Talk:Battle of Hebron

POV title

The article is clear that the attackers "made no distinction between the inhabitants". So the title of the article should not use a word which implies that one ethnic group was singled out. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a defining characteristic of a Pogrom is that it is targeted specifically against a minority community. The article clearly states that " the Egyptian soldiers who entered the city made no distinction between the inhabitants" - by definition this event was not a pogrom. Dlv999 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The article deals specifically with the attack on the Jewish community of Hebron, therefore the title is warranted, as is the alternative title "Yagma el Gabireh". An article on the wider massacre that took place would include details of the non-Jewish victims. There is a distinction between the Jews of Hebron and the non-Jews in that the Jews were not subject to conscription and therefore were not at odds with the Egyptian forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.38.39 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of renaming this article 1834 Hebron massacre.

The events do not fit a pogrom. The targets of the massacres were Muslim unhabitants who rejected conscription and Jews were "colateral" victims during the sack of the city. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thx.Pluto2012 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

removing the pogrom CAT

Al Ameer has some doubts about it. I am less conservative. The definition of pogrom on our article begins:' pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews.' Pogroms consist of local communities attacking an ethnoreligious minority, esp. Jews. The story is one of foreign forces, extraneous to Hebron, assaulting the city to suppress a peasant revolt, and then massacring the Muslim and Jewish populations of Hebron. This again does not fit the pogrom paradigm: for it to fit, the Arab Hebronite majority would have had to have murdered Jews in their midst. The Egyptian army seems to have been responsible. the 1929 massacre at Hebron was a pogrom, by all definitions (except the criterion, in the specialist literature, which requires that locals who carry out the attack are following a government or local authority directive, which in 1929 does not appear to be the case (it being a spontaneous riot by villagers in the district coming into Hebron, inflamed by a rumour). This was not.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added some background. Focus on one group in a multi-ethnic context, and all that happens seems exceptionally focused on some historical plotline singling one out. It emerges that for example in the pillage of Jerusalem, the peasants stormed into the city (battle) then sacked successively Christians, Jews, 'Franks' and Muslims, anyone who had property. That is, the violence was not directed at any one community and (b) rather that 'Arabs' (the significant Christian population was Arab) you have peasants plundering to exact money and goods from what they thought were oppressive taxes and recruitment. Peasant outsiders in both Hebron and Jerusalem surged in and did much damage. The sources again are contradictory saying Imbrahim Pasha was responsible, or saying Ibrahim Pasha saved the Jews of Hebron from all being murdered. Another reason why these articles, originally invented to make a case for Arab persecution of Jews, are misplaced, because to get that across you have to edit by contextual exclusion and thematic simplication.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I remove the cat.

I also removed this material: "In Hebron, the troops "vented their anger on the Jewish quarter which they pillaged with terrifying cruelty", desecrating Torah Scrolls and decapitating the Hebron's cantor while he lay ill in bed. For hours they "slaughtered European Jews and publicly raped their wives"."

Bat Ye'or is not wp:rs. Note that this "picture" of the events would transform the events in pogrom. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right re Bat Ye'or and that book is a disgrace. Still, without the adjectives (never needed when violence is attested), if we can get a solid source referring to a detail like the decapitation of the cantor's wife, it should be entered. The problem of course is that this kind of thing singled out for focus a well-documented community, making it exceptional (and there lies the POV pushing). Throughout history, decapitations, rape, murder by berserking troops in a general war was 8and still is) normative: they did not ask you what religion you practiced necessarily. Arab women were no doubt raped, and people decapitated, but the former would not be mentioned in Hebron's rich Arabic history books, while the latter would be, but is not mentioned in specific details in Western scholarship to my knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Rename

This article should be renamed Battle of Hebron. It was the last battle of the peasants' revolt in Palestine where the rebels of Jabal Nablus and the Hebron Hills made a last stand. The battle ended in a decisive Egyptian victory and a massacre by Egyptian troops followed, however, it began as a fierce street-to-street battle between troops and rebels. If nobody objects, I'll move the article in a week. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the emphasis seems to be on the conflict between troops and rebels, with the massacre a follow-up event to the battle. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about this. Since there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move the page. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)