yourself the trouble of looking the book up.
  • I can't understand what Sean Hoyland says about fixing typos and IR. Since that was the complaint, I rearranged commas, phrasing, and added 'former'. Surely this is what Brewcrewer objected to. Since Sean has restored it, I adjusted as requested. Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Old Yishuv

I almost deleted this, because I'd not noticed it before. What's it doing there? IT's got nothing to do specifically with Hebron.

There must be photos of rabbinical figures or families in the wonderful old yishuv settlement in Hebron with which this could be replaced. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

' instantly ancient'

Hello,

I still think that in the following text the 'as if' etc. bit is not a factual description but a POV evaluation by Gorenberg and by Goldberg. As such, it has no place there. One may well add a special section on the conflicted perceptions of Hebron's history, but as far as the facts go, the G & G quote is, as far as I can tell, quite unnecessary.

the government agreed to legitimize Levinger's wildcat settlement[131] by establishing a town on the outskirts of the city[132] in an abandoned military base, which was named Kiryat Arba,'as if,' Gershom Gorenberg writes, 'to make the place instantly ancient.'

A compromise solution might be to drop the G & G quotes and to indicate that Kiryat Arba was an ancient Jewish location. But then, that's what wikilinks are for, anyway. :)

Bazuz (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kiryat Arba as the settler name for an area that was not Kiryat Arba is itself POV-loaded, and, by the way, Kiryat Arba is not an ancient Jewish location it was the former name of the place which in later Judahite foundational lore about Abraham's arrival there came to be called by them Hebron, and is associated with Hittites, Canaanites, or any other people who occupied the site before the mythical purchase by Abraham. It does read as if it were 'city of (the) four' in Hebrew, but could be a calque from Akkadian even. Arba was even the name of its giant king Anak. It was a highly ideologically loaded term for a site, the military base, that had no antiquity, and the authors are making that point, that's why attribution was indeed required. Still you do have a point, and I for one do not consider the question closed.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your scholarship. Nevertheless, this was a settlement, not a military base, so it had to have a name, hadn't it? KA is a name connected to the locale, so it makes ample sense to have chosen it. My problem with the quotes is that they somehow impute a vaguely sinister intent to the choice of name, that probably just wasn't there. What do you propose to do about it? Maybe add a learned footnote about the etymology of KA? Bazuz (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the other way around. It was a Jordanian military base outside the town limits which the settlers negotiated with the IDF as a provisional area to settle in. I haven't written into the article, but the real topological identities of Machpelah, Mamre and Kiryat Arab are, in biblical criticism, in doubt, since the drafters of the Pentateuch conflated a large amount of conflicting traditions from several distinct groups into one narrative of one place. Most of the lore is pre-hebraic and pagan, as was Kiryat Arba. They adopted the name from the Bible, because they were denied Hebron. So that's the name of the settled sight down the road from the Cave of the Patriarchs. They chose the name for tactical and ideological reasons, and our sources note this as a factor. An etymological section on KA would require at least (by my rough notes) 20 sources, and be more appropriate to the KA page. If those guys want it, there's nothing stopping them.I'll probably be banned by the looks of it, which means I mightn't be editing wikipedia for long. If you wait around a bit, discuss this with other editors. Hertz1800 and Zero are excellent on all these questions, and certainly even more neutral than even I try to be. On the rationale behind naming in this area see the essay on my talk page, but only after taking some amphetamines to stay awake!Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, all right, have it your way then. It still feels rather wrong to me, but I'll hand it to you for sheer amount of learned arguments (no irony). Bazuz (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, no. I won't have it my way. I don't own this article. Many have it bookmarked and if either Hertz or Zero or any other solid contributor to it gives you the go ahead, do the edit. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph removed

I have removed the misleading section/paragraph on the restrictions on Jewish movement in H1 area. The formulation implies a false symmetry with Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement in H2 area. The sole source of this item is apparently not credible. It claims that "Jewish entrance into it [H1] is against the law." I doubt very much that such a law really exists. If it does exist, the nature of this presumably Israeli law needs to be clarified.

The article further claims that "These rules were sanctioned in the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron" which is clearly false. On the contrary this protocol clearly states that Jewish worshipers should have "unimpeded and secure access" to Jewish sites in H1 Area. http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22680.htm

Since the start of the Second Intifada there is a general Israeli military order banning Israeli residents from entering the Palestinian Area A without a permit from military authorities. Probably this applies to Area H1 as well. This military order makes no specific reference to Jews. It is also a unilateral Israeli regulation. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-said-changing-its-checkpoint-policy-1.154424

The apparently Israeli signs from Hebron shown in the article maybe related to this order.

Please feel free to reintroduce a similar paragraph if you can clarify who is forbidding Jews to enter H1 area and on what grounds.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is was my phot removed?

I will put it here instead.

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Picture of Child Suicide Bomber Found in Hebron.jpg
Photograph of an Arab baby from Hebron, 2002. Relatives said that it was taken for fun.

The article says Jewish kids dressed as B Goldstein so why ca'nt we have Arab baby dressed as bombers? Very one-sided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baybars-hamimi (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On March 11, 2001, a full year before that photo was taken, Hebron's Jewish settlers had several of their children parade through Arab Hebron dressed up as mass murderers,i.e., in the guise of Baruch Goldstein. Click here and see what a wonderfully joyous celebration occurs annually in commemorating his slaughter of Hebronites who have the wrong ethnic identity. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. I will remove this provocation tomorrow, if no one does in the meantime, since we are here to add material to articles, not fill talk pages with material that is not acceptable to articles.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"wrong ethnic identity".... That's why Arabs were against Jews coming to palestina - they were the "wrong ethnicity". Oh well. If thousands of Arabs came to palestine - that would have been okay - but not the Jews!!! Jews lived under Arab rule in the Middle East, but Arabs cannot live under Jewish rule? Shame. By the way, I dont think the arab killed that israeli baby because of the B Goldstein costums. Baybar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baybars-hamimi (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would almost always argue against reinstating on MoS alone. Unfortunately, the article already disgregards MoS with the images bleeding too far to the bottom. Furthermore, this is actually an iconic image. It might be cute to show off the picture of the trash nets but this one actually has importance off of Wikipedia (as opposed to Wikipedia trying to make a point).Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
A view of a net installed in Hebron to collect the garbage thrown down to the Palestinian sector of the Old City by Israeli settlers.
As I was making the edit I realized that the net image is completely out of place. So I am thinking about inserting this image in the relevant section while removing the net image. That would surely hurt some butts. Would editors prefer other options such as relegating both to commons? Alternatively, I can just stick it in wherever as was done by other editors. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The picture of the net belongs, that is an image of daily life in the city. I am restoring it. nableezy - 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it does have daily life significane, even if it is in 0.03% of the whole town! Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
There are three pics of Jewish institutions or settlements, or emblems of an historic presence. There are no pics, other than (1) one useless one telling people they have cars and streets in the Arab quarter, and (2) another with kids and Israeli patrollers. The fault lies with the P side, which should come up with better pic material of Palestinians institutions and mosques etc, and has failed. The pic I restored refers to the situations under which 30,000 people deserted that quarter because life is intolerable with shit and rotten food being thrown at you if you live there. That is reported in innumerable books and articles as the key symbol of what life is like for Palestinians living near the infra-Hebron Jewish settlement. By all means relocate it, but it should not be removed unless there is a consensus. What the Tel Rumeida pic is doing there in a great historical city like Hebron, other than anonymously to celebrate the address of the dominus there in a minute outpost where every other Palestinian lives under conditions of daily torment, someone witha notable record of severe problems with Israeli law, a (former) Kach operative, who stalks the streets of Hebron with a gang, armed with an Uzi machine gun and terrorizes the unarmed local inhabitants? Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

<- CPT Hebron have some photos here and/or in some of these albums that are free for use via Creative Commons 3.0. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian lives under conditions of daily torment". It is such a shame this is still happening today. One would have thought things would have changed since 1875: "The fanatical intolerance of the Algerine Moslems, who formed a foreign colony in the town [Safed] and held the unfortunate Jewish population in daily terror" - Claude Reignier Conder. User:Sean has got the wrong idea I think. We need some really nice photos of the town, not ones of political and NGO scenes. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What I wrote is a statement of fact. The only thing you can conclude from it is that CPT Hebron have some photos that are free for use via Creative Commons 3.0. What editors do with that information is up to them. I have the advantage of not caring in the slightest. Perhaps you can find another really nice photo of an Arab baby dressed as bomber in their collection that is better than the one you proposed we use. You won't know until you look. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I looked at all of them and none of them show nice views or landmarks of the city. sorry. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


As usual, MoS has been ignored. Please respond to that concern since you have broken it yet again. Also, what did you interpret as me discussing CC? Tag=images sandwiching text, being stacked, being irrelevant to sections, size/upright, and so on and so on. Neutrality tag is per B-H's discussion. Please do not remove unil the dispute has been resolved. If no resolution seems possible, you will imply need to try harder to resolve them before the tags should be removed. Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What? A photo that isnt relevant to the article being removed is cause for a NPOV tag? From where are you pulling that reasoning from? Because it aint in any policy. And which picture is irrelevant to the section it is in? nableezy - 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish cemetery in 1322 hebron

Someone deleted what i added yesterday about a jewish cemetry saying "OR". What is OR? anyway, why is it "silly"? I think quite interesting? BB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baybars-hamimi (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is OR to take a source talking about a cemetery and use it to "note" that another source does not include it. And dead people generally are not counted among a population. nableezy - 14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Anyway. I think it is better to remove the whole bit about "haparchi does not record any Jews", beacuse how do we know he did this generally for all towns? Was he a census man? Nope. A Geographer actually. --Baybars-hamimi (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And I do understand. Read the cited source for the sentence, it is clear. nableezy - 16:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
But it is not needed for us the say "he did not record any" - because I have read his book and he does not seem to ever provide numbers in any town? I will replace what he does say about the existence of a cemetery. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you mention "numbers" since the issue is nothing about numbers. The source says "At the time of the Nachmonides in 5027 (1267), some Jews were found here, as he wrote to his son that he was on the point of going to Hebron to select for himself a spot to be buried in. It appears, however, that they afterwards quitted it again, as Astori, in the year 5082 (1322) says nothing of any Jewish families in Hebron." The source not only says "does not record any Jews in Hebron" but makes a (perfectly reasonable) inference from that. So our use of this source is already very weak and I don't see a case for making it even weaker. Zerotalk 22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree using Joseph Schwarz in this instance is very weak. That's why I think we should just use what Haparchi says himself in his book (on pg. 448 in the new ed.), i.e. about the Jewish cemetery, okay? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
You didn't agree with anything I wrote. The fact that Haparchi visited Hebron and failed to report Jews living there is significant. We wouldn't be allowed to make that point if we only had Haparchi's book, but once a reliable source makes it we can use it. Actually we are allowed to report Schwarz's inference that no Jews lived there at the time. The present text, which reports the fact and not the inference, is a reasonable compromise. Zerotalk 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not agree with you, I thought I did. What I think is: by the fact Haparchi did not mention anything about Jews is actually not significant - beacuse, as I already mentioned, i have skimmed through his book and never does he mention anything about the current communites of the land. He mentions mainly the location of tombs. I have also check the 1850 english translantion agaist Schwartz original, and nowhere does it say in the Hebrew original "It appears, however, that they afterwards quitted it again." It is in fact a very poor translation. I have further found another guy who visited in 1330s, then years later who says the Jews were very many in Hebron? Again, the "present text" does not report the fact, becusae all Schwartz says is "Ishtori also doesn't mention the settlemtn of Jews in Hebron" - that does not mean there were none settled there. (In fact I beleive that Istrois never mentions any Jews settled anywhere, not even Jerusalem.) Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't have Haparchi's book myself but I have several good sources which cite him for the existence of Jewish communities in his time. For example Beth Shean, Salha, Edrei, Gis and Safad in Alex Carmel, Peter Schafer and Yossi Ben-Artzi (eds.), The Jewish Settlement in Palestine 634-1881", pp. 45–47; and Haparchi did mention Jews in Jersualem, for example he met Rabbi Baruk there. Zerotalk 01:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Haparchi’s work is not the same sort as other pilgrim accounts, who wrote about what they found on their trips. Haparchi’s work is chiefly a legal work. That is why I did not come across the towns you mentioned, becasue they were buried inside the book, not on the list of towns, distances and graves. I think he therefore only mentions the customs of Jews in various towns if he felt it was necesary to do so. E.g. He wrote that he had heard about the Jews of Gush Halav and Jerusalem regarding their custom of reading of the Esther scroll on a various day, (this relates to the law regarding the ancient structure of these towns); (-one may ask why he did not mention Lydda, Gaza, Safad in reference to thse laws?) One whole chapter is devoted to this subject, and sometimes when he discusses the law for various towns, like Edrei and Salach which lay across the Jordan, Haparchi mentions in passing the existence of communities there in his day. In my mind, he does not by any means intend to provide us with a detailed account of the local Jewish population everywhre. He mentioned in passing that Jews keep "two holy days" in Ramle in a section discussing the laws which depend on the geographcal location of a town. He did not provide a list for what the law is for each and every town where Jews reside. He mentins the large community in safed only in passing to inform us that he could ask them about a query he had about the tribal boundary of Naftali. He was interested in the Jewish laws which related to the land and the borders of the biblical land of israel, not in the jewish comunities in the land. That he provided such information about comunites is a side point. We cannot infer things for places he didn't happen to mention. That he said he met a rabbi in Jerusalem proves this point. Are we to infer because he mentions just one rabbi who lived there, that it is somehow "significant" and that the inference is that no other Jews there? Should we add "Haparchi (1322) recoreded one Jew in Jerusalem”? Haparchi never gave numbers of households, like other reports of the period, because Haparchi did not write an itinary, he wrote a legal work. I think there seemingly was nothing related to Jewish law which made him feel the need to mention Jews and their religious practices in Hebron. By saying in the text “Haparchi did not record any Jews in Hebron” infers there were none living there at the time. But most probably there were, because 12 years later many were found there) Haparchi didn’t “fail” to report Jews in Hebron. That wasn’t his intention; he did not record population statistics. He was intrested in identifying bible towns with the ones he came across and whether they were in the holyland or not, etc.. In all, he tells of Jewish communities in 7 towns west of the Jordan: Beth Shean and Jerusalem, (both places where he lived) Ramle, Lydda, Gaza, Safad and Gush Halav. Are we to infer there were no Jews living elsewhere just because he found no reson to include any mention of them in his book? Anyway, we cannot rely on Schwartz: Compare the 1850 Schwartz English version to my translation:
"At the time of the Nachmanides in 5027 (1267), some Jews were found here, as he wrote to his son that he was on the point of going to Hebron to select for himself a spot to be buried in. It appears, however, that they afterwards quitted it again, as Astori, in the year 5082 (1322), says nothing of any Jewish families in Hebron."
"Perhaps in between the time of BoT and Nachmanides there were some Jews living there. Also, Ashtori doesn’t mention any Jews living in Hebron. It is probable that the town was destroyed for a second time after Nachmanides."
(The bit about a burial plot is mentioned earlier in the Hebrew ed.) He does not mention they "quitted" or left. Also see what Schwartz says about Safed: “In the year 1170, when R. Benjamin of Tudela travelled through Palestine, he mentions no Jews as residing in Safed. Only in 1490, it commenced to be inhabited by Jews uninterruptedly to the present time”. He does not mention that Ashtori found a "big community" there in 1322?! Baybars-hamimi (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You know, most of this is original research and isn't really admissible. On the other hand, your argument has improved since it was at the beginning and I'm inclined to agree. Since the particular point is not very important to the article, I'm going to remove the sentence. Zerotalk 08:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You asked a question and were blown off. OR means WP:OR (<--Click on that link). You are going to be treated like dirt here so I will apologize in advance for it. If you have a point to be made (as in something historically significant) you will have to deal with other editors who want a contrary point given more credence. You should also realize that there you are under undue scrutiny attempting to edit in the topic area that includes anything related to Jews and Israel. You should probably just give up now. However, you can see multiple essays on how to edit Wikipedia. Poke around for a bit and you will figure it out. Don't let militarists or propagandists (you will meet them if you haven't already) dissuade you from editing. You are also automatically assumed to be someone who knows this and will have a sockpuppet investigation opened against you. We can't fight it out since we are behind our monitors with a firewall at home and the Israelis and Palestinians can't fight it out since they are both [insert mean things here]. Thank you for your contribution, Baybars-hamimi. Please just ensure that you are taking everything you write from reliable sources (almost to the point of plagiarism) while ensuring that you don't insert your own opinion in any way. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An article talk page is for discussing the content of the article. Please do not continue to misuse article talk pages. Thank you for your future cooperation. nableezy - 14:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. The new user needed a better understanding so that he could contribute properly on this page. It would have been preferable if someone else would have actually explained it to him when the inquiry was first made.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop disrupting this talk page. If you would like to comment on content then by all means, the floor is yours. Repeatedly casting aspersions against other editors, thinly veiled or otherwise, is not an acceptable use of the page. Again, thank you for your future cooperation. nableezy - 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Not a matter of patronage. You wrote a screed smearing all editors who oppose your views by suggesting the new editor will be victimized like every other I editor in the I/P area. Please note that you wrote 'everything related to Jews and Israel', proof enough that you still, after several years, don'tr understand that the topic area also deals with Palestinians and their country. Nableezy reminded you of relevant policy restrictions (NPOV,AGF).Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hebron in the Bible

I want to add that Hebron is mentioned 63 times in the Hebrew Bible. Where can I add it? --Baybars-hamimi (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It might fit into the "Israelite period" section but you need to give a source. Unfortunately the text doesn't clearly distinguish what is Biblical from what is archaeological. Zerotalk 14:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
ok, but I see the Israeli Foreign ministry says it is mentions 87 times. I dont know where they get that from, but I saw in a Concordance 63. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong's Concordance says 72 times in the Hebrew. Maybe fm has a wider definition of "mentions"; it could count indirect references as well as actual appearances of the name. Zerotalk 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The figure 63 is fairly frequently encountered. but we should not use gov. sources for anything covered, as this surely is, in the academic literature. Reference is particularly dense in sections dealing with the Davidic narrative, and then dies out, except for a handful of mentions, probably because Hebron, during the period of the major composition of the Tanakh was in Idumean hands. That's why the latest mention is in the first book of Maccabees, I think, telling of how Judas Maccabee sacked it. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there any Idumean scriptures which mention it? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions answer themselves, and, in that discipline, do not, of course, require a correspondent reply.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

If anyone disagrees, that POV Cptono plunked down can be reintroduced, but the next time round, I for one would appreciate the courtesy of someone doing so listing in successive bulleted points the POV issues. I think it pointless to drop these tags in, and then disappear without any constructive record on a page.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

people keep removing stuff i put on, why?

I put: Describing Hebron in 1898, the Baedeker Guidebook states that travellers should avoid coming into contact with the Muslims of Hebron who are "notorious for their fanaticism," and whose children harass Christian visitors by shouting "a well-known Arabic curse."[2] on, but was removed by somwone saying no relevance for a one year? But many other things are reported as in 1876 this in 1645 that? I am sure Baedeker was not just talking about 1898 alone anyway? If it is true we dont include the haraasemtn of people in certain suburbs of Jerusalem, so why here in Hebron? - there is alot of stuff abt haraasment today in the H1? Maybe cause it is a big thing today with big consequences, but i am sure in 1878 it also had big cosequenceses? I dont think it is right that Jewish harassment should be mentioned, while harassment of christian by muslims is delted? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. I've read that stuff on occasion myself. I think I was the first to add, from Laurens, that Hebron's islamic culture had a reputation for a fanatic edge, which is now topped by the settlers. It's not rare for members of the ultra-orthodox community to be reported for the way they almost customarily spit on, at or nearby, Christian priests and monks every other day in Jerusalem, but I'd revert anyone who tried to put that into the Jerusalem article. In the appropriate section on recent history, the violence and humiliation is chronic, overwhelmingly by settlers and the IDF, but notable instances of Palestinian violence have also been registered. So we deal with that in generic terms. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I am just wondering why there is more detail in the recent history section, about violence by both sides? I have seen googled some old books which indicate that there was once "violence and humiliation" by Muslims whcih seemed to be "chronic", (but that was in long ago when they were in charge). Why ca'nt we add more detail about that too? Also, what does "we deal with that in generic terms" mean? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Want tensions? Numerous books speak of a cultural rift between the old Sephardic/part Mizrahi and new Ashkenazi communities, the former integrated, the latter not, and frequently causing problems with the Arab landlords for their failure to pay rent on time, etc. etc.etc. There are dozens of things like that, if one liked to write in everything one knows and spice up the story, true of many cities, with lush tales of violence. The Christian history is neglected, be it the Russian Orthodox or early missionaries like the Scot, Alexander Paterson, and his work at the hospital, so important at the turn of the last century; or the devastating impact of Ibrahim Pasha's violence against the Arabs of Hebron, or of their long struggle to assert their autonomy against overlords. I'm far more intrigued by the mention of Jewish glassmaking in 1334, which raises the technical question: 'Where did they get their materials from, since the glassmaking attested centuries later to Arab Hebronites was deeply reliant on Bedouin traders whos presence was attested later than that date. Amin Mas'ud Abu Bakr's Qada' al-Khalil (1994) would be fundamental to a comprehensive history of the town, but no one accesses it. We need a rounded history, which is not just gore. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Well how do we pick what bits to put in, if there are "dozens of things like that"? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, my basic prejudice is academic. I think encyclopedic articles should reflect what academic specialists on a topic write, as published by mainstream or universtity presses. This cannot apply to a good many articles where the topic is based on recent news and events. But with articles that deal with topics that have a long, and studied history, and are the focus of intense investigation, we should stick to these, with some leeway for a few sources that contain useful information which don't quite fit the bill of the strict principle above. To be readable one must hew a close line between the Scylla of gradgrindism and the Charybdis of florid narrative expatiation, to produce a readable, comprehensive survey of all major aspects of a city's history. As to what to pick, it's best to see what RS focus on, and secondly, to make proposals if one thinks one's additions might provoke controversy on the talk page. One gets a feel for what may go one after a while. WP:Undue is the guiding principle, qualified by WP:NPOV, which means over a city with 4,000 years of cosmopolitan history, great wariness should be exercised in order to avoid tilting or spinning, by the selective use of partisan elements or materials, the overall narrative one way or another. When I first looked at this page, 5 years ago, it was basically about the various Jewish communities in Hebron, and editors generally ignored the obligation to cover Arab and Christian aspects of the history. Arab violence on this, and contiguous articles, showcased that ancient population as a rabid danger by highlighting episodes like that of 1929, and underplaying the other side of the narrative. That plays into contemporary geopolitical struggles to assert primacy or hegemonic control over the narrative, and our primary obligation is to balance the mix so that the key facts are given, and not disturbed by point-scoring battles to prove a thesis, or seed a prejudice. It's a tough job to get balance, and there's much work to be done. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. but pleas euse simple english, as i don't understand what "Scylla of gradgrindism and the Charybdis of florid" means?! Anyway, I see written in the 1860s: "Arab-Jewish relations were good,", that is sourced to Aryeh Klien in the haaretz newpaper. What I found seems the opposite:
"The present Hebron is a large village rather than a town; it counts among its inhabitants about a hundred Jewish families, living together in a separate quarter; as, in fact, Jews, though often ill-treated, oppressed, and insulted, seem always to have lived in the town" - 1858
"But for this branch of industry, and the privilage of praying on feast days in one corner of the doorway of the great mosque of the buried Patriarchs, the Jews would probably forsake a city where they are so much oppressed -- 1862"
"Its inhabitants are chiefly Mahometans, and lay heavy contributions on the Jews, whom they not without difficulty suffer to inhabit here" -- 1838
"The women were gentle, and fine-looking. They informed me that there are four hundred Jews in Hebron, that they are very poor, and greatly oppressed, and often beaten by the Mussulmen" --1851
"I have never seen a more oppressed Jewish community than that of Hebron. The Sheik is continually asking them for money. If he contemplates an excursion, he sends to the Jews for money; if any of his friends come to visit him, he sends to the Jews for money; so that the poor people are deprived of every farthing, and are therefore in a poor and wretched condition ." -- 1873
"The most thorough examination into the present condition of the Jews at Hebron has been made by Dr Wilson, who visited the place in 1843, ....They were exceedingly oppressed by the Mohammedans, who took every course to extort money from them." --- 1865 [22]
"So fanatical are the people, and so bitter is their enmity to the Christians, that not only may they not settle in the town or district of Hebron, but it is oftentimes unsafe for Christians even to pass that way." --1874.
I thnik somehow this should be added that things were not as hunkey-dory as this page currently suggest. Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Who's suggesting it was hunky-dory? I've no doubt it compared at times to what Palestinian Hebronites have had to put up with for the last forty years under Israeli and settler domination, esp. in the period covered when the aftermath of Ibrahim Pasha's devastations were in effect, clan warfare between the Dura and Hebronite lineages raged, fratricidal strife occurred, and a small community of Jews were in their midst? The dominus of the Hebron region over that span of time was 'Amr clan, esp.Abd al Rahman Amr, at least until they were deposed by an Ottoman qa'imaqam in around 1860, and half-way through his period of dominion, Rabbi Schwartz wrote that he would allow no one to ill-treat the Jews, but he (and historians relate, members of his extended family) were 'leeches' who incessantly sucked the Jewish community dry to pay for his whimsies, causing the Ashkenazim to retreat to Jerusalem (By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, A descriptive geography and brief historical sketch of Palestine, A. Hart, 1850 pp.399-400.) The meaning is, this regional chieftain forbade hisJews to be abused by the overwhelming mass of Hebronites in any way, but his motive is simply to prey on them himself. Undoubtedly as tough as the period, to cite another example, in the early 1770s when the local Jewish community sent missions abroad pleading for financial assistance in order to survive, as they suffered from another extortionate Pasha at the time.
What you need is a general source of high quality that studies this aspect historically and neutrally. I'm not particularly pleased with our use of Shragai for that period, the only important item there is the acceptance of the Jewish person on the council (that was one of the long term effects of the Ibrahamic reforms in the 1830s). Newspapers are poor sources even for recent events. Secondly, what you have to show is the pertinence of this material for a city's history, which is far more difficult. I don't think the history of Jerusalem would allow successive citations of incidental items as you propose, nor the article on Vienna, or Warsaw, both notorious antisemitic, nor any other city article where Jews have had a significant presence. What you seem to be angling at is what Salo Wittmayer Baron spoke of, ransacking archives to find sad stories, in order to make them weave the centrepiece of an identity narrative, in an article dealing with a city. We can't have every jot and tittle of grief or injustice recorded for an historically exiguous sector of its population. An Arab might claim with some justification that the whole article is both eurocentric and Judeocentric, since for most of its history it has been pagan or islamic, and sources prioritise only what interests Christians or Jews in a kind of systemic bias. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the rectnt history of this article is Arab-Israeli conflict-centric. there is so much devoted to that subject for lets say 20 years (in the paralel rule section) while for 250 years of byzantine rule only 2 lines? I am inclined to cut down the relevant sections and move it to Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. i see most of it is tehre already. Here we need a brief aaccount, not so detailed, you agree? Baybars-hamimi (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a bias in sources, which dictate what weight we give to sections. There is absolutely no doubt that the history sections are imbalanced, but that is for lack of adequate sources that would allow us to expand them. As to the recent period, I agree that it should be pared down, but that can't be done quickly or easily. I've been mulling how to do it for over a year, and still cannot see my way through to a succincter version, with the excerpted material removed to the subpage if it is not present there. One thing is sure. Before we do cut it back, we should make suggestions in a separate section, and agree what may go without loss before removing anything. This should be done collaboratively, and not unilaterally given the I/P area's noted fondness for edit-warring. I'll set up a separate section, and you can begin to provide suggestions, bulleted, as to what you think can or should be removed. Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Newbie disturbance

This edit, aside by being made by someone who just registered who came straight to this article. is suspicious. The original edit here wrote 'found about twenty (or eighty) Jewish families living there, and I changed this to twenty for the simple reason that Kosover's translation does not make that deduction. The book (p.5) reads:

in Hebron "are living no more than about twenty (eighty) Jewish families"

What that 80 means is not clear. It could be a manuscript alteration or gloss on 20, correcting it. It could reflect an ambiguity in the text between 20 or 80: it could reflect the estimated number of members constituting 20 families. It is nonsense to say no more than twenty and then bracket it with an alternative figure four times that guess, and it is certainly very odd that an eyewitness can allow a range of error 4 times his first figure which he says grammatically was the upper limit. In Gaza the same author says "about fifty (or sixty) Jewish families", by contrast (a minor and comprehensible margin of error). Given this ambiguity, neither Baybars nor the newbie can deduce the significance of that bracketed 80 (WP:OR). That is the technical reason I have it out (certainly not to repress anything). We go by RS, not by inferences.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Nishidani removed another thing, ie. "(or eighty)" from what I added yesterday. I see the reason s/he says why, ie. we don’t know what it means. But since this is in the book, I think we should have it say exactly as in the book (not as I added "or" eighty - i,e, what I thought it meant). AS the book does say "80" we should leave it and let the reader draw there own conclusion. As it is a translation, I would like to know why there is this different number being shown. I will search for a Hebrew version and see what they say.
I also saw that Nishidani added "palestinan jewish community" to what volterra reported. But that is not said in the book I found this. It is a bit odd to say that, i.e "Palestinain". They are not acutually Palestinian, but Jews, maybe Spanish. I think they should be just called jewish community. --Baybars-hamimi (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
By all means check the original, but remember Zero's advice. There are technical difficulties (I see them all the time) in correcting a secondary source by a personal cross-check of the original (if only because most editors then have to take someone's word for it. I'd personally be delighted however if you could check it, and get back to us here. I'm fine with sticking with the wording of the original, which mean replacing your about with no more than twenty (80) in Kosover. I wished to do this, actually, but couldn't, because we are on a 1R rule, and though I don't understand it well, usually if I make two edits to the same section within 24 hours even if in a good scholarly cause, some folks pop the champagne corks, denounce me, and call for a permaban, since they think editing here is an extension of the local war in that region.:)
As to your second point, in historical works, the area when described in the past is referred to customarily as Palestine. The sages born there ar "Palestinian Jewish sages" in academic jargon, for instance. But I'll check Kosover.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Re the addition Palestinian Jewish community read up the page (Kosover) where the writer introduces the demographics of Jerusalem, Gaza, Hebron etc. for that period by saying the whole Jewish community in Palestine was small.
The only problem there is that the phrasing is awkward.

The Italian traveller, Meshulam of Volterra (1481) found the Palestinian Jewish community, with between twenty and eighty families living in Hebron[78] and recounted how the Jewish women of Hebron would disguise themselves with a veil in order to pass as Muslim women and enter the Cave of the Patriarchs without being recognized as Jews

should be slightly adjusted to read:-

The Italian traveller, Meshulam of Volterra (1481) found the Palestinian Jewish community in Hebron to consist of no more than twenty (80) families[78] and recounted how Hebron's Jewish women would disguise themselves with a veil in order to pass as Muslim women and enter the Cave of the Patriarchs without being recognized as Jews

Surely your suggestion they might be Spanish Jews is anachronistic? The expulsion of the Spanish Jews took place 11 years after Meshullam of Volterra's report. The Sephardic immigration into Palestine began under the Ottoman dispensation. The Almohads of course, if we can judge by Maimonides' travails, and travels, caused an outflow of Sephardic Jewry south and eastward over three centuries earlier. Is that what you mean? I would have thought they were elements of the Musta'arabim communities, whose presence testifies to continuity in Hebron, and validates a certain POV. I know the modern narrative bias is to merge all of the extraordinarily diverse, culturally and linguistically, Jewish populations of the world into one community is strong. It's dying out in scholarship, as opposed to newspapers and genetic articles.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Packard, Frederick Adolphus. (1855)The Union Bible Dictionary American Sunday-School Union, p 304
  2. ^ Palestine and Syria: Handbook for travellers, Karl Baedeker (Firm), Albert Socin, Immanuel Benzinger - 1898. pg. 134.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebron/Archive_5&oldid=1079503889"