Talk:Hebron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I did quite a lot to this page, including expanding the 1929 account and the post-1967 Jewish settlement account. I also fixed some of the English in the other parts. The main work remaining to be done is:

• More history including archeology (before 1800 BC)
• More population data over the ages
• More history from the Arab viewpoint

I only removed one thing without rewriting it. It was written that some of Levinger's followers had property taken from them or their families in 1929. They might have said that, but the British legal system in 1929 would have made outright theft impossible. Tenants may have been evicted and owners probably had to sell for bad prices, but no houses were simply taken. Anyway I don't think this was relevant to Levinger's expedition so it doesn't matter. Incidentally, I saw some of the pre-1929 Sephardic inhabitants of Hebron on TV who claimed that they tried to move back to Hebron in 1967 with Arab approval, but Levinger's group threatened them and forced them out. -- zero 13:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Those of you who know Arabic: could anybody add the Arabic form (in Arabic letters) of the city's name to the first line (currently only containing an English transcription)? -- Itai 21:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Do we really want to use the JDL as a source? Their own homepage cited here bills themselves as "the most controversial."

---

I changed the 1994 JDL citation to a 1997 citation from the Jewish Virtual Library. Only a freak would consider the JDL credible enough to cite. Those bastards praise Baruch Goldstein. KrJnX

the bias of the author is distressing

Why have you chosen to disguise the most fundamental information about Hebron, which is that it is a city illegally and belligerently occupied by the Israeli army for nearly 4 decades? The word Occupation or the phrase Occupied Territories are a staple of every document of international law and many hundreds of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel - why have you taken the drastic step of ACTIVELY CONCEALING this most basic fact of international law and of this conflict in general? It is the Occupation that renders the presence of settlers a war crime under Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

And yet these words do not occur even ONCE in your entire entry.

That this is a matter of belligerent military occupation is not merely an opinion, even if Zionists find it indelicate to mention. It has been very pointedly affirmed by extraordinary Assembly of High Contracting Powers to the Geneva Convention in December 2001, by the International Court of Justice, and by many hundreds of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions that have been unanimously endorsed by every nation on earth, including the United States.

Instead of pointing to this most crucial fact, you choose to append an offensive chapter about the Intifada, in which you describe the intifada as a terror campaign and the city as a "hotbed" of "Islamic" terrorist activity. Apart from an entry about Dr. Goldstein, which you describe as the act of an individual, you make no mention of the fact, openly discussed in the Israeli press, that Hebron and its environs are home to a number of active and established Jewish terrorist groups, including the "Committee for Road Safety." You describe in detail a number of incidents in which Palestinians killed Israeli civilains in Hebron, but choose to omit any reference to the vastly greater number of incidents in which Hebron residents attacked Palestinians. In fact the residents of Hebron are widely regarded as the most fanatical, violent, extremist and virulently racist of the settlers, and are routinely denounced as such even by Israeli officials and IDF soldiers in the Israeli press. Palestinians and even visiting Americans are routinely stoned, beaten, shot at, and attacked by the heavily-armed Jewish extremists of Hebron, and the forcible seizure of Palestinian property by armed groups of settlers, with the assiatnce of the IDF, takes place regularly. Another property was seized in the last few weeks.

While I appreciate much in your account for its meticulous detail, this is essentially a very selective Zionist left kind of mythology you are providing here - one in which there is no occupation, no daily incidents of Jewish terrorism, only Islamic zealots trying to kill a bunch of peace-loving home-makers. I find it shocking that a reputable forum like Wikipedia would allow such an extremely biased account in which the past and present war crimes of Israel and its settlers, no matter how extraordinary and extreme, have been systematically obscured. What is worse is that in their place is proposed a lurid fairytale of "Islamic" fanatics in which the entire popular national resistance of 3.5 million Palestinian people - resistance to an unwelcome and criminal regime of racial military subjugation - is glibly reduced to "terror."

I think it is in extremely poor taste to use the JDL as a source for your statistics. This would be a bit like citing the Ku Klux Klan as a source for demographic studies about blacks.

Since you add a chapter about the 1929 riots, I am surprised that you failed to include any mention of the fact that they occured only a few days after the visit of the Lubavitcher Rabbi, and that in fact riots erupted a few days after his departure in each of the 5 principal Jewish cities he visited.

Some recent edits

Some of these recent edits to break the main content and history of the page into smaller articles seem a lot like a sneaky form of vandalism, since they are major changes with no earlier discussion on the talk page and the main article does not link to these smaller branches. Would someone like to comment, please?

They are, and will be have been fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed Section

The land was originally purchased by Abraham so that he would have somwhere to bury his wife, Sarah. When the Israelites returned from their exile in Egypt they found that an Amorite City had been build upon it. The Gibeonites of Gibeon, a city that had belonged in the Amorite League made a treaty with the Israelites, therefore the Amorites decided to destroy Gibeon as a lesson to other cities. The rulers of Gibeon went to the Israeli general Joshua and asked for him to destroy the Amorite armies which he did. Then he captured all the Amorite cities including Hebron.

The first sentence is not even supported by Genesis and the correct version is already stated later. The rest is the Bible story and does not belong in the History section since it is much earlier than anything supported by archaeology. It could be included in a Hebron in the Bible section if someone wants to write it. The History section needs a large amount of work as so far there is almost nothing. --Zero 14:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You try to censor anything someone puts here that is Pro-Israel. It is not Palestinian and has been Jewish for 4,000 years. It is the first Jewish city in The World and was bought by Abraham from Ephron The Hittite. The category Israeli Geography should be put back if you also have a category "'Palestinian' cities" when there is no such things as a Palestinian and especially since Hebron is not Palestinian but rather illegally occupied by Arab Muslim terrorists who call themselves Palis.

Whoa...vitriolic. The policy here is neutral point of view, so there can never be a bias for nor against any side of a any conflict. - Gilgamesh 05:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LMLK Jar Handles

I don't understand why my little paragraph on the HBRN LMLK seals was deleted. Now there is only an external link, which may not be around forever. These are the oldest known inscriptions with the Hebrew word, "Hebron"; I don't understand why you removed this. Scholars debate the interpretation of the word on the seals, but it is a firmly dated, 2,700-year old artifact of the site. I hope somebody will reconsider adding this.Funhistory 01:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete it, and it seems a valid enough inclusion, however if you notice, it seems to be disjointed, missing an introduction.

Scholars debate the interpretation of the word HBRN on LMLK seals. It may be a reference to an economic center established at Hebron during the reign of King Hezekiah (circa 700 BC), or it may be a literal votive inscription meaning "alliance", "association", or "community" (Grena, 2004, p. 49).

Perhaps you can rephrase it, so that the beginning is not quite so abrupt?--AladdinSE 01:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jordanian "control" vs. Israeli "occupation"

I know where you're coming from when you changed Israeli occupation to control, the same term used to describe the Jordanian presence. I don't mean to be blatantly unfair, but I did seek to distinguish between the Arab Jordanian rule which was not revolted against by the population of the territories, and the, let's face it, despised and violently opposed Israeli occupation. Do you have any other way of preserving that distinction without using control for one and occupation for the other? Shall we just add a sort of addendum that Hebron, along with the rest of the population of the West Bank, violently revolted against Israeli rule and accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony? Is it not fair and NPOV to mention this distinction?--AladdinSE 09:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

What, the Hashemites were loved? The Jordanians were in charge for 19 years, there weren't any revolts in the first 19 years the Israelis were in charge. Moreover, the Jordanian response to a revolt would have been rather more severe than the Israeli one, as Black September in Jordan proved. As well, it is highly likely that the Black September revolt would have spread to the West Bank, had Jordan still been in charge. In any event speculation about mental states from different eras under different conditions is neither "fair" nor "NPOV", nor relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice I didn't say they were loved, and I also said accepted (to varying degrees) Jordanian hegemony which I think fairly describes the situation. More importantly, we are talking about events that actually transpired in the occupied territories, not the PLO-Jordanian government clashes of Black September, and certainly not hypothetical postulations about how the Jordanians would have reacted had they been revolted against in the territories. They were not. They did not even face significant hostility. I am amenable to using "control" for Israeli and Jordanian presence in the Territories, just as long as we show the plain simple fact that the population despised Israeli rule, and tolerated Jordanian rule.--AladdinSE 10:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, you're trying to build a case again here. The Palestinians "accepted (to varying degrees)" Israeli "hegemony" as well, for as long as they accepted Jordanian "hegemony". And a few years later they revolted against Jordanian rule, and ended up getting slaughtered in the thousands, and likely tens of thousands. The "point" you want to make is original research and in any event inappropriate to this article; do you plan to put the identical text in the articles on every single West Bank city? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I know a Druze who, when he wishes to offend Palestinian Arabs, reminds how much king Hussein loved them. In general, your idea that Jews are being "despised" just because they are Jews, while others are readily "tolerated" - despite of all the injustices, smells anti-Jewish to me, if you know what I mean. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what your cryptic Druze and Hussein comment is about, but I am not in the least surprised by the rest of your comments, for once again you are trying to interject emotional accusations of anti-semitism into a political discussion dealing with the relative Palestinian Hebronite reaction to the two ruling systems. What's more, you brazenly substitute the phrase "Jews are being despised just because they are jews" for what I clearly said was "despised Israeli rule." Please stop these incessant and completely unfounded attempts to interject anti-semitism into a political discussion.--AladdinSE 12:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cold, hard, well-documented facts speak for themselves, from 1920s and onward. To omit anti-Semitism in this context is to omit an elephant in the corner. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SIGH. Will you PLEASE read carefully before answering. It's your incessant labors to insert charges of anti-semitism here in this Talk discussion that I was talking about. Jayjg and I were discussing the control versus occupation label, and differing viewpoints about how leaving them both described the same way belies the population's very different feelings to both.--AladdinSE 00:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the latest anon IP edit, because it was badly written and mostly unreferenced. I'm not saying the material definitely has no place in the article, but it would have to be written differently. SlimVirgin 02:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. SlimVirgin. It is really amazing with your 7000+ edits and the experience one expect you have, probably a different action seemed more reasonable. I do not understand the basis of your judgment on the present material as badly written. Could you understand it? Could you suggest what is wrong with it? What is your measure of a good writing? and how do you compare it to the existing material about Al-Aqsa Intifada?. Also, I wonder how do you quantify that a citation is better than another. Could you tell me please the criterion do you use to deduce that the existing Al-Aqsa Intifada section citations and writing are more coherent, objective, and informative in relation to the aricle subject. I think you should come up with a better explaination to omit my contribution. Simply, My contributions are an attempt to fix this very incomplete section. I think they are essential to give a snapshot of the recent history.

Please dont turn this article into another clone of IPC

I have removed both sections concerning 1994 massacre and Al-Aqsa Intifada and provided links to the separate articles we already have for those. If someone thinks that some info is missing there, please cut/paste. This is not an article about the conflict, it's about a city. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the current brief mention in the History section is appropriate. Extensive information about intifadas and massacres belong elsewhere.--AladdinSE 03:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

A sensible solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mosque picture

Guy, as I said on your talk page, the other picture is better. Why don't you upload the other picture to a more neutral name? I suggest "Cave of Patriarchs-Ibrahimi mosque.jpg". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea

Guy Montag 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current disputes - April 6/05

What are the current disputes about article content, if any? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did an NPOV edit. The current dispute revolves primarily, from what I can see, around the caption to the Mosque picture, and some qualifiers inserted by certain editors to water down certain facts and histories, especially regarding the UN. --AladdinSE 00:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cave of the Patriarchs (and Matriarchs)

I quote from an excised section: "The facade and minarets of the structure built over the Cave of the Patriarchs by King Herod.]]"

I'm not sure why this is a POV sentence that needs to be reverted. I suppose it might say: "the facade and minarets of the mosque built over the Cave of the Patriarchs was originally built by King Herod," if that is historically accurate. Am I missing something? Nobody is disputing, for example, that the Sultan Ahmed Mosque was originally built as a church... --Leifern 21:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why it was POV. The Herod structure was not a mosque---that came later. Elizmr 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, just a correction: the Sultan Ahmed Mosque was NOT originally built as a church. It was built right across the Hagia Sophia, which was built as a church but was later on turned into a mosque, because the Ottoman wanted to build something that was more "glamourous", shall we say, to show that the Ottoman architects were just as good, if not better, than the Byzantine ones. It is hailed as one of the masterpieces of Islamic architecture, which it wouldn't be if it were originally built as a church. Your example should be Hagia Sophia.

population

the current year is 2005. how do you know the population of 2006 and 2007? (if it is just a prophecy please note it)

The second population figure for 1997, and all the later projections, are for the Hebron Governate, not Hebron city. That's why the numbers are much bigger. The PCBS page doesn't like my browser, someone else please see if there are Hebron city figures in there. --Zero 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Hebron

Concerning the disputed sentence: Some of the places occupied by the Jewish settlers in Hebron are places where Jews lived for a century or so prior to 1929, and for a longer time in some very few cases. Most of the places had been Arab occupied for as long as anyone knows. Anon 209's version is propaganda and can't be allowed. --Zero 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Ethnic cleansing ?

The city was the place where in 1929 jews were cleansed from by a massacre.

Nothing about it in this article ? It was a major event which is used by extrimists settlers as justification for what they now do. Zeq 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It used to be here but it got so long that it was moved to a separate article. See Riots in Palestine of 1929. --Zero 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi to everyone interested in Hebron. As someone new to Wikipedia, I have a reaction to this encyclopdia entry.

Clearly, as the burial place of Abraham/Ibrahim father to both Ismael and Issac (english alphabetical order for both), Hebron can be considered "ground zero" of one of the world's most long lasting and polarized conflicts. In this Wiki-cosm, I have noticed that the edit history of this page is remarkable for people doing edits to have the page express one "version" or another of what they consider to be the correct history of the place. Clearly, both versions are true but neither can be completely true. Neither version is going to go away by pressing "save page", at least not for long.

It might serve everyone better, and serve as a reputable source of information better, if the contraversy was presented explicity as contraversy rather than implicity by the use of charged language (ie--"youth" vs. "militants") in an ostensibly NPOV account. In this way, multiple versions could be expressed with headings like "Palestinian/Arab World/Muslim point(s) of view" "Israeli/Jewish/pro-Settlement/anti-Settlement point(s) of view", and no final judgement was made about which version is more correct at the end of the day. People with really polarized opinions could work on their own sections and limit edits to other ones. Readers would come away with a more complete understanding. I've noticed this done on other pages.

What do people think? Could we end the "edit war"? Can't we all just get along???? elizmr 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - welcome to Wikipedia. I am not sure where you see an 'edit war' in this article. There is constant editing by an anonymous person who keeps deleting a certain passage and making another passage POV by taking out NPOV wording. This is generally considered vandalism, and not edit warring. The said vandal has almost never discussed his/her edits, but just keeps re-imposing objectionable edits that are usually reverted by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors. The anonymous person's edits are reverted because they are considered vandalism (deleting sourced neutral material) and not conforming to NPOV. Of course, anybody is welcome to add to this article constructively, and other points of view should be welcome as long as they are presented neutrally, and conform to Wikipedia policies. Questionable material can be discussed on this page. The aforementioned vandal has done none of these things, and it may be necessary to place this article under partial protection (against new users and anonymous editors) in order to limit this person's obsession with vandalizing the article. The "Palestinian youth" thing is apparently taken from the caption of whoever took the photograph; i.e. the photographer describes his/her photo that way. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree on that. A human 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the vandal stuff was what I was noticing. A long section about settlements mostly keeps going in and being taken out. I was also noticing the photo caption shifting from "youth" to "militant" or similar. elizmr 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking that our new ability to protect articles against anon edits while allowing established editors to work as normal sounds like a good way to neutralize our persistent 67.72.*.* vandal. We can't take the normal path of blocking him/her because the IP number varies and we can't block an IP range because it seems to be a public ISP. What are your opinions? --Zero 01:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should semiprotect. This is becoming rather triesome. El_C 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I got a better idea, let the guy rectify all the errors on this page and leave him alone. You know what else I heard, I also heard that he goes by the name "Shelanu" (fake signature: elizmr) 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That comment by our 67.72.*.* vandal who was not logged in using the username he typed at the end. Likely identity fraud. --Zero 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I DID NOT write the note above--the one signed with my name 18 March 2006. I would not write something like that. elizmr 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Also, I know the statement is clearly not made from my account, but it is disturbing to have that kind of statement made before my signature since it is so disrespectful. Is there anything to be done? elizmr 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult because this malicious vandal uses multiple IPs from a range that perhaps some legitimate users are using. We will investigate this. --Zero 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just let me fix that paragraph, it's anti-Israel bias is disturbing. What, you think I'm doing this for kicks? It portrays settlers as malicious colonizers and your facts are false. Oh yeah, and that thing about the Massacre survivors in the end, pure fiction get it off. Shelanu

Vandals and fraudsters are not welcome here. Go away. --Zero 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, notwithstanding your persistent vandalism here, the fact that you fraudulently signed with somebody else's name is enough to get you banned. Ramallite ^(talk) 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well could someone explain to me, your site claims that wikipedia entries can be edited out by anyone. This seems like a case of false advertising seeing that I am rectifying errors and not posting dogmatic propaganda like Ramallite. And about signing off on someone else's name, I apologize to you elizmer, just understand that everytime I tried to post something, my I.P adress was showing. Oh, but wait a minute, wasn't there also a rule about privacy protection? Shelanu

If you were truly concerned about privacy and posting in accord with Wikipedia rules you would get a proper userid. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be anonymous you have to create a user ID. It takes 10 seconds to do so. Otherwise your IP shows. A human 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so if I register and do what I gotta do, would my edits stick? In other words, what should I do in order to keep my edits from being reverted? Shelanu

Well you could start by searching the net or newspapers to see if you can counter the claim that was made about that anti-settler group. Right now we have several sources among others from a The Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, so it does seem like that group exist. You have to discredit those sources or argue that the inclusion in the article in irrelevant or POV. A good place to start is reading this: WP:NPOV. Or maybe instead of removing it you can find sources that support the settlers view and write more about that, but then you have to read this first: WP:V. A human 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So, once I find sources to counter the claim as well as sources that show my point of view, this will be sufficient? all this keeping in mind a NPOV. Once I do that and register, is there any other obstacles that would stand in my way? Shelanu

I would think not. But other editors (e.g. like myself) might not like all you do, then we can argue on these talk pages about that, instead of just reverting each others edits all the time. Take a look at the history of the Hebron page, and see how many contributed to this article, and all of them might have an opinion on the edits that happen here. So you might have to argue alot for some of the edits you want, most editors on Wikipedia have to do that for some of their edits. Alot of my edits get deleted too, thats just how it works. If you do it that way, maybe other editors will agree with you and help you argue your view or improve your edits in ways that support what you believe. Another thing you can do is to help wikipedia by improving articles about issues that are not as controversial, that will give you more respect I believe. I respect those editors who have done lots of work here a bit more than the people who just edit a couple of pages, even though they sometimes oppose my edits. That will also make you better at editing and increasing the chances of getting your edits accepted. A human 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks alot for the info. I'll definatly look into it. I'm sorry for the inconveniance I might have caused. Shelanu

No problem(I speak for myself alone). Well for controversial topics like Israeli settlers, just give a prior warining on the talk page, and make the edit a couple of days later, if noone opposes. Else just be bold and edit whatever you like. People will react to your edits and then you learn how things work. It is also a good idea to take a look at the discussions on the talk pages before editing the actual articles. A human 03:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... I guess all I can say is that I'll get started as soon as I can with wikipedia, doing legitimate writing. Thanks alot for your help, and expect to deal with me on this issue again in the future. Shelanu

I propose this article be semi-protected. If in fact it is an anonymous wikignome or gnomes who is/are writing biased opinions and taking definitive sides on this controversial topic, then I propose we not allow people who want to anonymously deface the article. In such a sensitive topic, I think it only fair that we be allowed to know who made certain changes to reflect the trends of said authors. Any support for this idea of semi-protection status? Valley2city 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the "anonymous wikignomes" you speak of? Articles can only be semi-protected if there's a fairly large amount of vandalism, see George W. Bush for example. This article actually doesn't get many edits at all. —Khoikhoi 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cave

Hi everyone, I moved the section on the cave to the lead paragraph for two reasons 1) it is such a centerpiece of the region historically and currently and 2) it broke up the chronological flow of the history section. I hope no one minds. elizmr 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Note: I also added some detail to the history section. elizmr 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

History section

I've been reading and adding detail to the history section. I'm wondering if the section on Jewish settlement should be moved to this section. As it is, the section is a little choppy because that history is missing from the history section and is an important part of the story. What would people think about relocating it up there? elizmr 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1929 and H1, H2 etc

Hi Ramalite--Sorry for the lack of citation. As you know, I"m a relative newcomer to this article, and in general it doesn't have too many so I didn't go crazy adding them. Let me know which aspect of the 1929 quote needs citation? I got the info from the Jewish Encyclopedia about some of the Arabs shielding their neighbors or not acting. If this is disputed, let me know. I think it is widely accepted that the Arabs killed the Jews in Hebron after some unfortunate incitement from Jerusalem regarding supposed Jewish desecration of Arab holy places, but let me know if this is disputed and I'll pull out my history books. Thanks for your correction on H1H2 (and not biting if I made a big mistake). I wanted to get Oslo in there somewhere, and I had thought that the PA got "title" at least in theory to the whole of the territories after Oslo :=). Take care, elizmr 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - no dispute that Arabs killed Jews - I don't know if any were killed by the British - but by all means bring whatever you have and add the citations (even on this page if you want), I'll be happy to put them in proper format for you. Hebron was supposed to go to the PA according to Oslo but that was never implemented until Clinton arm-twisted Bibi in '97 or '98 (I think '98). Ramallite ^(talk) 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

goldstein's mental status

I read somewhere that he was mentally unstable, but you are quite right to take it out. (but honestly, wouldn't one have to be mentally unstable to open fire on a group of people at prayer???) elizmr 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Or blow one's self up in order to kill others? Yes! Ramallite ^(talk) 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased POV

Hello everyone, I came across this article about Hebron and I was a little disturbed about a possible bias that the author might be expressing. This passage goes as follows:

"During the last five years, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased by 20,000 and the current figures show that only around 10,000 Palestinians continue to live in this sector. The reason for this is the continuing harrassment of the Palestinians by the settlers, with the Israeli army standing idly by".

The last sentance of this passage gives the false impression that the IDF is allowing the Jews in Hebron to commit harrasment to the Palestinians, without having to pay any penalty. This assertation is utterly false, and if requested, I will gladly provide evidence needed to delegitimize this false assertion. Any thoughts about it?--Brad M. 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection if I erase "with the Israeli army standing idly by", from this passage, if there isn't, I'l proceed with the edit in two days.--Brad M. 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - there appear to be sources that concur with the statement above (re settler harassment and soldiers' indifference), such as here and here. These should also be cited in the article. But first, let's see your source, so we can work out a neutral phrasing. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1245950,00.html

"One soldier testified: 'What I understood finally, after six months, was that we were guarding the Palestinians from the Jews; we weren't there to guard and protect the Jews. The Jews are the ones who threaten the Palestinians more in this area." elizmr 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources I brought are from human rights organizations that, according to them, documented what they state in their report. The Guardian article gives a statement by an Israeli soldier who says that his impressions of the situation were different from what he was told they would be. I guess any such sources can be used to make the section as NPOV as possible. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to get some info in order, but I know for a fact that the IDF does not "stand idly by". In fact, they are very strict on the settlers with an iron rule. For instance, here's a recent article where they evacuated a house the Jews were occupying just yesterday. As a result of this, five settlers were arrested for non compliance and a many got injured in scuffles. So you can't say there that the IDF was standing idly by. I'll get more info when I find more examples because there are a lot. For now, here's the article.--Brad M. 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[1]

There's no question that "standing idly by" when it comes to settler violence against Palestinians is EXACLTY what the Israeli army does in Hebron, time and time again:

B'Tselem: Standing Idly By - Non-enforcement of the Law on Settlers: Hebron

I've seen this happening myself. Many of the settlers hate the soldiers and attack *them* too, and conscript soldiers who were told that they are being sent there to protect the Jews from the horrible terrorist Palestinians are reluctant to stop settler violence when they find themselves being pelted by stones or molotovs by settler youth. We have seen and documented this many times in Hebron. But if you don't believe us, read this article from the right-wing Jerusalem Post. Watch the video the JPost put on their web site too - it shows settlers stoning Palestinians and soldiers while they stand around uselessly. AW 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti

I find the photo of the graffiti that someone put on this page very disturbing and inflammatory. Hebron, as Abraham/Imbrahim's burial ground is ground zero for some very serious divisive stuff. I don't think it does any good to inflame further with stuff like this. One could find photos of stuff like swasticas painted on Jewish stuff, etc. Could we discuss and consider taking this down? elizmr 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, I took the image of the graffiti out of the article. I don't think that kind of language belongs on Wikipedia. elizmr 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend: Wikipedia is exactly where it belongs. It is very disturbing and inflammatory - that's what the racists who painted it there intended. On the "Nigger" and "Anti-semetism" pages, we rightly do not omit pictures of racist cartoons, dispite how disturbing they are. Racist graffiti in English like this is common is Hebron daubed on Palestinian homes - there's even more in Hebrew such as "Kahane was right" and the Kach party logo. I could also have added pictures of "Gas the arabs! - JDL". The point is that this is happening right now. It's important to show why the Palestinians are so opposed to settlers. It's not because they are all anti-semites but because of how the idelogical settlers act and the structual nature of the Israeli government's settlement of the West Bank - strategicly planned to steal as much land as possible. AW 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr on this issue, if we show this picture then we'll be obligated to show the vandalism of the Jewish religious artifacts that were destroyed and frankly this would cause a "graffiti" conflict. I'm sure its in everyone's best interest if this would not happen. I also do not like the language it displays and there are other ways to prove a point than resorting to vulgar and malicious language.--Brad M. 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Produce the photo. Would be fair enough to have one of each. Whether we like the language or not is irrelevant to the facts. By that standard we should remove the anti-semitic cartoons from the anti-semetism article too. AW 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

These views are held by a tiny minority of Jews or even settlers and these views are outlawed by the Israeli government. The government is taking active steps to diffuse these folks and reign them in. I think having this as one of two images on this page is a distortion of proportion and turns wikipedia into a bit of a soapbox. This is a page about Hebron, a very historically rich place. The two images here don't really do the place justice. elizmr 15:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of settlers are not as extreme as "gas the arbas", but the vast majority of the settlers in *Hebron* are exactly that extreme. Just read what "community" leader Baruch Marzel says on his own "Jewish National Front" party website. Openly. In English. How can any government "outlaw views"? They can't and that's not what the laws in question say. You're missunderstanding the situation. More importantly, regardless of what is on the books, the army in Hebron regularly tolerates settler violence against Palestinians, international human rights workers and even often soldiers (see articles and video linked to above). I agree that just these two pictures don't do the place justice, but the answer to that is more content not less . AW

The Israeli gov't outlawed the Kach party. elizmr 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support the removal of graffitti image. AFAIR, it was Lokiloki who copy/pasted it from PLO/NAD website. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No. This image and may others like it were taken by international and Israeli human rights workers in Hebron. The right-wing Jerusalem Post recently published something similar, observing that such graffiti scrawled on Palestinian property "is common" in Hebron. Which it is. AW 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed inflammatory propaganda image. First, there is another article about the conflict. This one is about a city. Second, this is not Israel's official policy or terminology. Such images are often used to justify terrorist attacks. I could go on, but neither this image nor this discussion belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

... a city with an agressive, armed, Jewish fundamentalist population, whose stated aim is to "expel the arabs" and who are - incidentally - protected by the fourth biggest military power in the world. When you vist Hebron, this becomes obvious immediately. To not mention this in the article is a lie by omission. The image is shocking, but the situation in Hebron IS shocking. AW 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have a strong POV on this situation, and some personal experience, but do you have any documentation concerning this photo, who took it, where it was taken, who did the graffiti, etc? elizmr 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ISM is not a reputable source and an accusation that Jewish population has aim doesn't smell very good. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To AW, in my opinion, you have an extreme POV on this issue that has to be curbed down a notch. First off, you say that Hebron has an agressive, armed, Jewish fundementalist population. Sounds like these Jews are real demons aren't they? Take a look at this article [2], do these people people look like armed fanatics? The family bought this house fair and square yet they were expelled not two days ago by their own all-powerful army who "stands idly by". Now some sources question the legality of the purchase, but for some reason those people just don't look like liars to me. The legality is not the issue, but simply that there was a question in the legality which made the army expel them soonafter, shows that you are wrong in your assertion when you say they stand "idly by". More examples will be provided as it comes. But I wanted to prove to you, and everyone reading, that the Jews of Hebron aren't the monsters you make them out to be, good day.--Brad M. 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Repetition

The baruch goldstein incident is mentioned twice, once in "history" and once in "jewish settlement". This doesn't scan all that well. elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Caption

Awhile back, someone kept changing the wording on the photo under the page from "youth" to "militants" or similar. I asked about this and was told that the caption the page used was the caption that accompanied the orig photo. If this is true, shouldn't it be changed back to that original caption at this point? elizmr 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back and note that it has again morphed. I don't have strong feelings about this, but think that if there is a wiki policy on captions we should be following it in an even and transparent way. elizmr 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I ran across what was going on here last night, and here are my thoughts:

• The graffiti: This is a tough one, because while it is POV to show this in a general Wikipedia article, it so happens that the particular settler population in Hebron is the most radical and fundamentalist 'even by Israeli standards', according to what I read. Official sources for the insanity of this particular group of settlers include B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch. Other accounts can be seen here, here, and here. Perhaps the better way to handle this is to have a separate article on the settlers of Hebron since they do seem to be a class of their own. (what? yet another article on the Pal-Israeli conflict? sigh....)
• User:Asa_Winstanley: While I appreciate your attempts at editing this article, I am concerned about what may be conceived as POV pushing. I tried to email you but you don't have an email set up; could you please email me using the link on my page?
• User:Brad M.: I went back to the very first version of this article, and even there, the Arabic name of the city appears first. I don't know what you meant in your edit summary that you were "reverting" the order of names to have the Hebrew first, but that seems to have never been the case. This is a city that is mostly under Palestinian self rule, is home to 130,000 Palestinians, as opposed to about 500 militant settlers who most of the world regards as illegal and most Israelis regard as insane. It is referred to internationally as a Palestinian city in the West Bank, not an Israeli city. I promise you that once the Palestinians are expelled from Hebron or killed off (which may not be too far off in the future), I won't object to placing the Hebrew name first. But for the time being, let's respect the status quo. Also Brad, I wouldn't go so far as to refer to AW as having an extreme POV when you use a source such as Arutz Sheva, an extreme right-wing outlet, to counter his claims (the militancy and fundamentalism of the settlers in question are corroborated by respected Israeli sources).
• User:Elizmr: Nice work on the history. I would suggest that you break that section down with subheaders (you know, three = signs on each side of a title for the section) to make it an easier read. I'll help you with that if you'd like.
• If an uploaded image contains a description by the uploading editor, that should form the basis of the image caption in the article.
• I don't see how a reason for Palestinian mass departure from H2 is the Israeli soldiers standing idly by. While this may be the case, I can't find a source that 'soldiers standing idly by' is a reason for mass departure.
• On another note, isn't the English name for the Ibrahimi Mosque "Tomb of the Patriarchs"? I'm pretty sure this is the English name...

So I made a few changes based on the above but welcome any further input. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ramallite for taking off that passage of the soldiers standing "idly by". About the reverting of the names, I thought that the Hebrew name usually came first and I just thought I was reverting a recent edit. Small misshap, anyway thank you.--Brad M. 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I guess one could argue that the Hebrew "hebron" should come before the arabic, since the Hebrew word dates further back in time. I always assumed that Arabic came first due to ? wiki convention about alphabetical orders or something.
• I will put some headings in the history section over the next few days. elizmr 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic name (Khalil) means the same thing as the Hebrew (Chaver) and both are referring to the same person, Abraham, as the khalil or chaver (i.e. friend) of G-d. Avraham in Hebrew could not have lived before Ibrahim in Arabic, they are the same person! The reason the Arabic name is first in this article is probably the same reason that the Arabic name in Jenin or Nablus is first there: That is the language spoken by the inhabitants of the city, i.e. that's what the residents of the city itself, who are overwhelmingly Palestinian, call it: al-Khalil. Only 0.4% of the people living there call it Hevron. Furthermore, Hebron is in the West Bank, not in sovereign Israel; i.e. it is not an Israeli city but a Palestinian one (or at least that's how the world sees it). Once that situation changes, then it would make sense to reverse the order or perhaps remove the Arabic altogether, depending on what happens there in the near future. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point as to why the Arabic name of Hebron should go first. But on the other hand, the question arises that should the order be based on alphabetical, chronological or demographic factors. Maybe we should discuss these factors further? Also Ramallite, I noticed in your last few comments that you had the feeling that it would'nt be long now before the Arabs "are expelled from Hebron". Could you please elaborate, I'm interested to hear your point.--Brad M. 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the order should be English - Hebrew - Arabic because chronologically, Hebrew appeared there a couple of millenia earlier. The other reasons (such as prevalence of Arabic-speakers there today) seem (my POV) less important for an encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope. I've noticed that WP (since it doesn't have a clear policy for naming conventions in situations such as these) tends to add, in addition to the English name, the name of the city in the current native alphabet, which for Hebron would be Arabic (the current native tongue of its residents). Chronological names may be problematic, because then you'd have to call Amman as the Ammonite Rabbath Ammon before عمان (Amman) in Arabic, or Jerusalem as Uru Salim or YeruShalem before ירושלים . In any case, the proper way to go about this would be to discuss it at the relevant policy page. Once that is decided, then policy will have to be applied across the board. The funny thing is that Hebron is one city where the names in Arabic and Hebrew are not only identical but have identical significance from a religious standpoint, which is something very rare in our little land. The only argument would be which of these two language came first, and I don't have time to go into that research now. They both came from Aramaic, didn't they?

As for Brad's question - I must admit that I used to be more willing to engage in debates in the past, but unfortunately I need to be careful since there are some things Wikipedia is not. I'd be happy to discuss this further on personal talk pages or email, but sufficed to say that when an entire nation or people are subject to persistent dehumanization with international apathy or even concurrence, historically, it doesn't bode well for this nation. Dehumanization is generally a precursor for something more awful about to happen. You might be interested in reading a debate I had when I first came to WP, which started here and continued here (back and forth). Ramallite ^(talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ramallite on this issue (the names). What the inhabitants call this city should probably be the main factor. Also the official language of the Palestinian Authority is only Arabic. It doesn't really make much of a difference either way. —Khoikhoi 02:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion of "pure junk text"

The following entire section was deleted with the above edit summary:

"=== Jordanian rule === +

- Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jordan took over the control of Hebron and the rest of the West Bank. During this time, Israelis were not allowed to enter the West Bank. In violation of the Armistice Agreement, the Jordanian authorities barred Jews from making pilgrimage to the Tomb of the Patriarchs or other holy sites in Hebron. During this time, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed, the Jewish cemetery was desecrated, and an animal pen was built on the ruins of the Abraham Avinu Synagogue. "

Care to explain? Is it untrue that Jordon took control of Hebron? Is it untrue that they did not allow Jews access to the tomb of their ancestors? Is it irrelevant that they violated the armistace agreement? Elizmr 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm putting it back. Elizmr 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing "Jews" vs. "Israelis". Jordan and Israel were in a state of war, so just like Israelis couldn't go to places under Jordanian control, Jordanians could not come to places under Israeli control. Christian Jordanians, for example, were not allowed to go to Nazareth for pilgrimage. But if a Jewish American tourist was coming to Jordan for example, s/he would be able to travel in Jordan. The way this text is written is quite POV as if only one side is malicious, while the truth is that both countries were in a state of war. Now I'm no fan of Jordan, and will be the last to defend it in any way, but I still feel there ought to be some proper citation to allegations such as "the Jewish Quarter was destroyed" and especially also the part about an animal pen being built on the ruins of a synagogue. The Israelis destroyed a part of the Muslim area in the old city of Jerusalem when they captured it in 1967, so let's remember that we are talking about two states at war, and neither side can necessarily claim a moral superiority. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and would like to work on better language and cites for this paragraph, however I'm not really getting your argument. First, after the armistice agreement, Jordan and Israel were not at war anymore, right? (altho no arab country actually recoginzed Israel's statehood or right to exist at that time). When the armistice agreement was written, was there an understanding that Israeli Jews would not be able to go to Jewish holy places in Jordan like the cave and the wailing wall, but but Jews from outside of Israel would be able to travel to these places? Elizmr 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The armistice agreement does not contain a clause guaranteeing access to hold places. What is says is that a joint commission would be established to find a way of achieving that access (and other things). The commission was formed but never reached agreement. Each side blamed the other. So you can't say that it was a violation of the armistice agreement. Also, most legal scholars (but not all) consider that armistice agreements end hostilities but not the state of war. (This question has come up in Israeli courts several times.) The majority opinion seems to be that the state of war persisted until the Washington Declaration of 1994. --Zero^talk 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason for NPOV tag

Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, yet the "history" sections of this article barely mention Arabs except as people who did nasty things to Jews. Although a stronger word could be applied, I'll just say that it isn't acceptable. Even the existing Jewish history is very poor; it presents the story of the Jews of Hebron as a saga of endless suffering, which is simply not factual. --Zero^talk 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero--why don't you add more Arab history to the section? It would be interesting. Elizmr 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Or tell me where to find it and I'll add it. I just need some points to sources. Elizmr 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Settlers

Yes, I know Hebron is a city. Just because Israel controls part of it and has settlers there, does not make it all one big Israeli settlement. Feel free to create an Avraham Avinu neighborhood article an add the cat to it, but Hebron is predominately a Palestinian city. BTW, how could anyone say that Arabs are settlers in Hebron? Because they arrived there well before the Crusades? —Khoikhoi 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebron was recognised as both Israeli and Palestinian in the Hebron agreement. It's part Israeli, part palestinian . This is the status of the city and neither of us can change that fact as of now. I don't see why Jews have to be called settlers when Jews lived in Hebron before Arabs... Arabs settled Judea from Arabia. but this is not related, because the common term for the israelis is indeed "settlers". Amoruso 05:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because H2 is militarily controlled by Israel, doesn't necessarily make it an Israeli city. The West Bank was never annexed, which is probably the reason why you won't find Hebron at List of cities in Israel. The Jews after 1967 are different than the ones than the pre-1929ers. If wouldn't make sense to call them settlers if they'd had been living there continuously, but when a completely different group arrives later, of course they're settlers. If a group of Germans leave a town, then 20 years later a different group of Germans arrive, it may be resettlement, but it's still settlement.

The category as of now is factually inaccurate, and should therefore be removed. BTW, you broke the 3RR, as stated here, there is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. However, I believe if you chose to revert yourself then it doesn't count... —Khoikhoi 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you've only made three. —Khoikhoi 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

They're still jews. They're the rightful owners, maybe re-settlers is the right word. But that doesn't matter. Hebron has an Israeli settelement in it, which is recognised per the Hebron Agreement. Since the settlement as you call it in inside the city, not a different place, but part of the city, then Hebron constitutes an Israeli settelement. Nothing we can do about it . Also just so you know 3RR is for reverting the same thing, I chnaged edit (not in a minor way). Amoruso 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rightful Owners" are people who hold title deeds to the property, not any person of any era but who happens to be of the same religion as the people who held original title deeds to the property. And if we're going to use the 'rightful owners' argument because of who lived there prior to 1929, does that mean that Israelis recognize descendants of Muslims or Christians from Jaffa and Ramla who lived in those cities prior to 1929 to be the rightful owners of the buildings they owned in these cities? The Wye River Accords you refer to were an implementation of Oslo, which are known officially as the INTERIM agreements. They are not final peace treaties and do not bestow recognition of any sovereignty by any party. Anyway, as you say, "nothing we can do about it". If you want to designate the city of Hebron as an Israeli settlement, you must use a proper source to back up your claim (a neutral source). Your own interpretation (or mine) of what constitutes a settlement is not valid on WP. Reliable, neutral sources only please. Finally, when it comes to 3RR, please not that "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please remember that this is not a discussion board, and you're violating wikipedia's policy by starting a political debate here. I stand behind what I said about rightful owners.
• Secondly, you're violating wikipedia's good faith policy by saying "settlements shmettelemens".
• Thirdly, if this is just an interim agreement, then we should delete the term "palestinian city" from hebron, nablus, ramalla, beth lehem, jericho, tulkarem and qalqilya because they're palestinian cities only because of this interim agreement that you belittle.
• Fourthly, you're wrong about the 3RR rule since I didn't disguise anything, I've changed the criteria completly. Therefore your allegations are not in place.
• Lastly,the fact Hebron is a Jewish settlement is undisputed atleast as much as Hebron is a palestinian city. Amoruso 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a discussion board, but it's not a place where you can dictate your ideas and have them entered into the articles as fact, either. You cannot say that Hebron is an Israeli city or settlement, insist that your words are sublime, and prevent discussion of the issue. The edit summary was intended to be humorous, not related to the discussion, but you didn't get it. The interim agreement was never about the status of the Palestinians cities, it was about how to bring the Palestinian cities under Palestinian self government, NOT whether or not they are in fact Palestinian cities. Trust me, the Israeli negotiators at the time did not want them. The interim agreements ended up belittling themselves at the end, because they were not designed to last more than 5 years, so your accusation is unsubstantiated. My 3RR quote was for your information in response to what you wrote above, I wasn't accusing you of anything. Lastly, as I said, you need to find reputable sources for claims, and not just dictate your terms and disallow discussion. I'm not your enemy here (well, at least I'm not the one who thinks so), so how about you show some good faith of your own instead of being unnecessarily defensive and try to find reasonable acceptable compromises. You've made your opinions about Palestine and Israel very clear, and good for you, but it doesn't mean you have to be confrontational about it. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, we need to assume good faith especially when editing these kind of contentious topics. I don't always share a POV with (talk) but he is a very good collegial editor to work with on an article. Elizmr 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I was refering to Ramallite. Elizmr 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, would Category:Israeli-controlled cities work? It's definately more accurate than the other two categories. —Khoikhoi 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

that's a good idea Khoikhoi . But I don't mind this much. I always assume good faith, you should do the same Ramallite. I'm only wanting this to be accurate. There are actual (permanent, for the visa question) israelis in hebron, they're not ghosts, and people will want to refer to them in an israeli related article, that's all. It will be bad faith to assume that they're simply to be ignored. Amoruso 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's ignoring them, they're in the news all the time. :p But seriously, just because Isrealis live in the city does not mean the city is in Israel. That's why I think we should think of a better and more accurate category. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a "Palestinian cities which are actually under Israeli control and have a small Jewish population that most of the world regards as settlers but they themselves do not and as such might be called an Israeli city" category? My point... let's not take this alleged NPOV endeavour to the point of absolute absurdity. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As illustrated here, a good compromise leaves everybody mad. —Khoikhoi 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

the best thing is to put all cities in the WORLD in Category:Earth cities and that's it. Amoruso 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now if you would agree to that, I'd buy you a beer (Taybeh Beer, of course!) Ramallite ^(talk) 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree to it. But we need everybody's agreement - Prisoner's dilemma Amoruso 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What you mean the category or the choice of beer? Ramallite ^(talk) 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

the category. I prefer whiskey (we'll be blocked soon). Amoruso 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Factuality Disputed

I posted a factuality dispute because I noticed, among other things, that it says that there are only 500 Jews in Hebron. I dispute this fact and want to know where the source is from. Other sources indicate that at least 7,500 Jews live within the environs of Hebron. Also, why exactly was the picture of the Cave of Machpela removed from the article? It is the most famous site in Hebron and should headline the article as the main photograph instead of just propagandaish rock-throwing. Valley2city 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok first off, you can simply add a {{fact}} tag to the 500 if you would like a source. Here's and Israeli source for starters. Secondly, I don't know who removed it but it would be better to have an image of the actual city, something that reflects it's...population which is predominately Arab. In regards to the picture of Palestinian boys, I thought it balanced the article out. When I first saw it we just had the picture of Israeli soldiers. I think the two images go together quite nicely, actually. Anyways, if you have ever been to Hebron or have pictures, I'd love to see them. I plan to go there someday. —Khoikhoi 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Another factuality dispute: The statement, "With the advent of Ottoman Turkish rule in 1516-17, there was a violent pogrom in with many Jews were raped and killed and Jewish homes were plundered." which was part of the Ottoman period (History) is a claim (bias?), and has no references. I took it out. 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some images that could be added to the article

Photos by Justin McIntosh, August 2004. The POV in the captions is not necessarily one that I hold, it's just that I didn't feel like changing them. (decided to just link) —Khoikhoi 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(see commons:Category:Hebron)

—Khoikhoi 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

can't you just link to it instead of planting all the pictures here (mostly with extremely biased and wrong captions) ? Amoruso 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of that, but it's easier to access here. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems distruptive, intrusive and not fitting for a discussion page. Amoruso 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I posted these images is for the exact reason in the heading, that they could be used in the article. How is this disruption? —Khoikhoi 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It disrupts the normal reading of text here - you can provide a link to the gallrey in the commons here too I think.. n'est pas ? Amoruso 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

changed order of names

the hebrew name is not only more ancient but it also sounds practically the same to the english name, so it doesn't make sense to put the arabic name first as opposed to Jericho for instance... even though that according to precedence should have been the hebrew name first too. Amoruso 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It may sound the same but it's not. Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades, you can add a paragraph about etymology, stating that the English name comes from the Hebrew name, but I see no reason why it should go first. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact I've decided to add it, and Almaqdisi has added information about the etymology of "الخليل". —Khoikhoi 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree of course. The name is Hebrew related and for the other reasons mentioned already - Hebrew history making it one of the 4 most important cities and the first city of David, it makes sense to put the original name first. But I won't revert unless further users join me on this. Amoruso 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but there isn't a Wikipedia policy that says these names have to be in chronological order. I think that showing the Arabic name first shows readers that Hebron today is mostly an Arab city. Note that the the Turkish word "İstanbul" comes from the Greek name for the city (or a Greek phrase), but we have the Turkish name first because today it's a mostly Turkish city (also because Turkish is the official language in Turkey). —Khoikhoi 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's a turkish word ! The greek word is : "Konstantinoúpoli" . In here we have an ENGLISH word that's not related to the ARABIC word. The fact that it's mostly Arab is true, but it's not under any political state at the moment which forces the residents to a specific name, and it's an historical town, biblical town as well. Amoruso 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Khalil" and "chaver" mean the same thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebron has been predominantly an Arab city since well before the Crusades - great, but why should we start with that? This is the city where David was anointed a couple of millennias before that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So therefore the names should be in chronological order? Shouldn't we have the Latin name at the Jerusalem article? (Hierosolyma) —Khoikhoi 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Hebrew name should come first. This is the english wikipedia and that is the name of the place in English. The English name comes from the Hebrew name, which is also the older name. There is not much clear logic in saying that the historical argument is negated by the numbers of people who live there now (especially since those numbers have been so influcenced and created by violence towards Jews throughout history). Please remember that Avraham purchased the cave and the field around it as a burial place for his wife Sarah mother of Issac and that aside from Abraham only the Jewish side of our big family is buried there. Calling it something based on only Avraham negates the Jewish history there and is kind of, well, revisionist in a pretty deliberate way. This isn't mecca or medina which is undisputably moslem. That being said, I don't think it is crucial that the Hebrew name comes first in Wikipedia but it seems like a pretty low blow to insist that it shouldn't. Elizmr 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The chronological order of the ruling powers at a certain historical location seems only logical to me. Of course, if such powers make a long list (as in Jerusalem), we don't want to clog the intro with the names, translations, pronunciations, etc., and I would support separating such long list into a subarticle (see Names of Jerusalem) or a subsection. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(no title)

The Old City of Hebron has been taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers, intent on ridding the area of its indigenous Palestinian population.

The grille of wires over the old city is littered with items that have been thrown down by Israeli settlers onto Palestinians walking below. Not as the article suggests, to stop Palestinians throwing things into settler homes.

Also, the Israeli settlers are there illegally under international law —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.109.101 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 October 2006.

Interesting, but do you have any sources that say this? (I'm referring to your comment about the wires) If so, please make sure they're reliable and most importantly, provide them. Khoikhoi 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of inaccurate photo and caption of netting.

Doctors without Borders, The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), part of the World Council of Churches, and an organization called Global Ministries, all refute your claim that the nets are to protect Israelis. This was after a 5 minute google search, I could find many, many more sources if you'd like. It is common knowledge that the nets are to protect Palestinians, I've been to Hebron twice in the past 2 years and the nets in some portions are completely filled with garbage that could only have been put there from above (i.e. by the settlers). The sand bag is likely there to hold the nets in place so they cant be moved by either side. I am removing your photograph and the caption as it is not representative of the true situation in Hebron. You may put it back if you can find backing from a group at least as nonpartisan as doctors without borders. Wlf211 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC

It would be interesting to hear more information about the massacaring of Jews in 1929 and 1936 which forced the cities Jewish population to flee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.229.203.189 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 November 2006.

There is already a page on that subject, appropriately titled 1929 Hebron Massacre. It is linked to twice in the article, first in the history section under the heading British Mandate, and later on under the 1967 Controversy heading. the 1929 Massacre page is in depth and provides plenty of information, I imagine more information on the subject is not included in the Hebron article for this reason. Most (if not all) of the pieces of information in the Hebron article is not substantial enough to have its own article. I also dont understand why this comment was made under this heading and what, if anything, it had to do with the removal of the inaccurate photo caption. It is generally better and less confusing to put posts bringing up new issues be put under their own heading. Thanks.--Wlf211 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Controversy: Jewish settlement after 1967

I sought to update the section and include some illustrative photos, the last section in particular was unclear and the mistake in the reference code made it seem very out of place so I combined the two section and added some clarifying information. I also put in information about the Stars of David above the doors (which is generally accepted as hard evidence of former Jewish residences), and included the section about the violence of extremist settlers and tried to show that the violence there is much worse than violence anywhere else in the OPT. Wlf211 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

What was the basis for removing the NPOV tag? I see no discussion of it, and the edit gives no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Amoruso on 18 November

I am reverting the edits made on the 18th by Amoruso because aside from one or two controversial sentences, the parts removed are well sourced and for the most part generally accepted. The portions about the netting are fact as well as the part about the 1997 letter sent by the 1929 Descendants. If you can prove that it is not this reason why the netting is there, and why there is garbage on the top of the nets (the settler side) in the photo then show me and you can take it down. I dont think there is any way you could disprove the 1997 letter the reporting comes from reputable newspapers. I am willing to make some compromises on the parts about settler brutality if you can find some sources that are contrary, but I think it is pretty much common knowledge that attacks by Palestinians are much more brutal in other cities like Nablus or Ramallah but attacks by settlers are far and away worse in Hebron than in any other part of the West Bank. I put this information in there because settler attacks are rare in areas of the West Bank besides Hebron so it is notable.--Wlf211 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very biased article

Why is it that all of this pictures included in this article show Israeli soldiers and other events related to the current conflict? Why is there not even a single picture of the tomb of Abraham, which is far more important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.72.16 (talk • contribs) .

Note: above added by anon, but I think the article would benefit from these pix as wellElizmr 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein

Hey, I don't think we're mentioning BG enough in this article? Could we mention him in the lead, every section, the "also see" section, the external links section, and the notable people section?????? Elizmr 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

I think the article should include maps, showing the location of Hebron and the jewish settlements on the West Bank, so we can have a better visual understanding of the areas of conflict. I think this should apply to every article about cities, regions or countries, for the display of maps are a great asset in studying geopolitical affairs.

Qiryat Arba as suburb

No reason not to add it, it was sourced to a scholary source. [3] It's also frequently described as such [4] [5] it's unthinkable to remove it. Cheers, Amoruso 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suburbs being of course relevant to city articles. For example, Eurodisney being mentioned in the article about Paris, even though it's actually in the town of Marne-la-Vallée. Kiryat Arba is 5 minutes by walking to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Simple google searches show that it's frequently referred to as "Kiryat Arba-Hebron" [6] . In fact, its official name is Local Council Qiryat Arba Hebron.[7] Amoruso 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We can mention this further down below, in the Geography section. Kiryat Arba is not a "suburb", but an Israeli settlement. Khoikhoi 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call it a settlement but it's a suburb of Hebron, sorry. I provided neutral refernces. Amoruso

The UN says it's a settlement too: [8] Khoikhoi 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It being a settlement according to the U.N or it being a settlement objectively even has no bearing on it being a suburb too. It's apples and oranges, you can add that it's a settlement too if you wish. Amoruso 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian history category?

What is Hebron's contribution to the history of the Palestinian people? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked into the article after I saw your deletion. I saw many references to events that occurred in the city from the early 20th century (when both "Israeli" and "Palestinian" nationalism intensified) onwards, including riots, massacres, religious significance, settlements, etc. If you want to argue that it is not related to "Palestinian" history, it really isn't "Israeli" history either, but rather Jewish history (as well as Islamic history). But clearly both Israeli and Palestinian history categories belong. What is your reasoning? Ramallite ^(talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, I'm on with removing History of Israel category because I find it insulting that such ancient city is assigned to 50~ years old country. Category:Palestinian history is not better, if not worse. I think it is best to replace Cat:Palestinian history with Cat:History of Palestine and Cat:History of Israel with Cat:Jewish history. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an intense effort recently to remove categories with the word "Palestine" in them (via CfD) and replace them with "Palestinian". You also just explained why you don't like reference to Israel but still haven't explained your aversion to "Palestinian history" or at least refuted my reasons. In any case, as to your proposal, what say others? Ramallite ^(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Palestine, History of Levant, I don't care. History of Israel is for events in the history of the State of Israel and not Land of Israel. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be Category:Palestinian history or Category:History of Israel. If you made a fork article History of Hebron then those categories may apply, but for now neither of them seem to fit here. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fact

The original name is AL-Khalel and there is no doubt about that and the land is an arabic land and the people is an arabic people what ever the jewish may said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.84.18 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Haaretz

Why is Haaretz not a reliable source? Khoikhoi 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

without getting too much into the details of the event which i didn't inspect fully, Gideon Levi, the writer of your last edit, was romantically involved for over two years with a politically motivated palestinian, he is considered a fringe extremist leftist by mainstreem and considered "hardcore" leftist by left winged people in Haaretz. to top things off, he doesn't know arabic and takes things at face value from Fatach, or other politically motivated interperters.

personally, i consider haaretz a far more reliable source on the printed hebrew version than on any online version or worse, the english version. just recently, i confronted Haaretz online english editors over a blatant misrepresentation (compare english murder liable here note 3rd and 4th paragraphs with this hebrew print version doctor brought in by family found no bruises)- and was basically told "go fish". Jaakobou 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I personally believe Gideon Levy almost never gets his facts wrong, the correct solution to this dispute is to attribute the claim "This has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers" to a more mainstream source. This shouldn't be too hard since it is well known and reported in a large number of places. There are even books about it by academic historians. --Zero^talk 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A seemingly fair statement, albeit, I personally believe that Gideon Levi almost always gets his terminology and "testimonials" wrong... and many times this is done on purpouse, as he admitted in a TV interview, whith the case of the titling on the article about the hamas victory in the elections. Jaakobou 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't necessarily have to be neutral, as long as they are attributed properly. We could say something like, "According to Haaretz and Christian Peacemaker Teams, this has been attributed to continued harassment of the Palestinians by the settlers." Khoikhoi 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

unless you want to muck the article up with criticism about gideon levi, i suggest you use other more balanced sources. Jaakobou 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment above. Khoikhoi 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CPT is not a reliable source, in my view, and Gideon Levi's opinion piece is not Ha'aretz; you give it far too much weight by stating it as Ha'aretz's view. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the source ([9]) says: "The closing of the shops and the prolonged curfew were both reasons for leaving. The ongoing harassment on the part of the settlers was another." So, we should probably match the source. Let's not try to make assumptions like "500 people can't quite harrass 30,000." That would be original research. Khoikhoi 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)