Talk:Hebron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Name

Why the hell is this article called "Hebron"? --Jammoe (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Palestinians leaving Hebron has been "attributed to continued harassment by settlers"

Let's look at the sources used for the contentious claim that harassment by settlers has forced thousands of Palestinians to leave Hebron:

• [1] - an opinion piece by a far-left correspondent.
• [2] - this article never makes that claim.
• [3] - a speech made by a senior UNWRA official, a highly partisan body staffed almost entirely by Palestinians
• [4] - a summary of a B'Tselem report; it claims 73 families had left by 2003.

Contentious claims, particularly when stated as fact, require excellent sources; I don't think these are measuring up. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it a contentious claim? Not very--even the settlers have said in many press interviews that they are trying to convince the Palestinians to leave, and even IDF spoksepeople are on record about the regular settler violence. UNWRA is a perfectly good source and no more partisan than most organisations involved with this subject. Of course the sentence in the article should state who attributes the exodus to this cause.

• "The settler campaign and the consequent economic deterioration succeeded in driving out most families with property in the Old City, who moved to newer neighborhoods with better infrastructure, services, and investment possibilities. The historic Old City became an urban slum. By the mid-1990s, only an estimated four hundred Palestinians were still living in the some twelve hundred historic buildings." (Anita Vitullo, People tied to place: strengthening cultural identity in Hebron's old city, J. Pal. Studies, Vol 33, No. 1, 2003, p68-83.)
• Nora Barrows-Friedman, "MIDEAST: ISRAELI OCCUPATION LEAVES HEBRON OCCUPIED, AND DESERTED", Inter Press Service, Jan 22, 2007 (title indicates contents accurately).
• Mel Frykberg, "Under pressure: Israeli settlers in Hebron are hellbent on persecuting the inhabitants of the area, in an effort to drive them out of town.", The Middle East, Issue 372, 2006, p12 (title indicates contents accurately).
• "An eye for an eye deepens bitter divisions in biblical city of Hebron 'Nobody has put a gun to anybody's head'.", Irish Times, 21 February 2004 (retiring leader of TIPH, Norwegian Jan Kristensen, told Haaretz that Palestinians were being driven out of the Israeli-controlled area of the city by attacks from settlers as well as Israeli army heavy-handedness, including house demolitions and curfews. ""In a sense cleansing is being carried out," the Norwegian Jan Kristensen told Ha'aretz newspaper. "In other words, if the situation continues for another few years, the result will be that no Palestinians will remain there. It is a miracle they have managed to remain there until now."
• Btselem's 2003 report on the reasons for the Arab exodus: [5]
• Meron Rapoport, "Ghost Town", Haaretz, 17/11/2005 Part 1. Part 2

Actually this is a hard topic to search for due to there being no distinctive keywords. --Zero^talk 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find enough good sources, and attribute it to them, then it's reasonable to make the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that settler harassment exists, and there is no reason that a section discussing it can't be included. The problem is with the assertion that more than IDF movement restrictions on the whole neighbourhood, more than the closing of 2,000 shops, the actions of the tiny Hebron community resulted in the mass exodus of 20,000 individuals (a number that doesn't appear in the B'Tselem report, which cites no sum aside from the local number I mentioned below). That B'Tselem's report summary chooses to grant prominence to that idea right before its conclusion that settlers are the primary ill and root cause of the other problems in Hebron, especially on the background of statements objecting to settler presence under any circumstances, should demand that we recognise and take into account its strong POV on the subject. Signs that something is wrong should be further apparent from the lack of these assertions actually appearing in the body of their full report, which specifically mentions the "three streets" near the settlers and the 73 of 169 families who have left there, and no other figures. To Khoikhoi - you should realise that I initially removed an opinion piece (ie non RS), and not legitimate sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really look for good sources for the actual numbers involved. It's a problem because many sources seem to be referring to limited areas that they don't define precisely. That seems to be true of the Btselem report - they are not referring to the whole of area H2. This bit of the article might need to become more vague until the ideal source (which surely exists) is found. --Zero^talk 14:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That has been my point. The settler harassment exists, but it is unfair to grant it anywhere near the same weight as the curfews and travel restrictions. Moving it to the end of the sentence is a start, but despite the amount of space B'Tselem gives it, they do not make the claim that it is anywhere near the same order of magnitude. What would be wrong with removing it from this sentence and creating a passage discussing it? Ugly behaviour need not be exaggerated to berate it. Tewfik^Talk 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Being as no one has moved to reflect the sources more accurately, lets take a look at what they say:

• Rapoport, Meron (November 17, 2005). "Ghost town". Haaretz. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "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." It doesn't say who we were talking about (all of H2, the adjacent areas?). And if one were to take the position that it meant the 500 had harassed out the 20,000-30,000, they would need much better sourcing, since that is quite an exceptional claim.
• Harassment is not an isolated incident Doesn't talk about harassment causing population decline
• Karen Koning AbuZayd "Settler violence has forced out over half the Palestinian population in some neighborhoods in the downtown area of Hebron." That is very limited and can easily be understood to mean the areas adjacent to the settlers, as it describes their location quite accurately. Understanding it to mean 20,000 is again an exceptional claim.
• Israeli NGO issues damning report on situation in Hebron This is a collection of quotes from the B'Tselem report. Lets look at the actual report instead.
• Young, Kaliya. "Friends of God: Peacemakers in Hebron". Grace Cathedral. (Christian Peacemaker Teams). I didn't see any reference to harassment causing population decline.
• Levin, Jerry (December 19, 2003). "From The Inside Looking Out: Report #28 - While You Were Gone Episode II". Christian Peacemaker Teams. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Absolutely partisan piece, it also makes no reference to harassment causing population decline.
• "Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians". B'Tselem. August 2003. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) A summary of the B'Tselem report. Lets look at the actual report instead.
• Hebron, Area H-2: Settlements Cause Mass Departure of Palestinians (B'Tselem full report) Despite its title, the only specific claim to that effect is that "In total, 169 families lived on the three streets in September 2000, when the intifada began. Since then, seventy-three families – forty-three percent – have left their homes."

I welcome evidence to the contrary, but as far as I could tell, all of the quoted sources that have any level of detail only associate the settler harassment with the limited departure of their immediate neighbours. Tying the harassment to the departure of 20,000 people alongside IDF restrictions etc. is an extreme, inaccurate, and unsourced claim that needs specific proof (which I don't think will be found, since it defies logic). Until such time as that proof can be produced, I will rewrite the passage to remove the incorrect implications of its current vagueness and to reflect what these sources actually say. Tewfik^Talk 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to match the sources as well, hope they're ok with you. Khoikhoi 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rapoport quote seems quite partisan and out of place. If the purpose was to find a number for how many have left, then a better source would be the best course. Tewfik^Talk 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it partisan? Khoikhoi 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It juxtaposes two statements for a rhetorical effect (the settlers are the cause) that couldn't be demonstrated directly. Otherwise, it adds no information that isn't already there in a noninflammatory phrasing. Tewfik^Talk 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I've added info that wasn't already there. Khoikhoi 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the newest passage in the reference provided. Perhaps you have confused it with our discussion here, where that figure was tossed around, but in which Zero concluded that he couldn't get a number? Tewfik^Talk 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Khoikhoi 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to drive you crazy, but the "new" formulation is an extremely unclear statement that implies that far less than the ~10,000 figure originally there, which itself was removed because as Zero acknowledges above, it is hard to find specific numbers. Unless we can find such numbers, it makes sense to follow his advice that we be vague there. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You asked for a source giving numbers, so I provided one. There's no Wikipedia policy that says we have to give the exact figures. Please refrain from removing sourced information. You don't see me removing your bit about the attacks on the Isreali settlers. Khoikhoi 00:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not sourced information, it is poorly sourced information. I understood Zero to have acknowledged that as well. No sources, mainstream or otherwise, claim that of 30,000, only a few thousand remain. A poorly worded phrase without any corroboration shouldn't be used to make such an assertion. The previous suggestion that we use a vaguer formulation until we can get accurate numbers is a far clearer way to present information accurately.

As for the other reversions, I'm not sure why you decided to remove reference to the al-Aqsa intifada that the article, written in 2005, was clearly referring to when it says "in the last five years". I'm also not sure why you restored the "have been identified as a major cause of a decrease in H2's population" line, which I authored, and removed after you added a line ("Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly") to which it is now redundant. You also moved the passage about attacks on Israelis to the very end of the section, so that that key part of the post-Oslo history is left until after paragraphs describing all of the Israeli actions. The structure of the section as a whole leaves what to be desired, but I'm sure you can see the problem in that change. In the settlement passage, you restored the nonfactual version and removed wikilinks to the subjects of the sentences, as well as the poorly phrased sentence implying that there are multiple Israeli settlements within the city. I removed the "this process" line since as I stated in my edit summary, its quite unclear what the previous line to which it is referring means. I've clarified those sentences, but having you revert multiple edits without so much as a rationale in the edit summary when I stated my reasoning for making the changes is quite frustrating. I've in the past also explained my edits, and I don't think that I've yet given you reason to suspect my every contribution :-) Hope to keep working together, Tewfik^Talk 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is only your opinion. Please point me to the part in WP:RS that states that my source are unacceptable. What I also don't understand is that when you use The Jerusalem Post, it is considered to be reliable, but when I use Haaretz, it suddenly becomes "poorly sourced." As for the al-Aqsa intifada, if that's what the source says, then feel free to add that info. However, if it doesn't, please provide a source of your own. I can also fix the redundant part as well. It seemed more appropriate to have the paragraph about attacks on Israelis to be at the end; note that the sources you cited were mostly the Israeli government, while the sources I cited aren't the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or anything like that. "This process" is referring to the pattern of Israeli expansion throughout the city. Cheers, Khoikhoi 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, a good sign of "double standard"--Pejman47 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haaretz is a perfectly reliable source, and I don't understand what the comparison to the Jerusalem Post has to do with anything. As I mentioned before, the first revert of Haaretz was of reference to an editorial, not a news article. The latest line you are trying to include is an extreme claim (from 30,000 to just "thousands") which is more likely a poorly phrased representation of some other number, and for which we have found no other corroborating source in the lengthy discovery of sources above. The statements that I sourced to the Jerusalem Post are not controversial (yet you still deleted them?), are in basic news pieces rather than a 'colourful' magazine feature, and are corroborated by multiple explicit mentions (which is why I included multiple references). Hence 'thousands' is poorly sourced and misleading, and a more vague statement that is not inaccurate and that is supported by the other sources here is in order.

As for the rest of the edit, I'm not sure why, but you again mass-reverted, seemingly without paying heed to my rationale, even after I pointed this out above (?). "Five years ago" from 2005, i.e. 2000, is indeed explicitly mentioned in relation to the al-Aqsa Intifada. However, even if it wasn't, that implication should be clear to anyone familiar with the subject matter, since there was no other event which any side would argue sparked the restrictions. You did say you could change the redundant line, but you didn't change it, and you actually added it back again. As for the attacks on Israelis, you repeat that you think it is best at the end, but you didn't respond to my reasoning that that removes it from context, and I don't imagine that you are arguing that it was somehow in a separate sphere of reality from the Israeli restrictions that the passage dedicates so many words to. Beyond that, I'm not quite sure how you counted that 'the sources I cited were mostly the Israeli government', or what that is supposed to imply (hopefully not the assumption of bad faith that another user made plain), but I only included links to two sections of a single Israeli list of attacks. Even had I not included another link to a third party list, the assertion that the listing of these widely reported undisputed events by the Israelis (ranked most free media in ME, one place behind US) is somehow of equal weight with some Hamas statement that you imply you would otherwise use is absurd. I truly hope this is all some misunderstanding, because I am quite confused as to how these 'issues' are even issues. I'm not going to address in detail your reversion of the rest of my edit, since it replaces sourced information with unsourced [and somewhat nonsensical] statements. Please reread my edit's rationale with care, and don't again revert the changes that you don't even dispute. Tewfik^Talk 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the Jerusalem Post because you added it as a reference, but deleting my source at the same time, which I don't think is very fair. I already replaced the editorial with a news article. Again, please show me what part of WP:RS is being violated here. To dismiss it as an extreme claim is speculation verging on original research. We need figures for the number of Palestinians that have left H2, and I provided a source that gives them. I don't appreciate being labeled as the mass-reverter here, when you are doing the exact same thing. Upon reviewing the section again, I actually fail to see how "Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly" is redundant. Could you please elaborate? It seems like an improvement to me to have the attacks on Israelis at the end because it's better to have the Palestinian and Israeli POVs separated; having them all mixed together might confuse readers. And yes, when citing a biased source such as the Israeli government, you cannot state their side of the story as if everything is an undisputed fact. You will have to find third-party sources for that. There is no misunderstanding here. Khoikhoi 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not "mass-reverted". I undid the multiple deletions of things that you haven't given any reason for. I'm sure that if you look carefully you will see as much, essentially the reversion of anything that wasn't discussed here. The point isn't to label you, but to get you to stop removing such changes without any reason. As for the topics that you have addressed, WP:ATT and WP:RS before it long held that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding...politically charged issues. Being as there is no other source that gives a number remotely like the one you are presenting, it is not acceptable. As far as I know, it is not a claim made my anyone, though I can't prove a negative. As far as redundancy, putting aside that you seem to have agreed before, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly and have been identified as a major cause of a decrease in H2's population modifying the same subject, in back to back sentences, is redundant stylistically, as well as repeating the same position twice. As for moving the attacks on the Israelis, they aren't a POV, they happened alongside the restrictions. We aren't taking a position on "who started it", but to separate the two parts of the "cycle of violence", if you don't mind cliche sound-bytes, removes them both from their context. I don't see what the reader could possibly be confused about. And no, again ignoring that I have hardly cited only the Israeli government, and that the Israelis are only used to supply a list of nondisputed events that are not even specifically mentioned in the entry, it is not a POV that needs to be qualified that "the Israeli settler community has been subject to many attacks by Palestinian militants". Calling them 'terror attacks' is a POV, but not that they happened. I would say we were making progress despite my not really understanding why you've adopted these positions (I mean this quite honestly), except that you've continued to remove sourced information and replace it with unsourced. I'm not sure how you could be unaware unless you are truly not reading through the diff, but please do. As I said before, the rationales were mentioned in the edit summaries. Were you to actually question any, which you haven't thus far, I could further explain if necessary, but the current wholesale reversion (not as rhetoric, bus as the only way I know to describe it)cannot continue. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could cite the Christian Peacemaker Teams if you want, because it's about as biased as some of the sources you're using (no offense), but you would probably dismiss it. That's why I cited an Israeli source. The two sentences are not redundant stylistically because they're saying different things. One is saying that the Palestinian population has decreased greatly, and the other is stating that something is a major cause for it. Another reason why I moved the part about attacks on Israelis to the end of the section is because it seemed out of place. First we can mention a certain POV, then we can give the other. I don't see what's wrong with moving it down a bit. And yes, I am reading the diffs, I'm not blind reverting on anything like that. Your comment, "my not really understanding why you've adopted these positions", was that a question about how I've formed my personal opinions on the subject matter? Just wanting to be clear on what you're asking here. Regards, Khoikhoi 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are reading the diffs, then can you please finally explain the reasoning for reverting the rest of my edit that you have yet to discuss above or anywhere (which I've asked for thrice now)? Also, could you quote the specific 'biased source' that I'm using and the statement that it is supporting, as you assert above? And out of curiousity, what Christian Peacemaker Teams number did you want to use, and have you found any other RS backing up your claim of "only a few thousand" from Rappaport? And as for redundancy, I'm not sure how to explain it clearer, other than you repeat the same fact twice by splitting one sentence into two (which was itself introduced after you added a second paraphrase from the same section of the same article). What do you believe is added in the second sentence (aside from the disputed "thousands" line)?:

• ...since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly, the drop in large part having been identified with extended curfews and movement restrictions placed on Palestinian residents of the sector by the IDF, including the closing of Palestinian shops in certain areas.
• ...since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Palestinian population in H2 has decreased greatly and the current figures show that only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live in this sector. Extended curfews and movement restrictions placed on Palestinian residents of the sector by the IDF, including the closing of Palestinian shops in certain areas, have been identified as a major cause of a decrease in H2's population.

I'm also confused as to why you keep calling the attacks on Israelis a 'point-of-view'; there is no opinion included at all, only an extremely compact summary of events concurrant with the Palestinian restrictions which are granted much more space. And why do you keep restoring the qualification that these attacks only happened "according to the Israeli government"? The "positions" I was referring to is what I see as odd editing from someone I know to be a reasonable editor. Again, please do not revert sourced material that you have not even registered opposition to. Tewfik^Talk 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The biased source is this. As for Christian Peacemaker Teams, I was thinking of using this one. I've fixed the redundancy for you, so hopefully that's no longer an issue. As I said before, because you have cited the Israeli government as a source, it needs to be attributed properly. Khoikhoi 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but I'm having difficulty seeing your actions as totally in good faith at this point, since even if you were correct about that issue (ignoring my repeatedly pointing out that neither is that the only reference, nor is it anything other than a compilation of nondisputed events), it in no way justifies what is now your fourth wholesale revert of numerous sourced details that you have not even made an attempt to discuss, challenge, or even acknowledge that you have reverted, and your replacing them with unsourced [and sometimes contradictory] assertions. I know that you are committed to the policy, so I implore you, now that 'your version' has been protected, to make some effort to explain the entirety of your revert. If our perceptions of these events differ so greatly that we cannot both agree on the content of your edit, perhaps Mediation is in order? I say that not as some sort of threat, but because I honestly have no other idea as to why the gap between our positions is as large as it is, or how to bridge it other than to have a neutral user with experience in resolving disputes take a look. Tewfik^Talk 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I stopped assuming good faith towards you a long time ago. This has been yet another time you have done a wholesale revert of details, while ironically trying to pin it all on me, making bizarre claims like saying I'm "not making an attempt to discuss", which can easily be proven wrong by looking at my comments at this talk page. But enough with the ad hominems. I've already answered all of your questions, if you have any more concerns, feel free to list them here. Khoikhoi 04:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominems? The only things I said about you are that you are a "reasonable editor" who is "committed to the policy". I don't want conflict, and since I imagine that neither do you, I understand even less why you would make such a claim, your declaration above notwithstanding. I have continually maintained that I made a series of edits with reasoning, that you reverted them wholesale save a handful of adjustments alongside the other edits that you were discussing, and that you denied repeatedly on Talk to have done so (I believe this is the fifth round), while repeatedly reverting my sourced additions to the previous unsourced and nonfactual version. Perhaps you can agree that that is what happened based on the diffs?

Do you acknowledge that among your edits:

1. this edit (a) was a reversion of my edits to that section, including the removal of the wikilink to the subject's entry and its sourcing;
2. that you left no edit summary;
3. that the version you reverted to was unsourced (which led you to reinstate a small change rm unsourced info (b);
4. that when I added more sourcing to change the last part of that passage, you reverted that as well (c);
5. that when I updated settler population information (edit summary:...update population), you reverted that as well (d), along with the wikilink to that subject's entry and its sourcing;
6. that you never mentioned any reasons for these removals at any point, and that I pointed out to you numerous times in both talk and edit summaries that you were reverting sourced information outside what was discussed on Talk, and that you insisted throughout that that was not the case;
7. in one case where I specifically challenged your removal of reference to the al-Aqsa Intifada [which anyone familiar with this subject matter should know is the event in 2000 being referred to (!)], you mentioned above that "if that's what the source says, then feel free to add that info" - so you removed it without even bothering to check the source

It is on the basis of these edits where almost any information that I add is reverted unless I explicitly argue here, that I have said you are mass reverting. That this comes on the background of my exhaustively analysing sources to move one line (the previous discussion leading to this dispute) for which I had to argue you for every word, perhaps fits accurately with the revelation that you "stopped assuming good faith towards [me] a long time ago".

Now lets examine the edits that you agreed until now that you have made, and that you have made mention of on this talk page:

1. you insist on using a quote from this article as a definitive source ("The number of Israelis hasn't changed, but the number of Palestinians has declined to a few thousand.") that "only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live in this sector"; I have repeatedly asked that this be confirmed with some other RS, or else be treated according to WP policy on extreme claims, especially on in light of the discussion above where other editors detailed that they were unable to find such sourcing; corroboration has yet to be provided
2. while we also disagreed on the phrasing of this passage, I don't think there is any point discussing it until the previous issue is settled
3. you continually preface the passage noting that there have been attacks on the settlers as "According to the Israeli government" as if it is their unique position that these events occurred, citing the reference to the Israeli Foreign Ministry's website's list of attacks ([6], [7]) , while I have pointed out numerous times that neither is it anything more than a compilation of undisputed events, nor is that the only source provided ([8],your own source,a sourced WP entry), but for some reason you've repeatedly ignored this. Ironically, you've now suggested inclusion of this personal letter from a partisan who spent three days in the city - how would you preface that, According to Kaliya Young, a "Friend of God" and undergraduate at UC Berkley?
4. you have decided that the passage noting that there have been attacks on the settlers is a "point-of-view", a designation which doesn't make very much sense to me. Regardless, you keep moving it to the end of the section on post Oslo Agreement history, divorcing it from the paragraphs dealing with Israeli restrictions as if it were some separate, unrelated reality, claiming that it would otherwise be confusing.

I believe I've gone above and beyond in responding in detail to the removal of sourced information, whose burden is not upon me. I truly hope that you will take the time to read through this, in good faith. Tewfik^Talk 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can get hold of The Accidental Empire by Gershom Gorenberg, it gives a very detailed account of the Jewish settlement of Hebron in 1967. It is true that the occupation of the Park Hotel was a planned subterfuge. They booked the hotel overnight for a Passover seder and invited a large number of guests including many VIPs. After it was over, many of the guests left but a small core headed by Levinger remained. A source for this is Gorenberg, pages 143-150. Gorenberg reveals which members of the government were in on the plan.

You changed the number of Jews living in Hebron to "800", but provided no source. The source in the article (the BBC) actually says 600. I've seen sources that go as low as 500 as well. Please cite reliable sources if you want to update the population. You can't say one thing in the article and have the source say another.

As for the Rapoport quote, according to WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media." (emphasis mine) Haaretz is a reliable source, right? Therefore it meets the criteria.

Yes, the paragraph should continue to say "According to Israeli government" as long as the sources you've cited are none other than the Israeli government. This source only lists two incidents in Hebron, and the Shalhevet Pass article is about an individual (i.e. one person).

Khoikhoi 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is why I say you were mass-reverting. I very much appreciate that you've now acknowledged that you were reverting the population numbers etc. and stated your reasoning, but you should have done so when you first removed the information, or certainly after my numerous protests to that effect, and not insisted that you were not reverting. Had you done so, I would have easily clarified that the sources are in the entries in question (the population of the "Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron" is found in its entry, and the story of Moshe Levinger in his), both of which had wikilinks present in my revision, though you kept removing one of those as well for some reason also unstated.

As for the other edits that you mention, the claim that 25,000+ people left in five years is one that should be sourced to more than a vague comment in a colourful "feature" section, which should be quite simple if it is really accurate; the burden is doubled owing to the extensive search above not finding such evidence. As for qualifying the attacks on the Israeli settlers as only being a position of the Israeli government, I find that absurd, since no dispute surrounds simply recognising that they occurred. I also wish, as in the previous case, that you would have mentioned what your problems with the sources were upfront instead of repeating that the only sources were those of the Israelis, which is not the case. In any event, the text I employed is a faithful paraphrase of the passage in your Haaretz article. Additionally, simple Google searches yield hundreds of articles attesting that these events occurred, though compilations like those provided by the Israelis are hard to come by.

The same holds for the rest of the content which wasn't mentioned on Talk, which I detailed above, which I hope you will also address or stop reverting. In the future, I request that if you do believe information must be removed, you give a reason, and not assume (as I now suppose you must have) that I am mindlessly pushing some POV in bad faith, which my record on WP can attest that I don't do. Tewfik^Talk 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, please read WP:OWN, your behaviour with this article is very strange. Very. Amoruso 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored my version and await a response. Tewfik^Talk 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to change the number to 800, you should've added the sources to the article. However, I see that the references cited in the Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron happen to the Jerusalem Post again. I don't see how it's any more reliable than the BBC, so it would be better to give a range. And I don't even see the number of Jews living in Hebron being mentioned in the Moshe Levinger article. I still don't understand what Wikipedia policy/guideline prohibits the use of general figures (not precise ones). I'm sorry for being repetitive, but you've only continued to cite Israeli sources for your claims on the attacks against Israelis; you've given me a link the Jerusalem Post once again. Khoikhoi 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting after 51 seconds without so much as a response over the last three days is ridiculous. And to suddenly remember now another new reason for your reverts? Take a step back please, and consider that just maybe you aren't 100% correct here. The Jerusalem Post is an RS, and it is from this month, as opposed to the two-year old BBC source. The Levinger entry has sourcing for my changes to that section, while the version you've reverted to doesn't have any sourcing. And I've asked numerous times that you find some corroboration for the Haaretz quote. If no other media make mention of a similar figure, then it is not information we should include. And while we're at it, you again reverted the sourced section about the makeup of the settlers to the previous unsourced version, again, without at all acknowledging it or stating any reason. You should be attempting discussion before reverting. Tewfik^Talk 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous, because if you check my contributions in the last few days, you'll notice that I wasn't active around the time you were awaiting your response:

# 22:32, 28 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m Republic of Ararat (Reverted edits by Maestroka (talk) to last version by Khoikhoi) (top) [rollback]

# 01:09, 28 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi

# 05:09, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

And here's an article dated "18/04/07", which clearly says "Currently, around 600 Israeli settlers live in the heart of the 120,000-150,000 strong Palestinian community in a state of constant friction with their neighbors and, often, with the Israeli army and police." As for Levinger, please give me quotes about what you're specifically talking about, just telling me to see the whole article doesn't help. Khoikhoi 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous that you were away, but that you managed a revert after less than a minute, but didn't manage a response after more than three-hours of activity. As for what you are reverting:

1. A NYT report dated 22/04/07 which says 700. I've not heard before of the source you are using, and I question the fact checking of the single reporter that does all of their ME work. I would have been happy to list a range had you provided current sources before.
2. The Levinger text is on the second page
3. You continue to remove these links [9][10] and the text they support, replacing it with unsourced text.
4. The demographic data for Kiryat Arba is sourced in that entry to the Israeli CBS; please stop replacing that with an unsourced number.
5. Palestinian attacks on the settlers are no one's POV; I already pointed out above that the phrasing is taken out of your source and provided a compilation from an RS. Moving them to after the discussion of Israeli restrictions divorces them from context, for which you need go no further than your source to see.
6. I have requested multiple times a second source that makes the same claim "that only a few thousand Palestinians continue to live" in H2, which has not yet been provided. As such, there is no room for that claim, which is itself based on a vaguely worded sentence in a colourful feature, and not a regular news piece.

As I've preemted by quite specifically pointing out the rationale and sourcing for all of the information I've added (AFAIK), I expect that you will stop mass-reverting. I again would be thrilled to explain anything you like in discussion, but reversion of information as the first response as above ("As for Levinger..."), or because you couldn't find the source etc. is really not okay, and I expect an AGF that they say what I claim unless proven otherwise. Needless to say, you have never given any reason for removing the wikilinks and syntax corrections in my edits, and I hope you'll stop that as well. Tewfik^Talk 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. A CJP article dated 04/11/2007 says 500. So does an article from Haaretz.
2. I don't see anything here that mentions that the Israeli settlers has been subject to stabbings, rounds, etc.
3. Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz.
4. According to The Walrus, “Israel in an ideological project,” said Elyakim Haetzni, a lawyer and a founder of the settlement movement, who vows not to move from his home in Kiryat Arba, a whitewashed town of 6,500 people in the occupied territories.
5. As I said before, all the sources you are citing are Israeli. I could give plenty of Arab sources if I wanted, but you probably would reject them. I see no reason why it should be different the other way around. Again, find third-party sources.
6. The source I cited meets WP:RS because Haaretz goes into the classification of "reliable news media", as mentioned in the policy.

Khoikhoi 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're just going to keep removing sourced information then. I find it interesting that everytime I present sources, you ignore half of them, and misconstrue the other half to suit your desire to keep reverting. You keep claiming that I'm bringing "Israeli sources", and that you could somehow bring some "Arab sources" that I would reject. I respect RS, and were you to bring one, I would respect it. The Jerusalem Post is one such

1. I already agreed on a compromise here once you provided sources (though the source you are citing is DPA, not "Combined Jewish Philanthropies")
2. I said "The Levinger text is on the second page"
3. you say: "Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz." Assuming that was correct, I don't see why you would think that justifies removing [11][12] and the text they support, or replacing it with unsourced text?
4. Are you arguing that this 2006 article is a better source of census data for Israelis than the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics' report for 2007?
5. Why do you keep ignoring that I'm using your own source corroborated by the The Jerusalem Post's compilation as well as the Israeli list and the ADL list? I challenge you to find an RS, "Arab" or otherwise, that says these events did not happen. These are undisputed events which can be individually verified to any source you want.
6. So your RS then cannot make an error? How would you respond to me making a major claim based on a vaguely worded source, and refusing to find any corroboration for it. I've been asking for weeks that you find another RS that makes that claim, and you have yet to produce one. I've already mentioned that ATT demands multiple RS, not just one, especially in 'politically charged' issues.

In the single case where you supplied a counter-reference, I immediately altered the text (Hebron settler population). There is no reason for you to keep reverting sourced information because you read the wrong link, or as a punitive measure, especially since I've explained every edit in depth and am willing to clarify any other point. Tewfik^Talk 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik^Talk 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're removing sourced information as well. I find it interesting that you decide to cherry-pick which sources you want, and delete the ones that don't agree with your POV. I've been asking you again and again to bring third-party soruces, which doesn't include the Jerusalem Post or the Israeli government website.

1. The DPA seems to be a reliable source to me. What's wrong with it?
2. Are you talking about the sentence, "and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city"?
3. It justifies it because you keep removing my sources despite the fact that they pass WP:RS.
4. We can change that then, as long as you cite it in the article.
5. See my comment above about third-party sources.
6. It's not up to us to determine whether it's wrong or correct, it's just our job to report what reliable sources say. See WP:V. The "truth" is irrelevant.

Khoikhoi 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can Aljazeera be a reliable source, because two days ago they aired a report that said there was 400 Jews living in Hebron, and Aljazeera is a reliable and famous Network after all. May 24th.

Origins of Hebron

The Southern hill fortress of Hebron has been a stronghold of the Hebrew since ancient times. The name itself translates to Hebr-on, city of the Hebr (Hebrews). The legendary Anakim who dwelt at Hebron may reflect a myth attributed to the Canaanite Hyksos Dynasty which ruled the area between 1700 and 1500 BC. The Anakim chieftan Sheshai, is identical to the Hyksos prince "Sheshi" who ruled c. 1600 BC. --71.215.155.5 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could point us to some sourcing for that, we would be glad to incorporate it. Tewfik^Talk 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Current issues on the page

Could one or other of the opposing sides here please outline the most significant area of disagreement or issue between the two versions, and state what the two opposing views are? I'm sure we can solve all these issues if we tackle them one at a time. What is the first area of disagreement? One issue only please. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, an outstanding issue at this point is the continued removal of these references and the statement they source (Before long this received Israeli government approval and a further three Jewish enclaves in the city were established with army assistance, and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city) and its replacement with an unsourced statement which relates less directly to the city (This process of expansion of the Jewish presence is continuing and there are now more than 20 Jewish settlements in and around the city.). The solitary rationale presented for the removal was Yes, and you continue to remove the links to Haaretz. Tewfik^Talk 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems straightforward enough. Are there any objections to replacing

• This process of expansion of the Jewish presence is continuing and there are now more than 20 Jewish settlements in and around the city.

with

• Before long this received Israeli government approval and a further three Jewish enclaves in the city were established with army assistance, and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city.

Please state the specific objections, if there are any. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing that sentence. Khoikhoi 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another issue then: "Rabbi Moshe Levinger rented out the main hotel in Hebron, and then refused to leave." is continually replaced with the unsourced (and over-linked) "Rabbi Moshe Levinger, took over the main hotel in Hebron and refused to leave.", despite the source I presented multiple times saying He rented rooms in an Arab hotel, in order to hold a Passover Seder. Then he refused to leave.. There has been no reason stated for this removal. Tewfik^Talk 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to agree with either claim. Why not just say what the source says? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. According to The Link:

Kiryat Arba was founded by Rabbi Moshe Levinger and his wife, Miriam. In 1968, the rabbi and a band of armed cronies, posing as Swiss tourists, took over the only hotel in Hebron and stated that they did not intend to leave. To appease them, the army gave them an abandoned military camp on the outskirts of Hebron. [13]

Khoikhoi 04:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The source says "He rented rooms in an Arab hotel, in order to hold a Passover Seder. Then he refused to leave." I agree with putting that in, if that is what you are saying. The source just presented by Khoikhoi seems to take a partisan line ("cronies") and is written by a member of a Christian Peacemaker Team, while the former is an article in The New Yorker. Tewfik^Talk 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The AMEU source does not seem particularly neutral or reliable; on the contrary, it is highly partisan. Note, for example, the use of the phrase "armied cronies" in this particular article. The New Yorker source is much better; the latter should be used, and the former not used. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's another source similar to The New Yorker:

Israeli governments have a record of yielding to the settlers. Labor caved in when Moshe Levinger, in 1968, took over the Park Hotel in Hebron; it then permitted him and his followers to establish Kiryat Arba overlooking Hebron. [14]

Khoikhoi 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"CHALLENGE is a leftist magazine focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a global context." That is not similar to The New Yorker. Not that it matters, but the assertion that Levinger rented the building is further implied by the whole line about "Swiss tourists", and is not at odds with the later refusal to leave, which seems to me to be what is referred to in your sources by the "taken over". (Note: I am shortening the quotation you supplied to just the relevant line in the interest of keeping the conversation easy to follow.) Tewfik^Talk 05:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Making an assumption like that would be original research, woudln't it? I know you have sources for your claim, but so do I. Maybe we should include both per WP:V. Khoikhoi 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that the assumption of "no contradiction" was only tangential. What was important was that Challenge is little known self-described partisan, while The New Yorker is a mainstream RS. Tewfik^Talk 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge is a little-known partisan magazine with a specific agenda; The New Yorker is a well-known highly respected magazine, which tends to hew towards the center on issues. The New Yorker is the only reliable source used so far; it should be relied on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the British mandate

current version:

In December 1917 and during World War I, the British occupied Hebron. In 1929, following disturbances in Jerusalem between members of Vladimir Jabotinsky's Betar movement and Arabs incited by the Mufti of Jerusalem, some Arab Hebronites returned, assisted by many others from the countrside, and conducted a pogrom among Hebron's ancient Jewish community, in what was to become known as the infamous 1929 Hebron massacre, in which according to many sources 67 Jews were killed and according to others 59 , three of them American yeshiva students and 60 wounded. In addition, Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked. The Jewish community had heeded the British administration's guarantee to protect them if they refrained from provoking the Arabs, instead of accepting the offer of the Jewish self-defence league in Jerusalem for armed assistence in the case of an Arab assault. Many of those who survived, however, avoided the murderous rampage thanks to the interventions of some of their Arab neighbours Two years later, 35 families moved back into the ruins of the Jewish quarter, but after further riots, the British Government decided to move all Jews out of Hebron to prevent another massacre Hebron remained as a part of the British mandate until 1948.

prev. shorter version:

In December 1917 and during World War I, the British occupied Hebron. In 1929, following disturbances in Jerusalem between members of Vladimir Jabotinsky's Betar movement and Arabs incited by the Mufti of Jerusalem, some Arab Hebronites returned, assisted by many others from the countrside, and conducted a pogrom among Hebron's ancient Jewish community, in what was to become known as the infamous 1929 Hebron massacre, in which 67 Jews were killed and 60 wounded. In addition, Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked. Two years later, 35 families moved back into the ruins of the Jewish quarter, but after further riots, the British Government decided to move all Jews out of Hebron to prevent another massacre Hebron remained as a part of the British mandate until 1948.

talk

1. current version seems a bit unintelligible for smooth reading/legibility.
2. i can understand where the issue of a few sources that testify to a different number of casualties pose a problem for this paragraph, however, best i'm aware - apart from a couple of "new historians", the consensus is that the casualty number was at 66 or 67... - in any event, a dispute such as this should be brought up on the 1929 massacre page (with all the references) rather than on the subsection of "hebron under the british mandate".
3. the paragraph suggesting the jews in hebron of 1929 harrassed the local population seems tendeous and not well refrenced, esp. considering the note that the riots had their root start after friday sermons.. this, like the rest should be noted on the 1929 massacre article rather than on the stub "under the mandate cat.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Most accounts of massacres give background, which I provided when I first came across this article. As to the figures, figures are important. I could cite a dozen sources on this. Gilbert is not a 'new historian', but rather a scholar in the traditional, highly empirical mode. No theory - just the relevant flow of verifiable facts and data in their proper sequence.If you put it under 'Hebron under the British Mandate" lower down, while retaining 67 at the top, the article will look amateurish, and sloppily edited. An article on such a tragic pogrom should honour its victims by the delicate lucidity of its precise quest for the truth. I have put the difference over numbers on the page for a good reason - most readers won't read the talk page - they read the article, and some of them may be able to clarify this point, which, I believe, does require clarification. History involves interpretation, but with regard to simple data, the facts should be ascertained. They are not opinionable.

1. I am not aware of any innuendo in the piece as it stands, certainly in nothing I contributed, implying, untruthfully, that the Jewish population of Hebron 'harassed' the local population. If you can point out where 'harassment' is implied, we'll fix it. What I did do was indicate that the Haganah offered, in anticipation of possible assaults, armed assistence, which was, perhaps foolhardily, rejected.

1. As to style, de gustibus. But many of my edits are purely stylistic (the word 'harangue' of the Jewish elder's approach to the British authorities in Hebron, for example, sounds to my ears as a harsh expression, and possibly insinuating a certain lack of 'dignity'. It means normally to subject someone to a vehement tirade. If you check the longer OED you will see that the neutral meaning is rather old. Harangue has pejorative connotations, at least to English ears.)

RegardsNishidani 15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version links to 1929 Hebron Massacre, which has extensive detail, including reference from the relevant primary sources. In general we try to keep the detail on the main entries, because once one or two get brought across, neutrality would often dictate that far more appear. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this before my edit. Give me time to reconsider. The material I introduced to the Hebron page wasn't on the Hebron Massacre site. Perhaps it could be placed there, but people there have objected to one of my sources, I think irrationally. On reflection, it could go to the Massacre site, as you suggest. I'll adjust myself tomorrow.

Could I add a suggestion? The ancient history side is very thin. I should think several out there could provide the site with a detailed history of Hebron in the Bible, which at the moment is sorely missed. Regards Nishidani 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an excellent suggestion. The material would be "a natural" here and is, as you say, sorely missed. I look forward to reading such an addition. Hertz1888 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles in general, and polemic political works by linguists are not considered reliable sources for history. Any edits using these sources (or sourced with "fact" tags) will simply be reverted from hereon in, and if any of the edit summaries refer to "censorship" again, they will be reverted using admin rollback. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note and in reply to the above, part of the material you are adding is covered on 1929 Hebron massacre, and part of it on its parent article, 1929 Palestine riots. Selecting some details from the most general entry about events in a different place violates our policies on neutrality. Regarding the biblical information, you are right that this is a natural place, but on the other hand we must be careful about not presenting specific interpretations of the text as objective understanding, or of including too much of what is just one source, however significant for various religions. Tewfik^Talk 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg. The wikisourcing can happily be omitted. I accepted, once notified, that a cross-reference to the Hebron Massacre page was unaceptable. What I did not accept was the elimination also, along with that inappropriate source, of an appropriate one from Chomsky. It is, I repeat, your personal judgement that Chomsky, an MIT professor, Jewish linguist and native speaker of Hebrew, who thoroughly documents his opinions by meticulous sourcing to Jewish scholarship and Hebrew newspapers and historical works, with a dozen books on the Middle East to his credit, is an 'unreliable source'. It is not the consensual opinion, with regard to his work on Israel-Palestinian affairs, of other area specialists. By all means automatically take out the Hebron Massacre cross-reference, if it pops up. But your call on Chomsky is personal, not objective. Your remark 'polemic political works by linguists' are not considered reliable sources for history is wrong on several counts. (1) If you believe this, go and fix up the citations from Milstein at the Deir Yassin page. Chomsky is formerly a 'linguist', but he is also an historian. No one I know finds his 'Peace in the Middle East?' (1969,1974), for example, 'political' or 'polemical'. By the criteria you seem to employ, no partisan historian, from Benni Morris to Crevald can be cited in Wikipedia. By a similar reasoning, much of the Bible account of history cannot be cited because it is regarded widely by scholars of different persuasions as skewed towards an exclusively judaeocentric interpretation of that area of the Middle East.

Dear Tewfik (a name that fondly reminds me of my father's wartime passage through the port of that name). I put in the name Slonim because it wasn't covered elsewhere. I fail to see why mention of the names of one Jewish family in whose house the worst slaughter occurred, something ignored elsewhere, is inappropriate to a history of Hebron. This cannot be construed as a 'violation of neutrality', since the veracity of the detail added is not contested, being taken from an eyewitness report.

You write (2)'we must be careful about not presenting specific interpretations of the text as objective understanding, or of including too much of what is just one source, however significant for various religions.' I agree. The article a month ago was written almost exclusively in terms of what has been the Jewish traditions associated with Hebron. My adjustments began with this state of affairs. It is not an index of neutrality to write of Hebron from the perspective of the traditions revered by 5% of its present population. The other 95% were mentioned almost exclusively in terms of terroristic acts. Nothing of the cultural history, the customary life and festivals (The Gaza historian Sozomenos mentions the 'terebinth' festival, for example. Does that survive?) of the Arabs in the city has been mentioned. Arabic sources are only cited for the light they throw on the Jewish community. This is, I'm sure you will agree, a lopsided situation.

Apropos my edit:

I have reverted while accepting some changes,, for the following reasons. The changes in the order of the text break chronological sequence, without explaining why one should write the history hysteron proteron.

(1) It is considered by Jews a holy city (correct). Since 166,000 Arab inhabitants also have a view about the city, the balancing remark about them viewing it as a an outpost of Jewish colonization is required. (2) Bedouin requires upper case not ‘bedouin’) as you insist. See relevant Wiki link article. The lower case is demeaning. (3) 1834 that must be kept in because links or references holp the reader contextualize the event within other pogroms of the period in Arab lands, for example that of Damascus. (4) On the massacre 1929, the text you give asserts an historically contested figure. I see no grounds for contesting on the Deir Yassin page, the opening para. which quotes both figures, those of a ‘consesnsus’ and those of Milstein. I am consistent on this, those who insist on one date here are not. (5) The 58 synagogues destroyed refers to the whole of the West Bank, not to Hebron. One might as well cite here the fact that in the last 60 years (Meron Benveniste) 2000 Arab villages have been bulldozed, along with mosques, and been renamed with Jewish nomenclature. This is a page on Hebron. Detailed references to exactly what the Arab population did to Jewish sites is welcome, but tendentious confusion of Hebron with the whole of the West Bank only generates futile text duels (6) I find The change in resiting Lustik is incomprehensible. That event occurred immediately after the 1967 war, and should be kept there, not posted much further down below, something which creates a confusing page. (7) Palestinians/Palestinian terrorists. If ‘terrorist’ is to stand here, then one must introduce ‘Jewish terrorist’ for Baruch Goldstein . If anyone prefers ‘Palestinian terrorist’, then NPOV rules oblige him/her to use the same designation of Baruch Goldstein. I prefer to omit ‘Palestinian terrorist’. Note that I did not then rush to brand Baruch Goldstein a terrorist. Any other solution involves POV problems. (8) ‘before the mob overtook and killed him’. ‘Mob’ is a correct term for the mass of Palestinians who slaughtered Jews in 1929. It is not an appropriate term, being strongly derogative, of survivors of a massacre turning on their assailant. Ian Lustik, whose authority no one contests, suggests the proper words nfor such a spontaneous lynching of a killer as ‘outraged survivors’. That is objective, and the point is sourced reliably.Regards Nishidani 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Chomsky is a linguist who also writes polemical political works. He is not a reliable source when it comes to history, particularly that of one of the favorite objects of his ire, Israel. Please take me very seriously when I say that if I see any claims attributed to Chomsky in this article in the future, I will revert all edits made. Find reliable historians for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the same points which I raised above about selecting some details from events covered at length in their own, neutral and consensus-based entries still hold. And please stop the extensive quotations from scripture, especially adding interpretations which while not controversial, are not an objective representation of the material either, as well as removing the description of "militant". The rest of your issues seem to stem from a lack of familiarity with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Tewfik^Talk 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: You repeat like a mantra the phrase 'linguist who also writes polemical political works'. You ask me to take you seriously, I ask you to take, not me, seriously by the work of historical reconstruction seriously. I don't know what degree of training you have in history, I have no evidence you have even read anything on the topic under discussion.The proper thing to do, surely, for a reasonable editor is not to reject the information proffered, from a source you dislike, but to at the most, remove the source quoted and replace it with 'citation needed'. I repeat, your threat to erase whatever I post, and I humbly suggest that what I have and will post here is mostly cultural and historical, not political, is an irrational use for force, to force a silly revert war. It is irrational because exactly what Chomsky says in the book referred to is repeated by Shira Schoenberg's article on the massacre in the Jewish Virtual Library. 'Nineteen Arab families saved dozens, maybe even hundreds of Jews. Zmira Mani wrote about an Arab named Abu Id Zaitoun who brought his bro ther and son to rescue her and her family.' Other sources, which I shall presently give, (all you have to do is post 'citation required') corroborate everything else you protest at in Chomsky's reference. Your threat is one that will block the site, and impoverish it. It is not motivated by anything I can see in wiki policy. If you can refer me to editorial judgements shared on the wiki board about Chomsky as an unreliable source, I would appreciate it. RegardsNishidani 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. the insistance on eliminating all reference to '59' while retaining the citation, serves what purpose?

Tewfik. I fail to understand why Scripture is not to be cited on Hebron, when it is one of the major sources for it? I haven't quoted extensively from Scripture, I have paraphrased it. I would ask you both at this point to refer the disagreement to a neutral wiki editor to clarify where and if I have violated wiki policy. I have read, after each indication, the relevant protocols, and do not understand why they are cited against what I write. It is, above all, extremely easy to 'undo' 'erase' 'revert'. This site needs collaborative composition, not incessant and, I think, spurious nitpicking to impede the formation of a quality article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 July 2007

I didn't say that scripture had no place, but that we are crossing the line to too much (combined with the interpretations being added). The main problem, which I've pointed out thrice, is the insertion of details regarding the 1929 Hebron massacre and 1929 Palestine riots in place of the brief summary. As I said above, the rest of your differences seem to regard style, which is why I referred you to the Manual of style. Tewfik^Talk 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. The objection over 1929 is then dislike of details. Let's discuss that. The rest is stylistic, and it's fine by me. Let's discuss it. I wrote quickly and no doubt make a few orthographic errors, but to my feel for the language, I also rightly correctly several clumsy things. A delicate point, for instance. Three times, the phrase 'the most holy site' in two paragraphs, is clumsy. If you object to my detail on the massacre, I object to the retention of three repetitions of the same information. (2)I do not see how you can restore Palestinian 'terrorist' while not using the word 'terrorist' for Baruch Goldstein. One can't have one's cake and eat it too. Either we take away 'terrorist' from the former, which I prefer, or, retaining it, we apply it to the passage describing Goldstein. This is a matter of technical, moral and judgemental coherence. Give me your considerations on this issue.

I have removed the seal link because (1) After the 11th century date for Hebrew writing was challenged in Hebron, a link then replaced it, with a text citing the 7th century (2) the link, if followed, points to another wiki site. (3) When one clicks on 'Hebron' under that seal page, one gets the Hebron page here, which means it has a zero utility, is circular, and also violates wiki policy, as I have been told several times. What we need is solid references to the actual field find.Nishidani 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your misrepresenting the edit - the word you are removing is the neutral "militant". And yes, I don't like replacing a neutral summary with a content fork of information extant in a consensus and neutral version. As you are on your fifth revert in 24 hours, I highly suggest you self-revert. As you are new and might not be aware of the rule, I've informed you explicitly, but you could be blocked if you revert again. Tewfik^Talk 17:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I was totally unaware of this. I won't touch the text for the next 24 hours then. Sorry, about 'militant'. I thought the text was 'terrorist', as unless my brain cells are fused it used to be. My apologies.

ps. To anyone who thinks it is intelligent to work under these conditions, the 18th century date for Abraham at Hebron is highly problematical, because it does not fit into Hittite chronology. There are many academic debates on this. But the date itself as it is, is stupid. It is not an historical date, but one of several dates one obtains by internal biblical reckoning, each producing difficulties when one endeavours to fit the chosen date with external chronological evidence from the several relevant circumambient empires. There are about a hundred things like that which require adjustment and qualification. But until the passion for challenging other people's edits prove less seductive than actually reading up technically and historically on the topic under discussion, evidently, it is a futile waste of time trying to correct the jerry-built pseuds' corner consensuses that appear to prevail on wikipedia's many non scientific pages. It's a shame too that nothing is said of Hebron's Ishaq al-Shami here. The heavy silences outweigh the less than voluble facts. The thugs of Kiryat Arba have this game skun, as they say in the AntipodesNishidani 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nishandani, it's rather bizarre to insert material into an article along with "citation needed" tag. Put in material from reliable sources, don't just insert it on the hope that some reliable source might be found some day. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg re bizarre practices

Jayjg.

I gather you’ve done 28,000 edits, and thus I infer from recent cases that fatigue gets the better of your judgements. Correct me if I err in what follows. You, I believe, unless it was Tewfik, told me not to source information from other wiki pages. I therefore removed the cross-citation. In doing so I noticed that another cross-wiki reference existed on the page, regarding the seals. I therefore dutifully removed it, applying the rule you taught me, and replaced it with ‘citation needed’, because I have no doubt that the seals alluded to exist, but the reference to them must, according to this rule, be sourced from some documentation. Therefore, when you write:-

Put in material from reliable sources, don't just insert it on the hope that some reliable source might be found some day.

You misunderstand the adjustment. I am not obliged to put in material for reliable sources in regard to the seals, but the person who posted that link is required to do so. So check back, find who put it in improperly, and take up your advice to him about 'bizarre' practices, not to me. If you don’t do so, I will interpret it as another example of using double standards. p.s.I hope you can take time out to dedicate a moment to checking note 5, the Jewish Virtual Library article on Hebron, cited here to document two claims (1) that Hebron is regarded by the government of Israel as part of 'Greater Israel' and (2) that the combined Jewish population is 'approximately 7,000 Israelis'. Regards 'Nishandani' or, as I prefer,Nishidani 18:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I've made far more than 28,000 edits. Second, it is you who err; anyone who inserts material into an article must be prepared to provide reliable sources supporting it. If you insert it, then you become responsible for sourcing it. Third, please comment on article content, not other editors, per WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not read what I wrote. I did not insert the material into an article. I removed material from an article that was improperly sourced. The insertion I made, in respect for the poster who made the false link, was simply the courtesy reminder of 'citation required'. Since you are not particularly civil, in this regard (note the insistance, here and elsewhere, on mispelling my username), I suggest you repeat the suggestion when you shave in a morning, i.e., to a mirror.Nishidani 23:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read your post. Regarding your username, please assume good faith; if I have mispelled it, it was an innocent error, not some dastardly plan. Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Abraham's date

I am not happy with the change I made, but some change to the earlier text's assurance,i.e.,

'as existing during the 18th century BCE, the traditional date associated with Abraham's purchase of land there from the Hittites'

is clearly required, since calculations on Abraham's dates vary within 'traditional' datation based on internal reckoning of the Bible's narrative (a thumbnail sketch of this crux is available on the Abraham page). It's not the place to complicate the text with detailed ruminations on this issue, evidently, but the 18th century BCE as 'the traditional date' requires at least a citation. No external help from the mention of בני-חת/either, since that could refer to either Hatti (technically much later =Hivites) or Hittites, the Hatti help a date synchronous with the higher (2100-1900 BCE) date, the Hittites (see as already long present, pressing the date past 18th-17th.century. I myself would welcome suggestions as to the proper phrasing required, to avoid being entangled in speculations. Either that or a need citation on some recent text discussing the issue with up-to-date technical detailsNishidani 21:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I excised.

“During this period, Muslims converted the Byzantine church at the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs into a mosque.’

Because it needlessly reduplicates the preceding:

“converted the Byzantine church at the site of Abraham's tomb into a mosque.’’Nishidani 10:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be resolved

I removed your edits in part (not all) for several reasons. The last I removed runs as follows:-

'The IMFA reports that in the span of three and a half months, since the signing of the Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993 and up to the end of that year, there have been 14 fatal by Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel, 7 of them at the West Bank.'

I removed this, apart from the error 'there have been fourteen fatal . (what?)', because it is a statistic about 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, and 7 in the Occupied territories of the West Bank. One can throw in a huge amount of material like this on the 'general situation' but it is not material to a wiki article dedicated to the city of Hebron.Its presence only generates further counter material from B'tselem, Amnesty and United Nations reports comparing the 1,551 Palestinians killed in incidents from 1987-2000, including post Oslo Accords, versus the 422 Israeli deaths. Nothing of this kind of material throws light on the specific history of Hebron at that time. And therefore I have edited it out. If you insist on this, I will be forced to post a link to the entire register of settler harassment and intimidation of Hebron Arabs, land confiscations etc.,from 1996-2007, which far outweighs any documentation I am familiar with of Hebron Arab harassment of Israeli denizens in the area. This is something I haven't yet done, because I do not want to be provocative. But the record must show balance for each side, with great precision, and on this element of balance I hope you will concur in discussing eventual adjustments.

A second point, you removed the word 'suspected' defining Islamic Jihadist' from the text, when the reference source uses precisely that adjective. If you find I misrepresent the sources, fine, but please don't edit out language you dislike when it comes from a reliable source. I am amenable to discussing everything you think requires adjustment, before we alter the text. Nishidani 15:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) the information precedes the baruch golstein attack and puts it in proper context as to the oslo agreements and the following violence.

(2) there is no "suspicion" about the group he's affiliated with, and this is evident even with the pro-palestinian source that calls him "activist".

(3) this may be a bit straight forward, but i've readmitted this info. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. I put you on notice as having severely damaged the reference lists on the page. As far as I can discern, the mess in the citation system occurred when my contribution:

10:07, 29 July 2007 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (34,931 bytes) (→Medieval period - Eliminated a textual reduplication, see Talk) (undo)

was edited by yourself =

13:57, 29 July 2007 Jaakobou (Talk | contribs) (35,310 bytes) (→Post Oslo Accord - - chronology, sorting, and removing blog ref.) (undo)

This last post makes all references after no.29 unintelligible. Therefore I suggest reverting to the preceding page, and then, via discussion, modifying it to update the page.

(2) I know you insist for the 4th time on reverting Goldstein to Golstein, your idiosyncratic spelling, but both Hertz and have had to correct it. Don't mess it up again, please.

(3) The cited source says 'suspected'. You have no right to change the source. Quote another source that says differently by all means.

Fix the damage your editing created, please

(4) You write, on the passage introducing terrorism in Israel and territories after the Oslo accord, a passage I eliminated because it is not material to the history of Hebron (put it on the Goldstein massacre page if you like), you write in defence as follows:-

'the information precedes the baruch golstein attack and puts it in proper context as to the oslo agreements and the following violence.

I hope you are aware that in English this means that you are trying to insinuate that Goldstein's massacre was, properly, a response to terrorist acts elsewhere, i.e. he murdered indiscriminately innocent civilians at prayer in Hebron to avenge terrorist assaults conducted by outsiders, elsewhere?. What his motivations were is immaterial to a history of Hebron. Keep it off, or I will keep striking it out.Nishidani 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hertz. On a point of consistency. The little Jewish girl killed by Palestinian terrorists has a link, and is included in 'notable people'. I put the linking in because, in terms of parity, one victim deserves as much space as the other in this horrible chain of violence. Note that Zedakah ben Shomron is linked, but has no follow up page. Isn't this inconsistent?

- short response: by no means do i justify goldstein's heinous attack, however - a timeline of attacks simply puts his actions, and the actions of others into context. personally, i'm guessing he was not evil, but only blew a fuse and did a horrible horrible act... but that's a POV, and who knows, perhaps he was a racist bad person to his core and his actions had nothing to do with the surrounding events. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

violence.

there seems to be an objection to the text about the 7 fatal terrorist attacks (in three months) in the West Bank, near Hebron to precede the baruch goldstein text, personally, i think it's a very (1) important part of the "post-oslo-violence" and by all means (2) precedes the heinous goldstein attack chronologically. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That passage makes no sense. It mentions the number of Palestinian attacks from the West Bank since 1993, and then, sophomorically states ['oh, the reason this is being mentioned is because that's...'] "where Hebron is." Where is the logic? El_C 09:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

very well, i'll rephrase it when the 3RR thing is over to be better connected to hebron than the way it was phrased before. to be honest, i think that a complete removal is harsh and could be regarded as blanking due to the removal of hebron related encyclopedic material, regardless of the confusing phrasing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You should have rephrased it after my 1st rvt, and you can regard the removal of that sentence any way you wish, but encyclopedic it was not. El_C 10:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Review of text

The text as it now stands needs reviewing point by point, in my view. I hope others will join me in this. The first problem:-

((Note 1) Lines 5-7. “another 7,000 Israelis live in the suburb of Kiryat Arba on the outskirts of Hebron.[1]”

which should refer to demographics, refers us instead to a BBC article dated March 7,2005 on the shooting of two Israeli soldiers. That article speaks incidentally of 600 Jewish settlers, and 120,000 Palestinians, both figures are outdated. The Palestinian figure of 166,000 has been sourced. The figure of 600-800 hundred settlers in the Center of Hebron is not sourced. The figure of 7000 for Kiryat Arba is not sourced, and exceeds by 1,000 the last figure for that suburb’s population I am familiar with.

Conclusion. The note is irrelevant and should be removed. I will if no one else does. It should be replaced either with an updated source on recent demographics, or a ‘citation needed’ under the figures for the inner city settlers (600-800) and the Kiryat Arba figure(7000) _{the previous unsigned text was written by User:Nishidani at 09:54, 30 July 2007 [15]}

i tend to agree, this reference is not very good. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) Jaakobou and others. I have noted a discrepancy between the Palestinian population in para 1 (166,000) and that in the historical demographic table (130,000). The figure of 166,000 was introduced by 15:17, 18 July 2007 Al Ameer son (Talk | contribs) (32,409 bytes) (undo) Compare the previous post = (cur) (last) 06:40, 18 July 2007 Tewfik (Talk | contribs) (35,319 bytes) (rmv material violating WP:V & WP:Undue; cleanup & wfy) (undo)

Therefore, the 166,000 figure needs a citation as well. If correct, updating the statistic of 10 years earlier previously listed, then the demographic table below, with the figure of 130,000 must also be adjusted and updated. If not, we'll have to go back to the last reliable census (1997)

(3) I have eliminated this passage because (1) Kiryat Arba has already been mentioned, as well as its putative population. (2) Secondly, the link (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vie/Hebron.html) supplied to back the claim that Kiryat Arba 'is considered by Israel to be a part of "greater Hebron", says nothing of the sort.

I would appreciate discussion on this before any moves to restore the text as it stands. Nishidani 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(4) I have intervened on the following passage:-

"In 1998, during archeological excavations conducted at Tel Hebron, called Tel Rumeida or Hirbe al Yahud (ruin of the Jews) in the local Arabic patois, jar handle stamps bearing Hebrew letters dating from 700 BCE, the oldest known inscription naming the city, have been found in Hebron (see LMLK seal)."

There were three problems here. (a) 'Tel Hebron' was highlighted for an eventual link, though a search indicated that this was a name in use only within settler circles. Other non-functional links which I made, of two Arab children, were eliminated, and if this is the rule, it applied also to Tel Hebron. The traditional name for the site excavated as far back as the 1960s is the Arab one. To place 'Tel Hebron'(not italicized), a neologistic toponym peculiar to Kiryat Arba, in front of the standard toponym Tel Rumeida (italicized), lends a partial, and I would argue, partisan note, to the page. (b) One could also question as dubious the citation of the Hirbe al Yahud expression in the Hebronite patois as inconsiderate and question-begging. But I, at least, think it can be retained. (c) I have long complained that a link I made to another wiki page was studiously erased several times on the grounds of Wiki policy forbidding that procedure. I noted the LMLK seal violated the rule, but for this, an exception was made by other editors and administrators, on what grounds I do not know. I have found, on a Kiryat Arba webpage, a set of clear photographs of some of these seals. Since the page is a source external to wiki, it fits the above rule, and citing it restores coherence to the policy to be applied here. Nishidani 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All Israeli municipality figures on Wikipedia are sourced to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics numbers; the other issues you seem to have are also sourced on their entries. Please stop removing the LMLK link and inserting commentary that is not about Hebron. Also, the extensive passages on observers constitute undue weight...some of the other things you mention like the 'Hebronite patois' were introduced by yourself. Tewfik^Talk 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You have made massive textual changes throughout the page without motivating most of them. I will deal only with those you allude to.

(1) Whoever wants those figures to stand ought document it with a reliable source. It was sourced originally to a BBC article, which said no such thing. I removed it, and Jaacobou agreed that there was something wrong with the source.

Since when is the entire city of Hebron an Israeli municipality? Since when does the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics document that it does not know prercisely how many settlers are in central Hebron (600-800, a variation of 25%)? Perhaps the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics has the appropriate data. Link it then, to that source, and not to a Wiki page which says no such thing. It is no use you asking me to take your private word or assurance for it. All you have provided is a link to another Wiki page on the 'Israel Central Bureau of Statistics', and that is meaningless.

(2)-the other issues you seem to have (? where is the verb?) are also sourced on their entries'

I have shown, documented and proved that the sources were incorrect.

(3) The seal link is to another Wiki page. To quote Jayjg (1929 Hebron massacre):

'Hi. Please be aware that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes; among other things, they can change from moment to moment. Also, please find reliable sources from historians, not polemical political writers for your claims. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)'

By insisting on restoring the seal ref. to a wiki page you violate the rule Jayjg cited here. I kept the evidence and simply provided an extra-Wiki source, a clearer one, for the same material. If you have any problems with this take it up with Jayjg, not with me.

Note 1 which you restore, was a BBC article on 2 soldiers being shot, used earlier to support the statistics.

'Please stop . . inserting commentary that is not about Hebron.'

I haven't done so. If I have be specific and point out where, according to you, I have inserted comment not about Hebron.

'some of the other things you mention like the 'Hebronite patois' were introduced by yourself. "

I didn't 'introduce' this passage. I modified the section written by others which had a derogatory insinuation about Palestinian Hebronites' attitudes to Jews (unsourced by the way). Why an ostensible idiom in Hebronite Arabic about hirbe al yahud is an appropriate gloss on Tel Rumeida escapes me. By all means remove the whole phrase. I think it is irrelevant, but so far I have let it stand.

'the extensive passages on observers constitute undue weight'

Cite whatever you think violates the rule, and we can decide to remove it or achieve balance. I am unaware of what you are alluding to. On my calculation 90% of articles linking to Hebron events are sourced from newspaper articles written by outside observers, Israeli and otherwise.

We are discussing the lead in to the article: the Wiki guide says:-

'The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. '

This affects the double citation of Kiryat Arba in the lead paragraph, which also violate 'undue weight':

(a)'another 7,000 Israelis live in the suburb of Kiryat Arba on the outskirts of Hebron.'

(b) 'Also located near Hebron is the urban Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, which is home to approximately 7,000 Israelis and is considered by Israel to be a part of "greater Hebron".[4]'

This is repetitive, gives undue weight,and violates the lead guideline.

Secondly, note 4, I repeat for the third time, sources the Jewish Virtual Library article on Hebron to substantiate the claim that Kiryat Arba 'is considered by Israel to be part of great Hebron. That article simply states-

'Kiryat Arba is the name of a suburb of Hebron, five minutes from the Cave of Machpelah and the heart of the city. Established in 1971, Kiryat Arba was the first renewed Jewish community in Judea and Samaria. Today, Kiryat Arba is home to more than 6,000 Jews who have a reputation for being among the most zealous defenders of the idea that Jews have a right to live in the West Bank. The town has educational institutions from pre-nursery school through post-High school, modern medical facilities, shopping centers, a bank and post office.

There is, I repeat, no mention of it being considered part of greater Hebron, whatever that means.

On these grounds therefore I will revert. You are obliged, as I and everyone else in here is, not to be generic, or arbitrary, or vague, but to document and argue your claims point by point. Your alterations did not respond to my prior documented and argued reasons for making the alterations I did, as courtesy would require Nishidani 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts: (a) Kiryat Arba has been mentioned in the lead following a series of discussions in the past. Do not remove it again please. (b) The West Bank is not Palestinian, and therefore inaccurate. What other wikipedians projects have written is of course irrelevant. Cheers, Amoruso 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

fund-raising

Hertz The Jerusalem Post articles, on p.2 says:

"There seems to be an apparent contradiction between the US policy, which says that US taxpayer funds should not be funding settlement activity, and the fact that funds donated to these organizations are tax deductible, which amounts to a de facto tax payer subsidy," said Lara Friedman, government relations director of Americans for Peace Now."

The words you take as POV pushing were a paraphrase of words used in this article. The point of citing Arafat's theft of reconstruction funds, its POV, is quite obvious in an article on Hebron. I did not challenge it - one could cite many worse things about the Arab Palestrinian administration of the city, and source them reliably - (even though what this has to do with the history of Hebron is belond me - Remember 90% of the article is about the Jewish history of Hebron, while the city of that name is the district capital of the Hebron Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority, and the population is overwhelmingly Arab, and if I raise this, which hitherto I haven't and don't care to, then issues of undue weight) would emerge.

The passage, which I will now reedit, balances the earlier passage of Arafat (I'd prefer both were omitted) about abuse of funding for the city. It is not inserted as POV, but as a balance to the useless passage preceding it.Nishidani 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Nishidani. Citing an article quoting an opinion, and using "shoulds" or "should nots" in the main text, amounts to editorializing, on the face of it; that's what I reacted to. At least in rephrasing you left out the should not part. What a strange policy, if it requires such a "balance" to the Arafat theft report. What has the one to do with the other? At least the U.S. funds are reaching those they are intended to help. More of a contrast than an equivalent. I certainly would not object to omitting both passages. Hertz1888 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hertz1888. I dislike the policy of 'balancing' (it may be necessary for Wikipedia, but no practiced historian does this). It comes of my general tendency not to edit out what others write that I see as subtle POV, but mediate, usually by expanding.

Arafat's pocketing money is theft, malapropriation. Using tax-deductible funds collected in the US for developing settlements on the West Bank is a violation of several official US policies. We can go into the details if you like. I think the Arafat passage neither here nor there, and POV, and I dislike wasting time better spent on the historical side of this page, which is far more interesting than what we have here so far. But I think if that sort of comment is allowed, then some comment on the fact that funds earmarked for Kiryat Arba from US charities constitute a violation of US law is also appropriate.

The sensible thing, as you suggest too, would be to excise both passages. I'd much rather see material on the terebinth ritual, or the folklore about Adam being buried there, the myth that it escaped the flood and the giants dwelt there, like Og, ha-paliṭ, on 'the vale of Hebron' in Welsh epic,etc.etc. or several portraits on people like the Jewish Arab writer Yitzhaq Shami( יצחק שמי), than frig about on this stuff. It's disgraceful that we have among the notables a murderer who was an immigrant, and almost no bios of the great Sephardi rabbis who built up the community under Ottoman rule.

I think the proper thing would be to wait several hours for others to pitch in with their views, and if there is a consensus, we could eliminate the passage we have just discussed. Regards Nishidani 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on two main points. Let's see if a consensus develops for excising both passages. It would be much more elevating to see material added on persons & legends that instruct & inspire, rather than dwell on villains & accusations. Hertz1888 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. If I may, and if no objections come in by tomorrow morning, could I leave the edit of the two passages to your discretion? A query. Is anyone reading this page familiar with Talmudic lore and Jewish folklore on Adam in Hebron. I have collected quite a bit, and it can be linked to the curious passage in the semi-mythical (6th cent.)Welsh poet Taliesin's poem on the Creation of the World, say in a section on 'Hebron in lore and literature'. But it would profit greatly from someone with a strong handle on primary sources in Hebrew. There is much that could be put in such a section: for example, the beautiful reimagining of Joseph's burying Jacob in the Cave of Machpelah in the final volume (vol.4 = Joseph der Ernährer (1943)) of Thomas Mann's Joseph und seine Brüder. tetralogy.Nishidani 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, the main problem with your edit is that it is adding excessive amounts of detail only indirectly related to this general survey of this city. Who funds Israeli settlers and whether it is legal is a discussion that should take place on that entry, or perhaps that of the specific group in question, Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron. Like the previous issues with the 1929 massacre, the same goes for the extensive separate section on foreign volunteers etc. - only the most relevant details like the brief mention of settler harassment and violence and the one notable occurrence of them being killed should exist here, there rest on their respective entries. As for some of the details, by Israeli municipality I was referring to Kiryat Arba; if you meant the Israeli settlement in Hebron, then that also has a sourced entry (above). I don't understand why you keep removing the link to the main LMLK entry; Jayjg cited the policy on reliable sources that excludes Wikipedia, not saying to do away with interwiki links. I'm sure you aren't doing it intentionally, but you should be aware of the policy on making a point. You are mistaken, as I did not keep the BBC reference. I'm not sure what the Tel Rumeida issue was, but I preserved that change of yours as well. Of course I agree with and applaud any efforts to expand the general history. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik Well, a pity. I started a request for a review, line by line of the whole article. I motivated my initial suggestions minutely. You have reverted almost wholesale. That is not dialogue. It is a refusal to collaborate in reviewing systematically the article. As to your points.

Excessive amounts of detail. I found the page devoid of much other than the Jewish narrative of Hebron. The whole complex history of the city was in a state of pitiful neglect, as if sources external to the Jewish presence there, a minority, a great one at that, for 2000 years was all that counted (undue weight). The record will show that I have enriched the article with much historical detail no one appeared to trouble themselves about (b) Kiryat Arba, mentioned 7 times, and whose activities within Hebron dominate much of the 'terror' narrative, correct me if I am wrong, is not a part of Hebron, as defined by the Hebron Protocol. What are people like Dov Lior doing in the list of notables if they live outside Hebron? There's room for him and the other settlers outside Hebron on the Kiryat Arba page.

'by Israeli municipality I was referring to Kiryat Arba; if you meant the Israeli settlement in Hebron, then that also has a sourced entry (above).'

If as you say Kiryat Arba is an Israeli municipality, then all things related to it should be off this page.

'I don't understand why you keep removing the link to the main LMLK entry.'

Because earlier in the text I provided an extra wiki link to the LMLK material, which is, visually, much better. The site you link is uninformative and just another wiki source. I don't remove sources to other wiki pages, but only sources to wiki pages made to back up claims.

'Who funds Israeli settlers and whether it is legal is a discussion that should take place on that entry, or perhaps that of the specific group in question, Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron.

If you have problems, then you should have discussed it with me and Hertz, who asked for such a discussion. To simply reinstate the material in disregard to an ongoing discussion, is discourteous. By the same token, Arafat's malapropriation of Arab monies for Palestinians should arguably go on the Arafat page.

Arafat misused funds for Hebron. Hebron funding from the US for settlers there violates US policy on tax deductions for charities and their end-use. Both constitutes abuses of law, one is theft of Arab money destined for Palestinian hebronites, the other is, technically, an illegal subsidy by US tax-payers to settlements US policy regards, in accordance with international law, as illegal. Put one in, and you ought put the other fact in. Otherwise, one is trying to cog the dice about Arabs, while keeping the shady story of US funding out of sight. Hertz might not have agreed, but he could acknowledge the point. We agreed the best solution was to eliminate both passages, which are really immaterial to the story of Hebron.

'only the most relevant details like the brief mention of settler harassment and violence and the one notable occurrence of them being killed should exist here, the(re) rest on their respective entries.'

That is the gravamen of our difference. You are for highlighting a brief mention of settler harassment, and a notable occurrence of them being killed (Take a look at Moshe Levinger's record, as a 'spiritual'leader, on the wiki page). My records, exceeding some 150 pages from various day by day chronologies of events, of the violence show a huge statistical imparity between Palestinian Hebronite deaths through violence and settler deaths through terrorism; they show massive IDF backed harassment that has driven out 30,000 people, while I do not have records of a reduction, through Palestinian harassment of the number of settlers. None of this is relevant to the page, but as your language shows, your private view is diametrically opposed to mine,and influences your judgement on what is suitable, as my sympathies for the dispossessed (now and in 1929) influence mine.

Since it looks like I will have to waste my time on frittering about with the page as it stands, the contributions on the broader cultural history will have to go for several months. Perhaps others will have grounds for thinking this is no loss. So be it.

I will revert regularly, within the rules, unless we agree to work through the page before effecting any further changes. The reinstatement of the 'traditional' date for Abraham is wrong because there is no 'traditional' date for Abraham. I prefer books on biblical scholarship and history to the scant stuff Wiki gives, but for a quick check, see the Wiki page on Abraham.

the Masoretic Hebrew Torah calculation would give Abraham's life as 1812 BCE-1637 BC.

Book of Jubilees yields calculations that locate the birth around 1886

The Samaritan Book of Genesis gives him a date 300 years later.

The Greek Septuagint even lower.

Traditional Christian chronologies place him earlier in 2008

Crusius, an influential early Christian chronologist put it at 1941 BCE. Scaliger's chronology, used with Jubilees on Exodus (Grafton Joseph Scaliger, vol.2 p.277), gives us 2030 BCE.,etc.etc.

Of course, all this is immaterial since the Bible passage concerned is not about an historical but legendary (note not mythical), figure stricto sensu, it is a story written down at least a thousand years after the events it supposedly narrates, edited and reedited for another several hundred years. The final redaction dates to well over 1500 years after the putative event. Legends have elements of historical truth. Most of the above dates dealing with the period 21-17 cents.BC run into gross problems with the textual mention that Abraham brought the land from Hittites. They only became a strong settled presence in Palestine much later.Therefore you cannot put in 'traditional' because no one knows what 'traditional means' (Rabbinical, Samaritan, Greek, medieval (post Orosius) calendrical reckoning, post-Renaissance chronological schemata or what). The only function for such a date is to anchor the Jewish presence in Hebron to a much earlier date that modern archeology and historiography allow. I.e.,POV.and tendentious.

It is nice to apply the rules when they back your own perspective. It is objective to apply the rules independently of whether they promote your personal perspective or not. Much of what is questionable, what infringes Wiki rules, stays there unnoticed (Kiryat Arba mentions, Dov Lior and a dozen other things I haven't touched yet).Regards nonetheless Nishidani 15:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep complaining about the 'Jewish narrative of Hebron' etc., when few if any of your edits to the general history have been challenged. Again, you are welcome and encouraged to expand those sections based on reliable sources to a more universal perspective. Your problems with Kiryat Arba, AFAICT, are new ones unrelated to your previous edits. I've explained, though, the problem with your rationale vis-a-vis the LMLK wikilink - we are supposed to link to entries being discussed where applicable. That is different than introducing a controversial claim sourced to a Wikipedia page, which seems to have been Jayjg's problem - again, please ensure that you aren't just making a point. And yes, 'brief and notable' are generally the way to go in this sort of entry, otherwise we are lending undue weight. That is aside from the fact that the whole tax passage is based on your own original synthesis, and that we don't "balance" one negative statement by finding another strike against the other. As for the whole discussion of biblical dating etc., please only discuss points relevant to this page, and make sure that they are both sourced and universal positions, and not your own observations. Good luck, Tewfik^Talk 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Dear Tewfik. You are confusing my clarifications on this talk page, with the succinct entries I have made on the text. The tax passage as Hertz showed was phrased badly, and violated original synthesis. It was rewritten,closely paraphrasing the remark in the cited article. The problem was removed, and Hertz and I thought it best to remove both. This I will now do, since the vote so far is 2 against one.

You haven't answered the gravamen of my point. What is Dov Lior and Kiryat Arba doing on this page?

As to Abraham, 'mentioned in the Bible as existing'. That is false and you know it to be false. There is no mention in the Bible of Abraham existing in the 18th century.

There was no source for the 'traditional' date. It was unsourced. I changed it to conform with contemporary scholarship. You restored the unsourced text. I will now edit it. You want me to give Net sources? No problems, but don't edit in turn if you can't supply similar sources, which back the extraordinary remark that the Bible supplies a date in the 18th.century. Regards Nishidani 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note one on Hebron's Jewish population refers us to the Hebron article in the Jewish virtual library. Click and you read:- Hebron is home to approximately 120,000 Arabs, 500 Jews and a handful of Christians.

Consequence. The Hebron article excludes the population of Kiryat Arba, and does not support the text it is supposed to support. Hence I will retain the citation, but adjust the figure for the Jews. How that Palestinian figure is arrived at is still unclear, and should either be questioned or sourced.Nishidani 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you are not mass-reverting, but I can't say that I agree with much of your edit. First of all, I have already pointed you to check the Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron's population on its entry, where the 600-800 number is sourced to recently published articles. The JVL source is OTOH older and not updated. As for Abraham, I did not insert the 18th century bit, and you are correct that it should not appear here, but by the same token, no other part of the biblical chronology should either, as it is not specifically relevant to this entry. I disagree that the Arafat passage should be removed, as it is directly discussing Hebron (specifically why some rehabilitation did not take place), but I will let it stand until we get input from others (although be advised that Wikipedia works based on consensus, not majority rules). Tewfik^Talk 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik I've been saying for some time that given the poor record of this forum, there should be discussion before edits. Mass-reverting is something I was hit with from when I started making entries in wikipedia's more controversuial sections. I dislike it, since it makes serious editing impossible. I'm glad we agree on this.

(2) 'Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron. Thanks for this. I've immediately entered it on the site without further discussion.

(3) Will reply to rest when I've finished watering my tomatoes and culling my salads. RegardsNishidani 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik Uh, it's the first time I have been told to consult the Hebron Community Site. Earlier you did tell me to look at the Israel Central Bureau for Statistics.

God forbide that I might be understood as insinuating that you inserted teh Abraham chronology bit. You reverted, if I recalled, to the earlier text, whoever wrote that, because you were in disagreement, fairly enough, with my intervention. That phrasing however remains deeply problematical. I am receptive to your suggestion, unless I misunderstand you, that the original passage fixing a date for Abraham's purchase of the Double Cave, be removed. I do however think that it is helpful for students to be referred on the issue to Gurney's discussion. He was an outstanding Hittite scholar, as well as Assyriologist, and in a few pages does discuss the issue of the chronology implied by the Hittite-Abraham link in the Bible. Well, let us discuss it with others, and see what they think.

On the Arafat passage, actually, I must confess I am neutral. As a personal bias I think it could fit in. But if it is, I think it only fair to note the point made recently on Funding for Hebronites. Naturally I'm aware of the rule on consensus. The point was Hertz and I mulled it and waited round for others to join the discussion. No one did, but an edit came and . . Still, I hope we can continue in this decent manner.RegardsNishidani 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I note there is some effort to make changes all over the text. I still think that the proper procedure is to go in order systematically through the text. I haven't even troubled to read the adjustments below even though I think Currie has a point (judging from his edit synthesis).

Tewfik: You write

"is a city at the center of the Biblical Judea region in the West Bank, along the eponymous Mount Hebron."

Which is a worthy answer to my own formulation. I have long worried over this, and am glad you see the problem in the original text. Let's discuss it tomorrow. My own edit came after reading how the following Wiki entries for Hebron handled the issue on how to define Hebron geographically. I.e. (Excerpting two which just betray ignorance (a)the Russian page says it is a city in Israel (город в Израиле) (b) the Japanese a 'holy place in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions situated in the south of Israel: エルサレムの南に位置するユダヤ教・キリスト教・イスラム教の聖地の一つ。), you get the following breakdown, which is worth examining, perhaps tomorrow.

German -ist eine palästinensische Stadt im Westjordanland
Danish - en by i den sydelige del af Jordanflodens vestbred
Norwegian - er en by på Vestbredden
Swedish - är en palestinsk stad belägen på den av Israel ockuperade Västbanken,
Dutch -een stad op de door Israël bezette Westelijke Jordaanoever.
French -une ville de Palestine située dans l'antique Judée,
Polish.-palestyńskie miasto położone na południu Zachodniego Brzegu.
Czech- je město v oblasti Západního břehu Jordánu pod palestinskou správou

(Note all these (northern cultures) make a geopolitical definition, with the French rightly adding that it is located in ancient Judea.)

Sp. -es una localidad en la Judea meridional, región de Cisjordania.
Port.- é uma cidade na Cisjordânia, sob ocupação israelense, na terra de Judéia,
Italian -è una città della Cisgiordania (nell'area detta dagli israeliani Giudea)

(Sp. gives more or less what our text had earlier. Portuguese nicely fits all three aspects, Italian, doesn't say, as the French do, that it is in ancient Judea, but that it is thus called by Israelis)

Clearly there is a problem.

Till tomorrow, good eveningNishidani 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik

I have made my suggestion. Neither yours nor mine is definitive, obviously. It is a matter of weighting. The political territory is Palestinian, the historical site is in Biblical Judea. I eliminated 'eponymous Hebron' as overspecific.Regards Nishidani 11:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik

In your disagreement with CJCurrie, I think you are wrong. Goldstein's act in many sources is attributed, among many other motivations, to an attempt to block the incipient political agreements, coming straighton after the Oslo declaration of Principles and before the Oslo Interim Agreement. The flow of the text does not follow an understandable timeline. I hope, finally, that it is not a matter of you, I or anyone else undertaking to 'write' a problematical section, but of discussion and collaborative writing. Secondly from your note you seem, perhaps I am wrong, to confuse the Ist with the Second Intifada, which was precisely Currie's point. You are placing before the Goldstein massacre, a long documentation of Palestinian attack including the 2nd Intifada. In historical writing this is called hysteron proteron or putting the cart before the horse. This is not, surely, a subjective matter. The page should give the history in sequence, main events, and then develop specific aspects glossing them.

General information about Arafat should go on the Arafat page, but if the information is specifically explaining why reconstruction was not done in Hebron, then it belongs in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. I have no problem with a shorter and more concise passage, but NPOV isn't about balancing one "bad" with another. The discussion about the Hebron settlers' fundraising may deserve mention in their entry. As for Judea, I'm still not sure of what the problem is, as it is indeed the historic region's name, irrespective of its use by Israel to the exclusion of modern political terms like West Bank, which are in any event [appropriately] mentioned. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)