Talk:Hebron/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Carnage compilations

Since we are down to what amounts to a corpse comparison, which will lead to extensive edit races forseeably, I think the intelligent thing to do would be to set up a work-page, on chronological grounds, on the topic of Settler-Palestinian incidents in Hebron 1968-2008, where this can be done. Eventually, the community of editors can decide how that large amount of material can be appropriately culled to provide the gist of the record of violence from both sides. The alternative is to invite a form of edit-warring, in the sense of a competition to see who can stack more references to violence to favour his or her own POV, something that would quickly make the section overwhelm the article itself.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since every Israeli is essentially a "settler" I feel that it is politically provocative term and would prefer if it was not used. This is Jews/Israelis and Arabs we are discussing. Not "settlers" and "Palestinians." If you are going to use the term "Palestinian" is it fair to use the term "settler" with regard to Jews and Israelis? If you refer to my people as "settlers" then perhaps we should come up with an absurd term to label the "Palestinians" too. Just to create NPOV. Anyway, in answer to your suggestion, I did not add this to do a corpse count, but to balance out the material that someone already had with regard to all the things they feel is wrong with regard to "settlers." Curiously lacking was any information with regard to Arab terrorism. I believe this section should be moved somewhere else entirely. Hebron, the city, should be separate from the violence that plagues it. However, this article has been turned into a place to push non-NPOV war propaganda. That is why I added mine---to make a point. If we're going to start adding these things to articles about cities, then you're opening up a can of worms. I'm not saying "you," I'm saying in general. Many such articles have become too politicized and I believe the casual readers get enough of this already. I'm all for creating separate articles fully documenting the violence on both sides and keeping the propaganda out of articles which are supposed to be about cities. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Settler is a term that is widespread and endorsed by Wiki editors. To my mind they are squatters. Settlers however is, well, relatively neutral, and it's pointless to challenge it. As to the rest, it's a technical matter, raised several times by experienced editors. There is quite a lot in the Post-Oslo Accord on violence to Jews and Palestinians, and now we have an overlap with a Settler-Palestinian Violence. In purely technical terms, this mucks up the narrative. Since settler-Palestinian violence is a significant part of the city's recent history, it obviously deserves a section, but the way things are developing it looks like the bulk will violate issues of WP:Undue in terms of the proportion of the section to the whole article. That is why I suggest a work-page.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame Wiki approves of this term and a shame that you view Israelis in disputed areas as "squatters." That's a rather one sided and inaccurate view of it. All Israelis are settlers. Anyone who lives anywhere is a settler. There is an inherent bias with regard to the word "settler" as if people wish to pretend that this entire conflict would not exist if it weren't for said "settlers." That is false. If Wikipedia insists on labeling Israelis in disputed areas as "settlers" or if people are going to suggest that we label then "squatters" then perhaps all Palestinians should be called terrorists (in the interested of NPOV.)

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know about work pages, so if you care to guide me, I'm all for it.(Einsteindonut )

(A)Please stick to Hebron. You generalise specific issues of a textual nature by bringing in arguments about Arabs and Israel/Israelis/Jewish people.

(B)I made a distinction between my private view (POV) that these are what one calls squatters, a squattocracy, and what is the established usage, proper to Wiki's encyclopedic aims, namely 'settler' (NPOV). I have no right to press my private reading on Wiki, neither do you. This choice is endorsed by most Jewish/Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors as reflecting standard usage. If you disagree, you disagree with the normal language of academic books on the subject, and reportage in the mainstream press.

(C)I am glad to see this morning that you have understood that material you think requires Reliable Sources should be flagged, instead of being edited out. The reliable sources for the statement you now flag are numerous. If you dislike this Palestinian academic as a source (RS nonetheless, and based on Israeli sources)

‘Israeli journalists, who have covered the West Bank for over three decades, provide some of the best accounts of the ideology of the settlers’ movement and its anti-Arab concepts, as well as amply documenting its violence in the occupied territories. In his seminal work On the Lord’s Side:Gush Emunim (1982, Hebrew), Danny Rubenstein concludes that the majority of the Gush Emunim settlers are in favour of expelling the Arab population, describes the anti-Arab feelings that permeate the Gush Emunim meetings and provides excerpts from the settlers’ movement’s pamphlets and bulletins: ‘Hatred of the )Arab) enemy is not a morbid feeling, but a healthy and natural phenomenon’: ‘The people of Israel have a legitimate national and natural psychological right to hate their enemies’; ‘The Arabs are the Amalekites of today’; ‘The aim of the settlements in the Nablus area is “to stick a knife in the heart of the Palestinians”. For the right-wing religious fundamentalists, Jewish sovereignty over the ‘whole Land of Israel’ was divinely ordained, since the entire land had been promised to God to the Jewish people. Moreover, for many settlement leaders, particularly those religious figures and extremist rabbis, the ideological conflict with the Palestinian Arabs had its roots in biblical injunctions, regarding the Amalekites (see I Samuel 15:2-3). At least some leading rabbis interpreted this biblical injunction to justify not only the expulsion of local Arabs but also the killing of Arab civilians in the event of war.

In 1980, Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk, of Al-Hamishmar, described vividly the attitudes of the Hebron region settlers towards the local Arabs: ‘It ranges from utter contempt to wishing that they would vanish. When one of the settlers was asked why they want Hebron after having established Kiryat Arba’a, the reply was: ”It is not theirs, it is ours . . It is ours by the power of the Bible. It was ours 2000 years ago and it always belonged to us. If they do not like it let them leave'. The Gush Emunim settlers viewed the escalating violence between Arabs and Jews in the territories as a positive thing. As a prominent Giuh Emunim leader, Hanan Porat, of Kfar ‘Etzion – who was later in 1984 elected to the Knesset on the Tehiya list – put it: the violence will prove that ’the two cannot co-exist’, and ‘will bring about the expulsion of the Arabs’. Nur Masalha Imperial Israel and the Palestinians,Pluto Press, London 2000 p.118

Then see (b)Ian Lustick analyses the annexationist policy of Palestinian land in terms of Rabbi Kook's theology, which inspired Gush Emunim and the occupiers of hebron as such:

'For Rav Kook, as, in a sense, for Labor Zionism, living and working in the Holy Land was a mitzvah (divine injunction) equivalent in value to all the other religious commandments combined. On this basis, religious Jews could joyously tolerate the lack of religious observance by most Zionists. They were confident that exposure to the Holy Land, complemented by their own sensitive and tolerant persuasion, would eventually lead the nonreligious Zionist majority to acceptance of the halacha and understanding of the redemptive meaning of Zionism. It is also on this basis that Gush Emunim can justify its program of de facto annexation, designed to force the majority of Israeli Jews into a permanent relationship with the entire Land of Israel, despite their refusal or inability, as of yet, to appreciate the rewards of that circumstance.Ian S. Lustick, The Land and The Lord (1988) Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, 1994

(You might like also to consult his more comprehensive comparative analysis: Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza, (Cornell University Press, 1993); See also (c) Amnon Rubinstein, The Zionist Dream Revisited: From Herzl to Gush Emunim and Back, Sehoeker Books, New York, 1985, pp.99-100. (d)Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire; Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan, London, 2007 p.151 (e)Edmund Burke, Nejde Yaghoubian, Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East, University of California Press 2006 p.390 (the 1929 riots eradicated a Jewish community that had been settled there from high antiquity, which the settlers intend to restore)Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I should be able to add about 10 to every one of yours.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. Besides even if it was true, the thing we have in common is that the data from both of us is compiled by Jews. For some reason, I find it to be extremely rare to find any Arabs who are in the business of documenting Arab violence against Jews. I find it to be extremely telling about the cultural differences with regard to true concern for humanity. Also telling is that their failure to condemn terrorism as it is often rationalized, promoted, celebrated, etc. I believe more information of that is important here, since that is one of the root causes of the violence. The way we have it now it makes it appear that the conflict is in regard to some dispute of land ownership. That is false. The dream of those who commit violence against Israelis is to wipe Israel off the map. It was proven after the disengagement (yet again) - a complete good faith effort met with nothing but more bloodshed and violence. Even if Israel would cease to exist tomorrow, that still leaves the "Great Satan" - would all Americans then be regard as "settlers" too? --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I also find it absolutely normal for Israeli POV pushers to only include an Israeli body count as though the Israelis were the only deaths. and unlike the MFA body count I don't have to do 10km radius...the only proven "wipers of the map" has been the Israeli government...You seem to forget that israeli terrorism is is often rationalized, promoted, celebrated, etc. note the annual celebrations at B Goldstein's memorial.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there apparently weren't any Israeli POV pushers in here as there was no violence at all mentioned against Israelis in this section until I got involved, not to push a POV, but just to promote NPOV. Regarding the people celebrating B. Goldstein, that is a tiny minority of Jews. The overwhelming majority of Jewish people condemned that violence. Quite the contrary, when you compare it to a culture in which children are taught to hate through schoolbooks, the media, mosques, and enjoy sweet candies every single time Jews are killed. Contrast to that to the IDF, who goes door to door looking for terrorists so as to preserve as much human life as possible. If the Israelis took on the mindset of their enemies with regard to total disregard for innocent human life, the entire conflict would be over in a matter of days. It's a shame when the Israelis own humanity is used against them. Might I remind you that your many of you own sources are, in fact, Israeli. I wish I could find such diversity on the other side. It would make both peace and proper wikipedia editing possible. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet candies:

The boys' father sits in the house. A tall man with a mustache. For eight years, before the outbreak of the first intifada, he drove a bus for Egged, the Israeli bus company. Tears threaten to overwhelm him, again and again. On the table in front of him is a straw basket with a pile of the colored memorial placards with pictures of his two sons. A keepsake for every mourner. No organization's name is inscribed on these. The bereaved father refused to let anyone - Hamas, the Popular Front, Islamic Jihad, the Brigades - put their mark on the two innocent children riding their bicycles to the neighborhood grocery store to buy themselves some candy, during a break in the curfew, until the soldiers in the tank shot them from up close, killing two of them and wounding the third. They buried Ahmed with the chocolate bar he'd bought for himself clutched in his hand. Gideon Levy, Journal of Palestine Studies

Door-to-door:

Dadoush, 11, said she was watching the news with her family at about 8:30 p.m. when there was a knock on the door. She said the troops questioned her father and older sister before turning to her.
"I was very afraid because the soldiers were screaming at me, so I told them about a house where young men sometimes go," the ponytailed girl said, hesitating and moving about restlessly as she spoke.
About 15 minutes later, she said the troops returned and called her name. They ordered her to come with them, threatening to arrest her and ignoring her father's pleas to leave her alone, she said.
"I was shouting, 'Where are you taking my daughter? Bring her back! Bring her back!'" her father, Nimr Dadoush, said in an interview, explaining the girl has a heart condition. "They didn't answer me." Dadoush, 38, who sells vegetables and works in construction, said he is not politically active.
Jihan said the troops ordered her to show them the hideout. "They made me walk in front of them. There were many soldiers behind me with their weapons and they frightened me," she said, breaking into tears.
Questions about army practices peaked in the spring of 2002 during an offensive in the West Bank in response to suicide bombings. During the operation, soldiers often forced Palestinian civilians to approach the homes and hideouts of wanted people.
The army at that time defended the practice, known as "the neighbor procedure," saying it took civilians out of harm's way and encouraged militants to surrender peacefully. International Herald Tribune

Let us stand, then, in silent awe of Israeli purity of arms. <eleland/talkedits> 09:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think he is sincere and simply he is not aware of what you refer to (at second degree) and he just doens't believe in the little he has heard... Ceedjee (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=139:

AUGUST 3, 2008 CAMERA Prompts Correction at International Herald Tribune

JULY 17, 2008 Whitewashing a Terrorist

JULY 16, 2008 Problems in Reporting the Israel-Hezbollah Exchange

JULY 2, 2008 Terrorist Attack in Jerusalem: Bias in Euro Headlines

JUNE 18, 2007 Farewell to the Minister of Disinformation, Mustafa Barghouti

APRIL 17, 2007 Henry Siegman Misleads in the International Herald Tribune

MARCH 21, 2007 Kristof's Blame-Israel Rant

DECEMBER 12, 2006 In IHT, Holocaust Denial is Legitimized as Alternate "Theory"

NOVEMBER 8, 2006 CAMERA Prompts IHT Corrections

NOVEMBER 1, 2006 IHT Publishes Patrick Seale's Deceitful Column

SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 Henry Siegman’s Expertise: Bashing Israel at Every Turn

JULY 12, 2006 The IHT Corrects Error on Palestinian Casualties

MARCH 7, 2006 CAMERA Prompts IHT Correction on UN Resolution

JANUARY 3, 2006 CAMERA Prompts IHT Correction on Erekat Falsehood

NOVEMBER 9, 2005 NY Times, IHT Correct: Rabin Assassin Not a Settler

SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 IHT Fabricates Purpose of Bush-Sharon Meeting

AUGUST 24, 2005 Mystery About Henry Siegman Solved in New York Sun

APRIL 11, 2005 The Temple Mount's Jewish History: More Than a Matter of Faith

MARCH 3, 2005 CAMERA Prompts International Herald Tribune Correction on 'Palestine'

JANUARY 30, 2005 CAMERA Obtains NYT/IHT Correction on Palestinian Refugees

DECEMBER 27, 2004 Toles in a Cartoon World of His Own

DECEMBER, 21, 2004 IHT Op-Ed Claims 'No Incitement' in Palestinian Textbooks

SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 International Herald Tribune Op-Ed Erases 20-Plus Years of Terror

MARCH 18, 2004 From Tragedy to Propaganda; Rachel Corrie and ISM

JULY 22, 2003 Cooked Up Charges Against Israel

MAY 30, 2003 International Herald Tribune Demolishes the Facts

The IHT is a RS for Wikipedia standards, sure, but as one can clearly see, there are some serious problems with regard to their "reporting." Regarding the other source you cite, it would be very interesting to find a detailed analysis of who funds it and all the people behind it and what else they support. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ED: There's a reason I picked those two incidents. Of course you were going to come back with some prepackaged CAMERA bullshit about how the lie-beral media is all biased and antisemitic. But both of these cases were videotaped. A good thing, too - immediately after Ahmed and his two friends were murdered, the IDF was insisting that they had been part of a large, rioting crowd which besieged Israeli positions, forcing the soldiers to defend themselves. Maybe CAMERA even put out a few "action alerts" condemning the biased reporters who spread the evil blood libel about Israeli massacres. But the tape is clear: the children were running away as fast as they could. The Israeli army shot a six year old child in the back. With artillery. But don't worry, ED. The IDF is the world's most moral army, and it takes these things seriously. That's why the murderers of children were sentenced to probation. Well, the lower-ranking ones, anyway. The brigade commander who gave the order was cleared.

As for the "neighbour procedure," you can hardly pin this one on the IHT, "Einstein." It's been a frequent subject in the Israeli press; this clear war crime was official policy, and resulted in the deaths of many civilians, until an Israeli supreme court ruling in 2005. Then, because Israel is a nation of laws, it stopped being official policy and became unofficial common practice. Purity of arms again.

<eleland/talkedits> 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you know everything, I won't bother to send you information on Pallywood. I'm not going to get anywhere here since anti-Israel POV pushers outnumbers those who strive for accuracy and NPOV. Carry on with the anti-Israel smear campaign as you wish. Thankfully, most educated people know that Wikipedia isn't reliable for information with regard to the conflict. The thing that bothers me is that so many of you are misleading casual readers, but hey, if that's what Wikipedia does, that's what WP does. I'm not going to win a debate since so many of you have made up your minds and wish to attribute all "war crimes" on Israel but "mysteriously" there is very little (if any?) condemnation of or information with regard to Islamic terrorism. It's not the first time for the Jewish/pro-Israel POV to be completely trumped by people who wish to see the conflict one way: everything Israel does is wrong and criminal. I just hope people realize that Israel is on the front lines of a war which is not going to end with Israel. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, ED, I know all about "Pallywood," which is a cheap rationalization used to discard damning evidence of the occupation's true nature. There was a cameraman named Fadel Shana'a who was involved in an incident where colleagues were killed. For a while, the blogs were abuzz with "Pallywood" accusations based on perceived inconsistencies in his pictures and stories. Clearly, this man was another Pallywood propagandist. For all I know, there are even people who claim that his last footage, the one that shows the IDF tank firing, the shell streaking in, and the explosion scattering the flechettes, is "Pallywood" too. Negationism is not a new phenomenon.

Are you seriously claiming that Palestinians somehow faked footage of an Israeli Merkava tank killing children so convincingly that even the Israeli military court which convicted officers involved was fooled? Step back. Think about this. I know you're a hard-core "my tribe can do no wrong" nationalist type but this is just crazy, even for one of that ilk. Get a grip. Even democracies, fighting just wars, commit atrocities, and Israel, outside its borders, is neither. <eleland/talkedits> 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just very happy you have it all figured out. --Einsteindonut (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, I'm afraid that Eleland has the right of it. To be sure, there have been numerous instances of false claims against Israel, such as the claim that a "massacre" took place in Jenin. However, that does not mean that all claims are false or that Israelis are perfect. Also, it is a very dangerous mentality to assume that all claims are false since, if every Israeli felt this way, then what are the chances that incidents would be investigated and future incidents discouraged? If an Israeli court of law found the officer guilty of this atrocity, then the officer is indeed guilty (or 99.9% likely to be guilty) of this atrocity.

That said, the situation in Israel and the territories is incredibly complex, and I hope that this article will not try to dramatize the conflict as some sort of black and white struggle between good and evil. There are good people and there are evil people, and -- whether fortunately or unfortunately -- neither side seems to have a monopoly on them. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Einsteindonut did not get to read the article on the attacks on Jews of the mandate period or from the Israeli control period.....The political dimensions of the "Hebron Massacre" is not explored and only explained as an anti-Semitic pogrom, rather than as extremist Arab nationalism...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Section title: Squatter/IDF/Palestinian violence

I have changed the title of the "Squatter/IDF/Palestinian violence" section to "Israeli-Palestinian violence". I believe this is the most neutral wording for the title of this section. The problem with the original title is that it implies that the only Israelis involved who are not members of the Israeli Defense Forces are "squatters". The term "squatters" which is a pejorative and is, therefore, non-neutral. Furthermore, the term implies that the Israelis are the perpetrators in all of these bouts of violence and that none of the Israeli participants enjoys legal ownership of his/her property in the area. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but in my opinion, this entire section needs to go, or at a minimum, be pared down considerably. This article is about Hebron, not Israeli-Palestinian violence in Hebron - and this section is ridiculously large for an article about the city, in a way that is contrary to WP:UNDUE. Above we have a discussion where numerous editors agreed that wee need to avoid news-like reportage here, and ,limit the contents of a section like this a a few major events. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Canadian Monkey, as well as Hertz1888 above. This article is not about everything ever reported in Hebron. This section is too long and looks like a bulletin board or a timeline, not an encyclopedic section. -- Nudve (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with a neutral title to the section....I was having fun with a certain element that have decided that wiki is Dr Goebbels mouthpiece and was POV pushing....I still waiting for said editor to include Palestinian deaths into the time frame that the said editor believes that only Israeli deaths should be included in the body count.....PS I still think a split in the article should occur..along the lines of contemporary Hebron (as it is a rather important topic)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

CM as to keeping it to major events...What do you consider as major???? by body count or by the degree of interference in daily life?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not squatters, it was settlers...

AK3, it is you who modified that ? Irony ?

The way it is currently, it is too long.

This "material" (?) should be moved to another article. The way it is is completely undue. But nevertheless, 3-4 paragraphs could be dedicated to this issue around the settlers, the Paelstnian unhabitants, the IDF forces there and the NGO and the foreign observers there.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A certain POV pusher tried for the "Arab" route, so I amended the amendment guessing that the amended amendment would be amended for a more neutral section title......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the fork has been made, I think it would be sensible to edit out from the Hebron page all single incidents that are not connected with a specific and notable period of intense conflict (i.e. this page should just contain major episodes of intense violence such as Baruch Goldstein, Abu Sneida, etc.). The large number of people can be, for the moment, 'dumped' onto the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Hebron page (I don't like that term myself, and suggestions all round on the title for the fork page), and then reorganized after a lead has been agreed to. (?)Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except 1929 events and Baruch Goldstein episode, I think all the remaining events only concern "specialists". Ceedjee (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that for a better understanding of the issue the Israeli/Palestine conflict in Hebron should start from the 1929 incident....Obviously 1929 and Goldstein references should also be in the Main Hebron article and only be short paras in the forked article......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify?

Who asked for the clarification on..

• "The cannons of St. Abraham having searched the crypt to locate the tombs of Patriarchs."?

1. I'm not sure what they want clarifying.
2. clarification on who canons are?
3. clarification on why the canons went looking for relics?
4. please clarify on clarification remark....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No one would object, Ashley, it you just edit out the extra 'n' in 'cannon' and link the term canon, an obvious typo. The request for clarification probably reflects a desire to know more about the order alluded to. I'm a bit puzzled by what order is involved. I don't think Wiki has a page on Saint Abraham. John Carter would know: he is one of the best wiki specialists on saints.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an order. The clergy of the church of St. Abraham....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Naru hodo, as the Japanese say. Well, remove the 'clarify' as well, and try to link to that church? Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Who asked for clarification? I did. At least complete the sentence — it's a fragment, and its point is a mystery. Having searched the crypt, they then did what? Please tell us. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hertz1888, you were right to query it. I've been worrying myself about this, now that my attention has been drawn on it by Ashley. I have 2500 files on this computer, badly organized, but have now found the one which memory has prompted me to look for. In it one reads the following, from a Fraciscan web site:

Having occupied Hebron in 1100, the Crusaders entrusted it to the Canons of St. Augustine guided by a prior. In 1136 the amanuensis Arnulphus discovered by accident the entrance to the underground tombs and with much effort succeeded in getting into the caves where the bones were scattered. He gave a report reproduced in Hébron (pp. 166-176) in the original Latin text and in French translation , followed by an archeological interpretation which aims at determining what is found under the floor. De Sandoli (Itinera I, 331-338) gives the original text with an Italian translation.During the Crusader period Roehricht (ZDPV 10 [1887], pp. 26-27) enumerates 5 bishops, 12 canons and 4 priors (some residents of Acre); in fact, an episcopal see was established in 1167 at Hebron but lapsed in 1187 when the town fell into the hands of Saladin. It does not seem that a new Christian village was formed. The Crusaders built the church within the enclosure which has been left intact to this day.

Eventually, it would be good to check out the said book Hébron, and examine the Latin text. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicely found...Richard gives canons of St Abraham.....the details were skimpy but implied relics found, conveniently, to improve the pilgrim aid/trade/recruitment......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a full sentence. Either take away the fragment or put in the rest of it, but don't leave the reader hanging. Having searched the crypt, they then did what? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then the Pilgrim visits increased due to the 12th century "reverence of relics". The only thing is I haven't got the access to the references that Nishidani has dug up.
• Jean Richards has the Latins building on the site, and from 1187 Saladin de-Latinising the area by expulsions and the replacements being encouraged from Muslim and Jewish communities (the Greek orthodox being allowed to remain)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani's find....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Section moves

The section moves have gone too far. There was never any agreement or discussion to move the "Jewish settlement after 1967" section to the branched-off conflict page. I am bringing it back. This story (which may belong under "History") is part and parcel of the Hebron article. Anyone who thinks it pertains to conflict/violence can consider linking back to it from the conflict article. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Major confusion. Further investigation shows that the "Jewish settlement" section disappeared from this article, while it was the "Post-Oslo Accord" section that was copied to the conflict article (which makes some sense). Before we sort things out and make any further shifts, I suggest a discussion ensue here. Ashley, if you could, please use the edit summaries; makes it easier to follow intentions. In the present case, it looks as if the section you deleted was not the one you intended to move. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Ashley, this requires considerable discussion and consensus. I apologize for not having followed these edits closely.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So far all that has happened is Iraeli POV has been left in the main article and any NPOV has been moved as a list with no summary in the main article.....So rather than do a hatchet job on the list untill the content is agreed upon it should all be in the main article......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Hebron Jewish community has been subject to attacks by Palestinian militants since the Oslo agreement,"....even Shamir never went as far as that sentence...Shamir remarked that both communities had been attacking each other...that puts the article somewhat more extremist than Shamir....The article is displaying more POV than an Israeli PM who is known as a hard liner...that is quite an achievement....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashley. Never be in a hurry for large scale changes. Most wiki work is simply a matter of close attention to detail. Here we have a structural problem of significant proportion, which requires some considerable collaborative work. In the meantime, you remark that the sentence beginning 'The Hebron Jewish community has been subject to attack' . .is troublesome, and make remarks re Shamir. The technical thing to do here is to take the passage and look at its source. The source, like many, happens to be improper, because it is a reference to all terrorist attacks in Israel, and not specifically about what it should be 'attacks on the Hebron community'. If you open it up, and check it, winnowing out a mass of material irrelevant to the statement (the link leads you in other words to a general picture of terrorism, not to terrorist against the 'Hebron Jewish community', which, note, is not, technically to be confused with the Kiryat Arba community) you get the following results:

• (1) Nov 7 93 Efraim Ayubi of Kfar Darom, Rabbi Chaim Druckman's personal driver, was shot to death by terrorists near Hebron.

• (2) Dec 6 93 Mordechai Lapid and his son Shalom Lapid, age 19, were shot to death by terrorists near Hebron.

• (3)Feb 17 94 Yuval Golan, stabbed on December 29, 1993 by a terrorist near Adarim in the Hebron area, died of his wounds.

• (4)May 17 94 Rafael Yairi (Kloppenberg), 36, of Kiryat Arba, and Margalit Ruth Shohat, 48, of Ma'ale Levona, were killed when their car was fired upon by by terrorists in a passing car near Beit Haggai, south of Hebron.

• (5)Nov 27 94 Rabbi Amiran Olami, 34, of Otniel was killed near Beit Hagai(sic) 10 kms south of Hebron by shots fired from a passing car.

• (6)March 19 95 Nahum Hoss, 32, of Hebron and Yehuda Fartush, 41, of Kiryat Arba, were killed when terrorists fired on an Egged bus near the entrance to Hebron.

• (7)Jan 16 96 Sgt. Yaniv Shimel and Major Oz Tibon, both of Jerusalem, were killed when terrorists fired on their car on the Hebron-Jerusalem road.

• (8)Aug 20 98 Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, 63, was stabbed to death in the bedroom of his caravan in Hebron.

• (9)Oct 26 98 Danny Vargas, 29, of Kiryat Arba was shot to death in Hebron

• (10)Jan 13 99 Sergeant Yehoshua Gavriel, 25, of Ashdod, was killed when terrorists opened fire at the Othniel junction near Hebron.

Events 'Near Hebron' regarding non-Hebronites are not material to the point. In some of these there is ambiguity, because the source does not tell us where the victims killed near Hebron (within at most a 10 mile range) hail from. Over the period Nov.7,1993-Jan 13,1999 (roughly five years) the document tells us that (a)Rafael Yairi (Kloppenberg), 36, of Kiryat Arba,(contiguous with Hebron) was shot near Beit Haggai. Beit Haggai has Kiryat Arba connections, since it was founded to commemorate three K.A.students killed there, and settlers there often commute to work in K.A. But the text doesn't tell us if this constitutes an attack on the 'Hebron Jewish Community' by Palestinians of Hebron, since Beit Haggai is 10 miles away from that city (b)So we are left with three fatal incidents (6)(8)(9).

Evidently the source is an improper one, because it requires us to do an enormous amount of leg-work just to ascertain preliminary evidence, these three facts.

A large number of sources in I/P articles don't bear scrutiny, and this is an example. This source looks like it wants to confuse the specific issue (Jews attacked in Hebron) with a general issue, all Jews attacked in the West Bank. Therefore the proper thing is simply to note the inadequacy and irrelevance of the source, and put a 'citation needed' tag in the place of the misleading and irrelevant source now existing. I haven't the time to do what I used to do, and check all these things. I add this note just to advise you how one handles these things, i.e., not by irrelevant expostulations, but simply by meticulous checking. One can do this at a glance, and then, when the source is assessed as irrelevant or inadequate, note the fact on the talk page and request that whoever wants to support the text find a better source. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian War By Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz The list that ED has used is the official list sent into the UN UN Doc E/CN.4/1996/120 of 18 March 1996.....JVL only records 2 incidents in Hebron from Jan 1994 to Dec 2005; 11 Oct 98 (2 Grenades Injure Palestinians and Israelis) and 26 Mar 2001 (Shalhevet Pass)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven’t been clear. The sentence running

’The Hebron Jewish community has been subject to attacks by Palestinian militants since the Oslo agreement, . ."

is (inadequately) sourced to (n.35), i.e., to a documented hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled ‘Fatal Terrorist Attacks in Israel since the DOP (Sept 1993)’. (a)We need for the statement a document specifically on attacks since Oslo on the Hebron Jewish community, not a reference to overall Terrorist Attacks in Israel. (b)Further, and more disturbingly, the attacks I excerpted above from this document did not occur in Israel but in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and therefore this document, though an official source, is factitiously misleading, a piece of official agit prop, since it designates events occurring in occupied territory as though they were attacks occurring in Israel. That is why it should be removed immediately.

You might also note apropos the statement

'Tivon later suggested that the "Palestinian Authority is encouraging children to participate in clashes with the IDF by offering their families $300 per injury and $2,000 for anyone killed.'

That is Tivon's view, and nothing amiss in registering it. The reference is to stone-throwing against invasivge troops of occupation, not to terrorism. Since you mention Cordesman and Moravitz's book, you might note that it registers the fact that

‘While some Israelis accused the Palestinian Authority of encouraging these attacks to put pressure on Israel, there is no evidence the PA did so at that time. A U.S. State Department investigation of these events concluded that they had “no information that incidents of terrorism were perpetrated or organized by PLO elements under Arafat’s control during the period covered by this report.” Moreover, former Prime Minister Rabin stated during a speech on May 15, 1995 that, “Fatah groups under the Palestinian Authority headed by Arafat have not taken part in any murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis.”p.29

The problem was not the PLO/PNA at the time but Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As the PA was arresting militants as per the agreement at the time...I did notice the official agit prop... but as a wise person once counseled me "don't try to change the world in one go" :-)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been seeking consensus, Shuki, has been the unilateralist... I am seeking to find where the fork should occur...my personal preference is from British Mandate....leaving short synopsis paras for each section...I do realise that it will be contentious this is why I am trying to involve all interested parties....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AK3, it's called being [{WP:BOLD]]. Why was the news list moved back to the main article so it now appears on both? It merely clutters up a good article. --Shuki (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on these things, but I think the proper thing would be, for the moment, to erase from this section all the minutiae following the Tivon remark, since it is conserved and replicated on the other page? I presume whatever our views, this seems a pretty straight forward edit? Could we vote?Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting FOR erasure, the sooner the better. I thought the point of the plan was to rid this article of that journalistic clutter — but (I emphasize) not to spin off any other sections and deplete this article of legitimate encyclopedic content. Would like to suggest that the "conflict" article be retitled as a list or a timeline. As such, only the briefest of introductions would be needed there. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,Hertz1888. I think Shuki has made it clear above, he was opposed to the reintroduction of this clutter, and we may assume a 'for erasure' vote (?). If I may have a vote, I would concur, and hope Michael Safyan, who I've asked to vote on his page, chips in shortly. If Michael agrees, I hope Hertz could then promptly handle the erasure.

Ashley, there is a strong substance to Hertz's suggestion re the conflict article as a list or time-line. That can be taken up on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, erasure would have been a pleasure, but a Canadian monkey beat me to it. A fait accompli. In terms of bytes the page is 27% shorter. That's a lot. Thanks for the vote of confidence on the retitling suggestion. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to write in my second dialect - che cojone che so! (what a d***head I am), when I noted CM had already done it on my watchlist. I just check in here during reading breaks, and missed it. Like you, I'm a long term editor on this article and felt great unease at the recentism, as Avruch once called this, on what is an article devoted to a very important historical city. I'm used to treading with 'feet of lead' (piedi di piombo) consensus-wise on these articles, and thought consensus was the way, but I think we are all relieved CM cut the Gordian knot. Cheers!Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

POV problems,(illustrative) and a suggestion

Arabs killed 67 Jews and wounded 60, and Jewish homes and synagogues were ransacked; 435 Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbours.[25] 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". The sole exception was Ya'akov Ezra, who processed the city's dairy products, and resided in the city on weekdays

(1)"Arab rioters". I say this because, as often in the past, I challenge people who say 'Jews', (since the single word cannot but imply an ethnic collectivity. (The) Arabs didn't kill members of the two Jewish communities in Hebron(they didn't intermarry, by the way), Arab pogromists did (many by the way from outlying areas). In all such cases, one does well to avoid troubling nuances and secure NPOV.

(2) (a) 'by hiding with their Arab neighbours'. The figure is probably lower actually, since it is the total of the survivors, as I understand it, and quite a few simply hid in rubbish dumps and other neglected corners of the town.(b) the active verb following the subject 'Jews' suggests the Jews did the fleeing into Arab homes. The record is unequivocal. Arabs came and took their Jewish neighbours into the sanctuary of their homes. As phrased this important nuance is lost.

(3) after further riots(link 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine). This is wholly unacceptable, since it maliciously if unintentionally suggests (a) further riots in Hebron against Jews (b) that the evacuation occurred during the Arab Revolt. Historically the evacuation took place on the eve of the Arab decision to make a nationwide strike that led then to an Arab revolt. The evacuation was a precautionary measure. If one requires a RS

‘The Jewish community in Hebron was evacuated; a minority returned in 1930-31, only to be evacuated against in April 1936, shortly before the outbreak of the Arab strike and revolt.Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine:From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel, tr G.Kramer and Graham Harman, Princeton University Press, 2008 p.232,’

(4)Yaakov Ezra. Give the dear man his full proper name, 'Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra'. One could add that he was an 8th generation Hebronite. What source lies behind the odd notation 'he resided in the city on weekdays'? Why this detail (was he only safe 5 days a week, and not on the Sabbath?). My memory is that he was regarded as a local Hebronite, wore Arab clothes, spoke Arabic, and that his presence there was guaranteed by friendly Arab families, friends of his own. Whatever, the 'he resided in the city on weekdays' is not to the point, in an article on a city. 'Only Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra', an 8th generation Hebronite and dairyman, stayed on until the eve of partition in 1947' is something of the order required.

(5) A general point. It always worries me when I see a lot of new (as opposed to Hertz, who is a stalwart of this article)supervisory capacity jumping into an old article. It would set a fine example for a collaborative spirit if some of these new editors actually, like Ashley, did some homework on Hebron, and corrected stray details (there are quite a few) or enriched the text with new material. Anyone can excel at formalism, but encyclopedias are built by adding substantial details, which requires greater effort. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To Point 2; 435 were those that hid with neighbours, there were more survivors, they fled outside of town. total number of survivors was approx 500.....I've already been doing some "homework" on Hebron...

True, this is impeccably sourced in Zionist archives, as per Tom Segev's 'One Palestine', which is what I was implicitly referring to. But I've done 'original research' that would query this total figure. It goes against 'my own' interests to suggest one keep an eye out for more sources. I'll only be happy to see that figure confirmed. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To point 3.; There was also the 1933 troubles that caused a reduction of the Jewish communities in Hebron. Arab nationalism was active. The Yishuv were concentrating on the main centres of Jewish community leaving the smaller communities isolated, downturn in world trade and the great depression caused financial problems for the Yishuv in Palestine....In general the Yishuv, in the early 30s, was surviving on injections of capital from external sources....

See Hillel Cohen's book for more useful details. The crisis in the Yishuv goes back to 1937-8, which witnessed an aggregate 'negative immigration', as bureacurats would say. More emigrants than immigrants and the financial crisis of 1929 then hit hard. The Ha'avara agreements saved the situation, with a capital inflow from Jewish sources in Nazi Germany.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To point 4.; 'Yaakov ben Shalom Ezra' maintaining contact with the Yishuv and recruiting at weekends, he was a very busy man and deserves a wiki entry....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole Iraqi Jewish settlement from the 1850s deserves more note. As one weeds out the recent troublemakers wrongly assigned to Hebron, one should try to give a little more info on those remarkable men who made aliyah and settled in Hebron. They had no thought of Zionism, and were a remarkable bunch of people. Yitzhak Shami was of Damascene origins, and wrote mainly in Arabic and was thoroughly at home in the Arabic world. His stories are now being translated. He deserves to be registered as a notable person within Hebron, and given a wiki page, (I think the heading should be 'Notable people of Hebron', not 'Residents of Hebron' and protest the removal of Abraham. He's mythic, but a key part in both Jewish and Moslem traditions concerning the city, traditions also entertained by Christians.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a curiosity. One source I read some years ago mentioned a Jewish woman who refused to evacuate in 1929, and stayed on in the city alone. Have never found this repeated in quality sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of hebron

Yehoseph Schwarz from 1850 put the name of Hebron as Beth al Chalil translated as House of Beloved not in relation to Abraham but to Issac. A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine By Yehoseph Schwarz, Isaac Leeser Translated by Isaac Leeser Published by A. Hart, 1850 Original from Oxford University. p 396. This contradicts the second para of the opening.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

centre of Jewish Learning

I've long been puzzled by this. The only influential book on Jewish thought (in Kabbalah) I can recall being written in Hebron, is the 1295 Shaaray Tzion (Gates of Righteousness) by Shem Tov of Borgus. In the Ottoman period, Safed had a far stronger community of scholars. 'Centre of learning' is, on one level, true of any Jewish religious community in history, anywhere in the world, since it is inherent in Jewish life to study. But, semantically, it does imply a significant centre of learning (compared to elsewhere)throughout the whole Ottoman period, if it is to warrant conclusion, and that seems highly dubious, if one considers the thriving scholarship that arose throughout that period in Eastern and Western Europe. Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at this section from Encyclopedia Judaica on the history of Hebron:

"The growth of the Jewish population of Hebron at the beginning of the 16th century is explained by the fact that some of those Jews who were expelled from Spain went to Hebron... the emergence of two phenomena of note in the second half of the 16th century: the rising power of the Hebron settlement, on the one hand, and the decline of Safed as a spiritual and economic center, on the other. The consolidation of the Hebron settlement took place in 1540 when Malkiel *Ashkenazi settled in the town. This multifaceted personality...organized communal life in Hebron both practically and spiritually. Ashkenazi's first act was to buy the courtyard in which the Jews of Hebron lived. This courtyard, which was surrounded by the stone walls of tall buildings, provided the Jewish community of Hebron with a degree of security. Ashkenazi built some additional buildings in the same location as the well-known synagogue, which was named for Abraham the Patriarch. He also served as Hebron's first rabbi, and his legal decisions and customs were regarded by the Hebron community as irrevocable halakhot not only in his time but in subsequent generations as well. Toward the end of the 16th and at the beginning of the 17th centuries some of the most important kabbalists of Safed moved to Hebron. The most famous among these was Elijah de *Vidas, author of the well known moralistic work Reshit Hokhmah and a student of Moses Cordovero and Isaac Luria, as well as Isaac Archa and Menahem b. Moses ha-Bavli, also disciples of Luria. The teachings of the Kabbalah and mysticism made a deep impression on the spiritual life of Hebron, and a spirit of asceticism was widespread. Isaiah Horowitz tells about the custom in Hebron of castigation and flagellation (Ammud ha-Teshuvah, a commentary on the tractate Yoma), which is an eyewitness description of castigations and a process of atonement which includes lashing, wearing sackcloth, being dragged, and the symbolic performance of the four judicial executions. Kabbalah and asceticism were prevalent in Hebron for approximately 300 years, until the settlement of the *Habad Hasidim in the 19th century. Thus, the settlement in Hebron grew and became stabilized, although not from an economic aspect. The great majority of the population was economically dependent on continuous outside assistance, in the form of donations and contributions from abroad... donations which were sent directly to Palestine from abroad and contributions which were collected by emissaries who went abroad specifically for this purpose. Until the middle of the 17th century Hebron did not have its own emissaries; since the community was small and poor, it could not afford the large investment required for sending such an emissary abroad. Hebron was thus dependent on chance contributions from the Diaspora and on the general *halukkah among the four holy cities (Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias), from which Hebron received the smallest share (three parts out of 24). In the 16th century the charitable organization known as Yahaz was established. This was a kind of united fund whose name was a combination of the first letters of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed. It seems, however, that all these attempts did not greatly alleviate Hebron's difficult economic situation. This can be seen in "Kol Kore" (1616), which proclaimed to the Diaspora the difficult situation of Hebron's Jews. A central factor in their troubles was the huge debt owed by the community to the ruling authorities as a result of various decrees. Characteristic of the situation is the legend which tells about a tyrannical governor who forced the community to pay him thousands of grushim (coins whose value was equivalent to the German thaler) by threatening to burn half of the town and sell the other half into slavery (A. M. Luncz, in O. Avisar (ed.), Sefer hevron, 306)...in spite of the heavy tribulations, which included a plague, locusts, and harsh decrees by the authorities during the 17th century, the Jews of Hebron did not surrender their desire for spiritual survival. In 1659 the famous philanthropist from Amsterdam, R. Abraham Pereira, established the yeshivah Hesed le-Avraham in Hebron. Distinguished rabbis and hakhamim lived in Hebron at that time. The yeshivah Hesed le-Avraham was a primary factor in the creation of this spiritual prominence of Hebron. A difficult crisis befell the spiritual leadership of the town in the second half of the 17th century, after the visit of Shabbetai Zevi in 1663 on his way to Egypt. His visit made a great impression on the community. His disciples related that the people of Hebron stayed awake the entire night in order to see his wondrous deeds. He gained the adulation of the most important rabbis of Hebron, some of whom, as well as their descendants, maintained their faith in him even after his conversion. People like the kabbalist Abraham Conki and the emissary Meir ha-Rofe, and especially Nehemiah Hayon, devoted themselves to Shabbateanism. The Shabbatean crisis had a very adverse effect on Hebron and led to both its spiritual and economic decline. There was no improvement during the 18th century, which was marked by disease, decrees of expulsion, a blood libel, and upheavals during the rebellion of Ali Bey and the Russo-Turkish War. Despite these troubles, there was a certain increase in population as a result of the breakdown of Jewish settlement of Jerusalem in 1721 and the immigration of Abraham Gershon of Kutow (Kuty), the brother-in-law of Israel Baal Shem Tov. Abraham Gershon relates that in the single Jewish courtyard there was so little room that they could not even let him bring his family. In the beginning of the 19th century the Hebron settlement gained some relief. In 1807 and 1811 the Jews bought and leased over 800 dunams of land. Nor was there stagnation in the spiritual life. First and foremost among the chkhamim of Hebron in the second half of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries was Hayyim Joseph David *Azulai (called Hida). Mention should also be made of R. Mordecai *Rubio, the rabbi of Hebron and rosh yeshivah of Hesed le-Avraham, and Raphael Hazzan, author of halakhic works. There was a distinct improvement from a financial point of view as well, notwithstanding the robbery and oppression perpetrated by the authorities. Financial help came from several sources. The philanthropist Simon Wertheimer established a large fund which regularly supported the poor of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed. In 1814 Hayyim Baruch of Ostrava was appointed as the emissary of Hebron and he succeeded in organizing a network of funds which regularly provided Hebron with considerable amounts (O. Avisar op. cit., 131, 219). Sir Moses Montefiore, who visited Hebron in 1839 and was impressed with its beauty, also made generous contributions to the town. There is even evidence of independent economic progress made by the Jews of Hebron toward the second half of the 19th century. There were Jews who dealt in wine (1838), crafts, and trade (1876 and after).--Gilabrand (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of your plunking this text in here. I may well be superficial in these areas, but I do my homework. I've read it several times over the last five years. I've never noted any coherent mention of Hebron as a centre of learning. The great centres of Jewish learning were predominantly in Eastern Europe, compared to whose voluminous output, we have virtually nothing from Hebron.

Since the article is predominantly about Hebron as a centre of Jewish life, i.e. the life of a small enclave that grew up since the 1540s in the midst of a Moslem majority, we are interested in seeing outside the walls of the 'courtyard'. The article is entitled 'Hebron' but tells us nothing of Hebron not connected to its historical community's tenuous existence within that area.

Some notes on why the article is not particularly good for wiki purposes.

(a) After their expulsion from Spain, some Jews went to Hebron, Malkiel Ashkenzai settled there in 1540, with his courtyard, that provided a sense of security

Comment Note the security motif: a handful of pious Jews flees real persecution in Spain, and settles down in a densely populated Muslim area. They build a courtyard to feel secure. Oh, come off it!

(b) Malkiel was Hebron’s first rabbi = there was no rabbi in Hebron before 1540.

(c) Around 16-17 cent. Safed kabbalists moved to Hebron, headed by Elijah de Vidas, accompanied by Isaac Acha and Menahem ben Moses ha-bavit.

(d) ‘The teachings of the Kabbalah and mysticism made a deep impression on the spiritual life of Hebron’

Comment.The innuendo is, Hebron’s overwhelmingly Moslem population had no spiritual life, or if they acquired lineaments of one, it was due to the influence of Jewish teaching. Of course, the prejudice of the article is showing, Hebron exists, the tacit premise runs, in so far as it has a Jewish culture.

(e) It was not economically sufficient, requiring halukkah from abroad and places like Safed

Comment. The article has just said that Safed was in decline compared to Hebron. (‘the emergence of two phenomena of note in the second half of the 16th century: the rising power of the Hebron settlement, on the one hand, and the decline of Safed as a spiritual and economic center, on the other.’)

(f)Moslem fiscal oppression was so harsh that one leader threatened to’burn half the town and sell the other half into slavery.’

Comment. A nonsensical remark, since ‘half the town’ wasn’t Jewish. Since this makes sense only as a generic remark, it suggests that ‘half’ the town razed, and the other ‘half’ sold into slavery referred to all inhabitants. Perhaps it’s just sloppy writing. Perhaps, as is usual in these sources, the plagues, instability, rapine and poverty afflicting everyone is recounted as only afflicting the Jewish population, as often in documents of the period, addressed to foreign Jewish communities, requesting financial assistance.

(g) 1659 Amsterdam’s R. Abraham Pereira, established the yeshivah Hesed le-Avraham in Hebron, a ‘primary factor in the creation of this spiritual prominence of Hebron.’.

Comment. I.e. the spiritual prominence of Hebron (what earlier was called the rising power of the Hebron settlement) dates from sometime after 1659. However, a mere four years later, after Shabbatai visited the city, we are told that his impact was deleterious: ‘The Shabbatean crisis had a very adverse effect on Hebron and led to both its spiritual and economic decline.’ In effect, this clumsy article is saying, in the most extraordinary fashion, once the flowery language is pruned out, that the ‘creation’ of Hebron’s spiritual prominence in Palestine, down to its eclipse, lasted 4 years.

(h) Shabbatai visited Hebron in 1663. This made an impact on Abraham Conki and the emissary Meir ha-Rofe.

Comment. That should be Abraham Konki, a native Hebronite, author of the Ebeck Sophrim (The Dust of the Scribes). The qualifier 'emissary', by the way, should apply both to him and to Meir ha-Rofe, since both canvassed for funds abroad on behalf of the Jews of Palestine, and esp. those of Hebron

It is only in the allusion to Abraham Konki that we have mention of a book. As earlier in Spain, so in eastern Europe, there was a huge outpouring of commentaries, disquisitions, theological arguments, textual recensions, in centres of Jewish learning over the same period. All I can gather, and I sincerely wish to be informed on this, is that at Hebron we have, as tokens of Jewish learning, the Shaaray Tzion of 1295 and Abraham Konki's Ebeck Sophrim, the latter a book, I am informed, of no particular hermeneutic distinction. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, this article may not come up to your high standards of scholarship, but it is certainly as good a source as many others used on Wikipedia, if not many times better. I would advise you to further your research before making sneering, cynical comments based on your admittedly slight knowledge of the subject. Yes, some of this seems badly written, but there are kernels of information here that are valuable and back up the (already solid) statement that Hebron was a center of Jewish learning.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply when I have an adequate answer to the points I made. As to 'sneering, cynical' comments, dear lady, if this is the way you construe textual examination of what you admit to be a document that is, in good part, badly written, I suggest you do not understand what editors, in any field, are required to know. I.e., scrutinize sources to see if they pass muster. This one doesn't. There is nothing particular about my mode of reading: it is, or is that, was taught in any university in the world. If editors read substantial scholarly works as they read talk page comments by their interlocutors, antennae bristling for the slightest hint of prejudicial tone, cooperative editing would be a deeply enriching experience. Unfortunately one reads for prejudice which means a partisan perspective opposed to one's own. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, as someone with a slight knowledge of the subject, I would dearly love for you to illuminate me about the meaning of the following passage:

'Many Jewish and Christian visitors wrote about the community, among them a student of Nachmanides (1270), Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1322) who recorded no Jewish presence in Hebron'

From someone with a tenuous grasp of local realities I have difficulty in understanding how many Jewish and Christian visitors wrote about the community, when, at the same time, several of them found no Jewish presence in Hebron at that time.

Yes, of course, it is just clumsy language again, as with the cited article.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That was me having a little play at the inappropriate use of community, Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1322) visited and wrote about Hebron but does not record a Jewish presence in the city.....Hence I dropped who recorded no Jewish presence in Hebron slap bang in the middle of the list with a reference to back it up....It was either ask for citations or point out the fallacy of the little list....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Do we really need that extensive, mostly irrelevant quotation from Josephus? I think the bulk of it could be cut without damage to the text.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No the whole lot was not needed, I expected it to be cut but wanted other editors to see the whole paragraph to see the reasoning behind the edit...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing Double

Hebron became one of the principal centers of the Tribe of Judah, and a traditional refuge....

1. Is the first part required twice?
2. refuge from what or who?
3. and anyone got a reference for it?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• If it's repeated elide the second mention
• Hey, I thought the military went regularly to chapel? The cities (of refuge) alludes to the six cities (of refuge) in the book of Joshua. If you'd killed someone by happenstance, these places were designated as loci of asylum where the killer or manslaughterer could take refuge from his go'el (family's designated agent of vengeance) until a court could rule.
• Joshua ch.20.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Many visitors wrote about Hebron over the next two centuries, among them Nachmanides (1270), his student Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1322),[34] Stephen von Gumfenberg (1449), Rabbi Meshulam from Volterra (1481) and Rabbi Obadiah ben Abraham, a famous biblical commentator (1489). Haparchi in 1322 does not record any Jews in Hebron whereas by 1333, an account from Hakham Yishak Hilo of Larissa, Greece, records a number of them working in the cotton trade and glassworks.[34]

I've had this in my mind now for 2 years. I've checked Schwartz's volume, pages 396ff.do in fact deal with Hebron, but I still cannot find any reference to most of these figures in there. Ashley, can you find it? And from our Jewish colleagues, can anyone be so good as to give a guide to the perplexed about Yishak Hilo? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few passages in here, like this one, which seem tailored to mock the reader's ignorance. Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi, for example, has for years been described here as a student of Nachmanides, yet he couldn't have been, since he was born 10 years after the latter's death.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen von Gumfenberg, and Hakham Yishak Hilo of Larissa, require some specific sourcing. I cannot turn up anything for the former, though numerous texts recycle the exact same words wiki has on Yishak of Hilo, whether by copying from wiki or not I cannot determineNishidani (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we move the whole article from Hebron to Jewish history in Hebron? :-D I mean really, the article as it is now is a total disgrace: less than 1% of the population has about 100% of the history of the town! Anyway, I have never heard about Jews being involved in production of Hebron glass, (and Tiamut and I wrote & researched most of that article.) The one and only reference I have found was in Alexander Schölch (1993): Palestine in Transformation, 1856-1882, p.161, 162. Schölch quoted Delpuget, David: Les Juifs d´Alexandrie, de Jaffa et de Jérusalem en 1865, Bordeaux, 1866, p. 26. ...who had observed that glass products from Hebron continued to be sold, "particularly among the poorer populace, not least of all by travelling Jewish traders from the city." Unfortunately, I cannot yet find Delpuget on the net, but I´m sure a copy will become available eventually, (just as Yehoseph Schwarz (1850): A Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine is.) The Delpuget story actually made me a little sad: can you imagine the Palestinian and Jewish populations of Hebron co-operating in such a constructive manner today? No? Well, neither can I. Sigh. Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more than well aware of that problem. It was much worse two years ago, when indeed it was more or less a Jewish history of Hebron. The problem cannot, however, be overcome by the fork you propose, which would involve immense difficulties in districation and, more worrisome, setting a precedent for a kind of ethnic division in I/P articles. It is true that (a) for most of its history, Hebron has been populated by peoples that were not Judaic in the religious sense of the word, even in antiquity (b) for two thousand years, patches of an exiguous community pop up, within an overwhelmingly pagan (there is a whole section I could eventually write on the terebinth fair and mythology associated with the town), Christian and Arab population. (3) Very many rabbinical sources wrote of the town with nostalgia, even exaggeration (Yishak Hilo of Larissa (previously of Aragon)'s odd remark, of a pastoral idyl of a Torah-chanting community of herders and glass-workers there, just 10 years after another visitor said no community existed, together with Mandeville's remarks, suggest to anyone with a critical historical mind that this may well be (unless independently confirmed) read as a glossy fantasy to excite foreign minds with an image that would prompt hope and perhaps aliyah). That nostalgia in the rabbinical tradition then stirred a few religious temperaments in the diaspora after the Spanish nakba of 1492, to drift towards Hebron. (4) This material has been harvested by Jewish sources to create the impression of a living continuity where there was none, and that was the fundamental drift of the original Wiki document. The creation of the 4 holy cities of Judaism is an invented tradition, as far as I can gather, which grew up quite late. Most Jews abroad, if they thought of these things at all, thought of Jerusalem, and, given the extreme poverty of the Hebron (and Safed) communities that began to be reestablished, the reports we have reflect also a desire to create an impression of crucial Judaic importance in these towns in order to gather in charitable subventions sedaka and halukkah because those communities, being intensely religious enclaves, had no viable independent means of support right down to the 19th. century. One can see this in the fact that by the end of the 19th.century (when external help and subventions had consistently trickled through, the two major Jewish communities in Hebron (not 'community') reached a figure of 1,500 but, especially after Herzl, most drifted away to Jerusalem, where prospects were far better (Hebron Street in the Moslem quarter of Jerusalem was a favourite point of relocation), so that a few decades later, you get down to a third of that figure. This demographic drift out of Hebron contradicts the image or impression the text created. As Zionism took root, and economic conditions throughout Palestine improved, far more Jews left Hebron (1890-1913) than joined it. Those who did were a handful of highly religiously motivated people from one eastern European yeshiva, and from the United States.(5)The article is thus complicated by the 'invention of traditions' characteristic of all modernising nations and, esp. by the Zionist rewriting of the landscape, abetted by the specific ideological project in many of the cheaper modern sources of creating a discursive charter to warrant the mass expropriations of land in Hebron by the Kiryat Arba 'community' as part of the rejudaisation of Palestine.

This is all obvious, but the solution is not simple, since one cannot correct a tendentious imbalance in historical sources, by ignoring them. One cannot, as historians do, interpret these sources to correct the misleading impressions they tend to generate, since that would violate WP:OR.

So far, if one is honest, one must simply admit that available sources so far are predominantly Jewish, and that inevitably, the story of Hebron will necessarily filter the history of the place through that perspective, notwithstanding the fact that it was for some 2000 years not particularly noteworthy as a sacred city of Judaism. One might protest the lack of a more ground-level slant, but one cannot demand of the sources what they do not provide. The problem here is the problem of most historical narratives: the history of the world, until recently, was written from a eurocentric perspective because historians used imperial archives. The only remedy is long term: to gradually harvest whatever is forthcoming from Arabic, Western and Turkish chronicles, travellers, historians etc., as these are analysed in the now intensive field of Middle Eastern studies. I've been told a few days ago my knowledge was 'superficial'. Now I learn that my attempts (roughly half of the historical material) only contribute to exacerbate a 'disgrace' into a 'total disgrace'. So be it: one works in the vineyards of available knowledge, drunk on sorse that pass for sources, and it must not be a pretty spectacle to temperant onlookers. Still, you have a point, and I take it well.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear; I had no intention of insulting you in any way! And I hope you noticed the "smiley" behind my "suggestion" of moving...as to fixing: do you have le Strange: Palestine under the Moslems? According to it the Muqaddasi quote is a falsification (he never mentions any Jews, money for feeding the pilgrims came from Muslim waqfs) and the Nasir-i-Khusraw miss out all he writes about the Muslim structures. Muhammad al-Idrisi and Yaqut al-Hamawi also wrote about Hebron ..I will add/correct it later, logging out for now. There are lots of Arab sources! Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, like Prince Charles, I'm all ears. I suspected that there might be a confusion or a common tradition between what Muqaddasi says and the other sources which treat of the simat tradition among Moslems. But, one suspects all sorts of things, without being permitted to voice doubts about the way sources may be themselves fixed, or question-begging. It is normal for anyone with a classical education or a historian's background, to be wary of what sources say, but that's of little avail in editing Wiki, which militates, with good reason, against the use of personal judgement, be it scholarly or otherwise. Still, I look forward to anything you can come up with re Muqaddasi et al. I'm a very slow reader, and am trawling, when time allows, through all the sources you kindly listed on your net-references page to Palestine (you appear to have left out Arthur Penrhyn Stanley's Sinai and Palestine: In Connection with Their History, Redfield, 1857, by the way, which I downloaded a good while back). Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for Stanley reference, I have added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sources Please feel free to add to that page yourself! The page as it is now was more meant as a link-site to a virtual library for myself, then Timeshifter was bold and copied it up to the project -space. Ah well, there might be a few books on that list which are not that important, I think the list over which books are referenced by newer studies (such as Khalidi and Weir) are a good indication over which books are important. I have also uploaded to commons about 20 pages about Hebron which are in "Palestine under the Moslems" (I have the old copy, from 1890, so there is no copy-right violation.) Btw, I do hope that book will be available soon on the net: it is so extremely useful! (When I first started looking for a copy a few years ago, it was very, very difficult to get hold of. Only copies made in Beyrut, 1965 was available in addition to the original. But in the last 2 years some started "print-on-demand", so now it is relatively easy to get.)

It looks as if it is not quite updated on commons, try this link to get to the Hebron-pages. So far today I have not used it at all; I have been to busy updating "the Ottoman period", which still needs a *lot* of work. And good luck with you checking of sources! Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Muqaddasi, Nasir-i-Khusraw, Muhammad al-Idrisi and Yaqut al-Hamawi, etc

I have uploaded the 19 pages of sources on Hebron taken from Guy le Strange: Palestine under the Moslems, 1890. page: 309-327, see here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guy_le_Strange. For "translation" of the names, see at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sources for those I have found. As I said above, I believe the Muqaddasi quote to be a pure fabrication. I have ordered the Amy Singer -book to find out what it is based on (Btw, Amy Singer is, AFAIK, a specialist on the Ottoman period, say 500 years post-Muqaddasi). I haven´t had time to add any of the stuff yet; if somebody else will have a try: please do. Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Larissa

Shelomo Alfassa has it in for wiki since on his home page he has an article entitled: 'Wikipedia® Continues to Destroy Intellectualism,' August 31, 2008, complaining of a lack of reliable notes, a just criticism. Perhaps a Jewish colleague could contact him and ask him for the source of the Yishak Hilo account. In 2006, he writes

(1)'As early as 1333, there is an account from Hakham Yishak Hilo of Larissa (Greece), who arrived in Hevron and observed Jews working in the cotton trade and glassworks. He noted that in Hevron there was an, "ancient synagogue in which they prayed day and night".' Shelomo Alfassa, A Sephardic Perspective on Hevron Part 1January 24, 2006 Israel National News

He now gives us an expanded version (the text is a template repeated endlessly, and only here do I find a variation)

(2) 'As early as 1333, there is an account from Hakham Yishak Hilo, originally from Aragon, then later of Larissa (Greece), who arrived in Hebron and observed Jews working in the cotton trade and glassworks. He noted that in Hebron there was an, “ancient synagogue in which they prayed day and night”. He found the Jews occupying themselves with cattle-raising. He told that even while the rabbis of the congregations were with their flocks, they taught their disciples Torá, this taking place under the open sky, while guarding the herd. Shelomo Alfassa, Sephardic Contributions to the Development of the State of Israel, May 5, 2008 p.4

This means he has accessed the original account or a report on it. Help anyone?Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole quote seems not quite reliable to me. All other sources I know of talk of glass-making in Hebron as an exclusive Arab manufacturing process, "inherited" in certain Arab families. The extent that the Jewish community participated in it was as salesmen, and distributing glass-wares. If we cannot find anything backing up Alfassa, (not even that this "Hakham Yishak Hilo of Larissa " ever excisted), then I suggest that we delete it. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there has been months, and nobody has come up with information confirming this claim. So I am going to remove it. In fact, when you read p 398 of the 1850 book of Yehoseph Schwarz: [1], he clearly writes that there has been an uninterrupted Jewish community in Hebron "since 1540", i.e. not before 1540. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephen von Gumpenberg

I have removed the mention of ' Stephen von Gumfenberg (1449),' because it will require some considerable amount of luck to come up with a citation, one gathers, after searching google books and the net. The name Gumfenberg, Gumppenberg, comes up mostly as a reference to this Wiki page (which is irresponsible) or to Tarot cards from Lombardy, or to a Bavarian Baron in a book on the Life and Persecutions of Martin Boos, or finally, restricting the search to the medieval period to a middle German document with Latin notes, referring to a H.Hainrichen the elder of Gumpenberg, and his son Hainrich (Christians) on a bill of sale dated to 1342 in 'Monumenta Diessensia', in Monumenta Boica, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften Kommission für Bayerische Landesgeschichte,Typis Academicis, 1767 p.230

We can put the name back in when a sure source is forthcoming.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I will shortly restore it. Quite legitimate.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you have restored Gumfenberg (with its Robinson source), I am wondering though, just how notable is he? I cannot find any other information about him. (Ah well, no harm in including him, I guess ;-P) As for the other sources given in Robinson:

• Felix Fabri is clearly interesting. I don´t think his work was available in anything but German and Latin until mid-20th century. Anyway, I have just ordered the two books now available in English, as I heard he wrote about the glass-industry: a special interest of mine...
• As for Mujir ad Din (called Mejr ed Din in Robinson): His 1496 book was translated into French in 1876: "Historie de Jerusalem et d´Hebron". However, AFAIF, the book is not in any library near me, and it has not, AFAIK, been reprinted. The only copy (in French) I find available is at abebooks: [2] ... (for US$ 387.26 ..) I think I will pass that one.... The only information I have about him in English is the little le Strange wrote p324, basically that Mujir ad Din made very careful measurement of the Hebron Sanctuary, and left a detailed description .. and "Descriptions of the Hebron Haram at present day corresponds closely with this account, proving that since the time of Mujir no very extensive alterations have taken place."
  In Arabic the book was made available in 2004, and can easily be gotten at a more reasonable price: [3]. So, I think I will leave Mujir ad Din until he gets more easily available in English/French. (It would of course have been very nice if some Arabic-speaking person got hold of the Arabic-book and inserted that material). Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have now checked the following two books by Felix Fabri:

• Once to Sinai : Further Pilgrimage of Friar Felix Fabri (1957), H. F. M. Prescott published by Eyre and Spottiswoode, London.
• Jerusalem Journey: Pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the Fifteenth Century (1954) H. F. M. Prescott published by Eyre and Spottiswoode, London.

...and unfortunately, none of them contains anything much about Hebron. Likely, there is more in the original, however, it does not look as if that is available in English presently. Regards, Huldra (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arab Bedouin for 'Arab and Bedouin'

This is the least one can do for the moment (let's examine the incident in reliable sources). It was, as I have frequently reminded editors, normal in Western ethnography to describe Palestinian Arabs as Bedouins, and Bedouins as Arabs, as distinct from the majority settled fellahin. You find this distinction all over the 18th-19th century ethnography of Palestine. Perhaps it is not a distinction Palestinians at the time would accept. Arab and Bedouin were interchangeable terms in English usage and thus 'Arab and Bedouin' is, historically, pleonastic (as indeed is Arab Bedouin). So the episode requires some expansion and correction.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Qibrisli Pasha

There was a Kibrisli Mehmed Emin Pasha about that time, to be distinguished from the other Kibrisli Pasha of later date? Could this then be an Arabic rendering of the Turkish Kıbrıslı (Mehmed Emin Pasha)?Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My first comment: could be Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Pasha, but I really do not know. Schöltz also writes that Qibrisli Pasha was "governor of Jerusalem" in 1846, if that fits Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Pasha, then he´s our man. Huldra (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(a)'In 1846, when Muhammad Pasha al-Qubrusli was nominated governor of Jerusalem, he decided to put an end to the lawlessness in the country caused by the factional wars'. Moshe Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, Brill, 1997 p.9

‘the fearful extortions which Abderrahhman would practise upon all the inhabitants of the Hebron district in order to recoup himself for the money given to the Sultan . . . The whole state of affairs was critical. The Hebron district was one of those in the country affording plenty of opportunity for the purpose of keeping up the ‘open sores’, so advantageous for the adversaries of Turkey.. . .His shameless exactions and tyranny when in power, and his rebellions and intrigues for restoration when occasionally driven out by the Turkish authorities, had been a sscandal for years.

And it was notorious that he had a powerful protector at Damascus in the Commander-in-Chief (Seriasker) Mehemet Kubrisli Pasha, the same who, when Governor of Jerusalem in 1846, had taken Hebron by storm, and allowed his soldiers to sack the town.' James Finn, Stirring Times, Or, Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 To 1856, Adamant Media Corporation reprint, 2004, pp.287f.

note. Seriasker = serasker in Turkish

Muhammad Pasha al-Qubrusli (Arabic) appears to be Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Pasha (Turkish), since Muhammad =Mehmed in Turkish. (b)This Kibrisli was born in Cyprus 1813?, (b) appointed (Damascus-based) governor of Jerusalem in 1846 (c)whom Moshe Sharon says decided to put an end to the lawlessness (d) but whom, on the spot, James Finn appears to be saying, was a protector of Abderrahmen's lawlessness in Hebron, i.e., the (Seriasker:Commander-in-Chief) Mehemet Kubrisli Pasha. Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion in the Finn primary source, so I've controlled a secondary source, and I think it is now cleared up. We can I presume link Qibrisli Pasha as Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Pasha, on the following evidence.

‘The palace, however, was far less fortunate in its choices than was Mustafa Resit Pasa. Perhaps the most prominent of these was Kibrisli Mehmet Emin Pasa (1813-1881), whose problems with Midhat Pasa have already been noted. His uncle, chief of Mahmut 11’s private treasury, entered him into the palace service at an early age, securing rapid advancement for him in the Hassa regiment (1832-1833) and then a couple of years study in France at the sultan’s expense to fit him to compete with resit’s men. Through palace influence he rose rapidly in the army, serving in a series of provincial military posts, at Acre (1844-1845) Jerusalem (1845-1847), Tirnova (1847) and Belgrade (1847-1848)

Though his administrative mismanagement led to numerous complaints, none of these served to dislodge him due to palace support and the sultan’s conviction that the accusations were due mainly to politics. In 1848 he was made vexir… He then served as governor of Aleppo (1850-1851), brutally suppressing Bedouin revolts; . .In 1851 he became field marshal (müsir) in the Imperial army in the Arab provinces, based in Syria...’ Stanford J.Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge University Press, 1977 vol.2 p.70

Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamim-al Dari

The sahaba (companion) of the prophet Muhammad] Tamim-al Dari should really have his own article. He was apparently a Christian merchant, who was one of the first converts to Islam. He was then given lots of property in Hebron, which he (or his family) in turn made into a waqf for the famous Hebron 'table of Abraham' (simāt al-khalil).

See:

• Poster of the First Islamic Endowment in Islam The prophet's Esteemed Grant to Tamim Ibn Aws al-Dari "This document was given by Prophet Muhammad to Tamim al-Dari and his brothers in the year 9AH (630 AD). "This is a copy of the definitive original document, written by the hand of the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib. Granting them and their ancestors the city of Hebron -Al-Khalil- and the surrounding area."

This is what al-Muqaddasi writes about him in 985:

• (In Hebron)...public guest house continuously open, with a cook, a baker and servants in regular attendance...... from the bequest of Tamim-al Dari and others. (p.310)

And Yaqut al-Hamawi writing in year 1225:

• "Hebron was given in fief by the prophet to (his companion) Tamim al Dari and his family. There are named in the deed, Bait Ainun, Hebron, Al Martum, and Bait Ibrahim." (p.319)

See also:

• Tamīm al-Dārī by David Cook, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1998), pp. 20-28

Abstract: "Tamim al-Dari is one of the most enigmatic of the Prophet's companions. The stories of his conversion are mutually irreconcilable, but there is a minute fragment of historical information about him preserved in the exegetical tradition which, together with other fragments, helps us to connect this figure with the Prophet even before the beginning of Islam. This helps to explain the unique land-deed by which Tamim supposedly received the area of Hebron in Palestine, a number of years before its conquest by the Muslims. This land-deed has been the focus of a continuing controversy in the Muslim legal literature, in which the Hanifites, speaking in the name of the Turk-Mamluk overlords, were pitted against the Shafiites."

• Prophecies of Apocalypse in Sixteenth-Century Morisco Writings and the Wondrous Tale of Tamīm al-Dārī -LM Alvarez - Medieval Encounters, 2007

• Tamim al-Darı: A Portrait of him as the First Muslim Artisan, by Avinoam SHALEM p. 507, ORIENTE MODERNO XXIII (LXXXIV), n.s. 2-2004

• Tamim-al Dari in E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 (".....at present day the keepers of haram al-Khalil claim to be descended from Tamīm al-Dārī" )

• A History of Palestine, 634-1099 By Moshe Gil, Ethel Broido

Now, interestingly, it seems as if he was buried at Bayt Jibrin, see:

• Sharon, Moshe (1997): Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (Bayt Jibrin p 109-142) ISBN 9004110836, p. 140-142

Regards, Huldra (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Putatively dubious claims

Jayjg has deleted the remark that the four holy cities of Judaism was a concept developed over the Ottoman period. I thought this well-known. Chesdovi, who is learned in these matters, never questioned it. I don't believe one should overegg the footnoting pud on obvious matters but if a ref is required, ‘Since the sixteenth century the holiness of Palestine, especially for burial, has been almost wholly transferred to four cities—Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed.’ Joseph Jacobs Judah David Eisenstein, ‘ Holiness of Palestine’, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906 Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point, from a sometimes reliable (though often dubious) source. However, it does not claim that the notion of 4 holy cities existed in Judaism developed in the Ottoman period, nor do the sources in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering again. I'll construe both your sentence and the source.

since the sixteenth century in geographical-historical context means the Ottoman period for Palestine. The source thus says that the concept of holiness in Judaism began to be attached (transferred) to four cities (which, do you really need documentation on this, were mostly uninhabited by Jews but were the four major locations where the Jews who suffered expulsion from Spain took up residence in under Ottoman rule). I know you will come back and say WP:OR, which you, in this case, confuse with the grammatical construal of what a sentence means. But that 'transfer' of holiness to four cities, is quite precise in locating the concept of holiness of four cities to that period, which is the Ottoman period. Only a wikilawyer, who insists that wiki articles be a 'wretched patchwork' of eclectic quotes, and not paraphrase of reliable sources could find this objectionable.

p.s. Your language is revealingly slipshod. 'the notion of 4 holy cities existed in Judaism'. Do you mean by that that the notion preexisted the Ottoman period (pre-existed/existing)? Please clarify. In the meantime I will paraphrase the source, which you cannot impeach even if you dislike it.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1. The sources in the article do not support the claim made. Do not violate WP:V again.
2. The source you have cited on the Talk: page is 100 years old, and of dubious reliability. Find a source that complies with WP:V.
3. The information itself is a detail that does not even belong in this article much less the article lede. Please comply with WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. If you feel the information is of relevance, and can find a reliable source for it, feel free to add it to the Four Holy Cities article.
4. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an argument, it is a set of subjective opinions, accompanied by 'dubious' claims about violations of wiki rules on leads and length. As I shall show, there is no consistency in your objection.

1. The two book refs. you retain, have nothing to do with explaining 'for this reason' (i.e. because the Cave of Machpelah is in Hebron, it became one of the so-called four Holy Cities'). Several thousand books use the phrase 'Four Holy Cities'. The choice of these two is random, and not illuminating. As you say those two sources do not support the claim. As you do not note, the removed article did support the claim.
2. The removed article from the Jewish Encyclopedia does support the claim, as I rewrote it.
3. A source is not invalid because it may date back a century. Time has nothing to do with the determination of what is, or is not, a reliable source. The lead of the Wiki article on the Jewish Encyclopedia cites two authoritativce modern evaluations of that work.

'Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History." [1] Reform Jewish rabbi Joshua L. Segal calls it, "a remarkable piece of Jewish scholarship" and adds, For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English.'[2]

Since this, like the claim of 'dubious' reflects only your subjective personal take on a source you apparently dislike, the proper thing to do is to do a little research, and tell us when the concept of Arba ha-Aratzot (the four lands) came into existence. I presume, perhaps wrongly, this is the wording behind the four holy cities. I think Wiki would be much appreciative if someone went to the minor trouble of asking a rabbi for details on this. It is the sort of information that can be provided in minutes, with a glance at the index of an appropriate dictionary on historical lines or book on phrasing in Hebrew.

1. Presumably ex cathedra you pronounce this article 'dubious'. Well, prove it. Until I am given a documented set of Reliable Sources to show that the Jewish Encyclopedia article gets things wrong, I will take it as the one reliable source we have for this.
2. You say this violates the lede rules. Arguable. (a) What is not arguable is that the lead repeats the concept of the holiness of Hebron twice, a clear violation of the very principles you adduce to exclude this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I.e.

'it is the second holiest city in Judaism, after Jerusalem.[6]'

'Hebron is also referred to as "the City of the Patriarchs" in Judaism, and regarded as one of its Four Holy Cities.[9][10]'

(b) If you are troubled by principles of lead composition and undue weight, why is this passage, extensive and repeated in the subsection below, so long?

'The most famous historic site in Hebron sits on the Cave of the Patriarchs. Although the site is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam also accept it as a sacred site, due to scriptural references to Abraham. According to Genesis, he purchased the cave and the field surrounding it from Ephron the Hittite to bury his wife Sarah, subsequently Abraham Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah were also buried in the cave (the remaining Matriarch, Rachel, is buried outside Bethlehem). (79 words)

To observe the principles of succinctness governing leads, this should read something like:

'Hebron's most famous site sits on the Cave of the Patriarchs, the place the Bible has Abraham, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah buried. This accounts for its sacredness in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.' (33 words).

So, to say the least, your objections are incoherent. If you are concerned about undue weight and lead laconism, one would expect you to whittle down that passage, and eliminate the reduplicated mention of Hebron's holiness. You haven't.

The link to 'Four Holy Cities' of Judaism takes us to a page where this same article is cited. It reads: 'The Four Holy Cities is the collective term in Jewish tradition applied to the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed: 'Since the sixteenth century the holiness of Palestine, especially for burial, has been almost wholly transferred to four cities—Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed.'

Since you say the claim is 'dubious', logical editing would require you to go to that sister page and elide the claim there as well. You have not. Your objection therefore, so far, is to the presence of this claim, differently phrased, on the Hebron page.

I will restore the Jewish Encyclopedia reference Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein, Palestine, Holiness of, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, together with the paraphrase of its meaning, 'regarded as one of its Four Holy Cities as the notion of holiness was transferred to them from the early Ottoman period onwards', and will happily elide both when you prove to me that it is erroneous. Your objection to this in the lead ignores the fact that immigration into Hebron to reconstitute a vigorous Jewish community (20 families in 1483), in the 16th century, and thrice (1851-75, 1882-1925) (1968,1979-2008) has been a fundamental theme of the city's history, and for that reason alone should be mentioned in the lead, esp. since 40% of the article still showcases the impact on the city of the last wave of that immigration.

Let's by all means discuss it here, but I would appreciate Reliable Sources and not obiter dicta for any position you may take on this.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

An analogy to the Jewish Encyclopedia entry, just as and afterthought, can be found in this report on Safed:

‘In Jesus’ day it was a tiny village, not mentioned in the New Testament. Soon afterwards the Romans built here. Within a century it achieved fame as a center of Jewish biblical study. The city retained this character through crusader and Turkish domination until the sixteenth century, when rabbinical scholarship flourished so powerfully that it was designated one of the four holy cities of Judaism.’ Robert Wallace, Gwynneth Wallace, Pilgrim's Progress: A Spiritual Guide for the Holy Land, Traveler Westminster John Knox Press, 2000 p.32

The association seems to have indeed greatly strengthened with the influx of rabbinical scholars and the flourishing of learning from the Ottoman period onwards.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The source you have cited on the Talk: page is 100 years old, and of dubious reliability. Find a source that complies with WP:V.
2. The lede should summarize the article, not introduce new material. Please comply with WP:LEDE.
3. The information itself is a detail that does not even belong in this article much less the article lede. Please comply with WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. If you feel the information is of relevance, and can find a reliable source for it, feel free to add it to the Four Holy Cities article.
4. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Don't raise the 100 years old argument. I have already cited proof modern scholars think its scholarship often superior to later encyclopedias.
2. It is not 'new material', except in the editorial history of the page, and is there to succinctly clarify what is expounded at length in the text, the rise of Jewish immigration to cities like Hebron under Ottoman rule.
3. It's not detail, it's a needed gloss on a vague and unfamiliar notion. A half a line is not a violation of WP:UNDUE
4. Reply to questions asked and never answered. I reply to yours, you do not reply to mine, except selectively. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The "proof" you have provided from "modern scholars" is a rabbi's sermons, the rabbi being the leader of a small congregation in Nashua.
2. It is "new material" to the article, because the article doesn't discuss it. The lede should summarize what is already in the body of the article, not introduce new material. Review WP:LEDE.
3. It is detail, and the "vague and unfamiliar notion" is explained by the dablink, not by your insertion, which in any event doesn't explain at all what a "Holy city" means in Judaism. That's what it's there for.
4. I reply to what is relevant, not the rest of the extraordinarily lengthy and irrelevant prose you post.

Jayjg ^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indicated two sources. I will add more. (a) I have quoted a Jewish encyclopedia known for its erudition (b) I have added testimony from two more recent scholars who appraise the quality of that encyclopedia's erudition and precision as superior to much that follows it (c) I have adduced a text to show this was true of Safed as well (d) the point is confirmed by Gudren Krämer.

The idea that there are “four holy cities” in Eretz Israel – Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias – developed in connection with fund-raising for the Jews in Eretz Israel, the Halukka, which seems to have been carried out more systematically after the Ottoman conquest in the sixteenth century.’ Gudren Krämer in her A History of Palestine, Princeton UP 2008 p.25

To state Hebron is one of the Holy Cities (previously 'holiest') is to beg the question as to how it became such, and tactically ignore the relative modernity, unlike the other notions in the lead, of the concept. It explains therefore why emigration, and settlement there, elaborated later, assumed such iconic force. No problem in a lead.

Now that I have been succinct, you still persist with remarks about my 'extraordinary lengthy and irrelevant prose'.

You have given me, in your edit summary, some generic cliché in popular circulation. You have provided no evidence against what the encyclopedia says. This is not a gossip column. If you want to challenge an edit, do some homework, and surprise me. I don't mind having my edits challenged, but not on pretextual wikilawyering grounds that appear to reflect simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A check with any scholar you know on Arba ha-Aratzot has been requested, which might clear things up. I'm still waiting for a reply. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The lede should summarize what is already in the body of the article, not introduce new material. Review WP:LEDE. The article doesn't discuss the origins of the notion of Four Holy Cities, so the lede certainly should not.
2. In any event, this article should not discuss the provenance of the Jewish belief in the Four Holy Cities. That should be discussed in the Four Holy Cities article. See WP:UNDUE. There is a reason for dablinks.
3. What is actually "wikilawyering" is to claim that a source is reliable because a rabbi of a small temple claims it is in a sermon.
4. The fact that you are focussed on finding reliable sources for the origins of the concept of Four Holy Cities is telling; as explained, it makes no difference, since the material doesn't belong in this article at all, much less the lede. I've been saying that for weeks (please review, for example, my comments of October 26 above), and it would be helpful if, in the future, you would read, assimilate, and think about my objections, instead of blindly reverting.

Jayjg ^(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original complaint and grounds for removal highlighted this as a 'dubious' claim. I proved you wrong. You now stress WP:LEAD, now that the primary contention has collapsed under the weight of three sources that underline my point. The change of strategy is curious, if predictable. WP:UNDUE could, though you'll not see me using it in this way, be applied to large parts of this article, which provides extensive references to a very small community within Hebron. My edit on the Four Holy Cities is succinct for the lead, and allows readers to understand why Hebron was a focus for Jews, as opposed to hundreds of other potential towns, when the Ottoman victory allowed for Jewish settlement to build up in Palestine. You're close to 3RR in your persistence in eliding a brief notice of this sort, and I won't be dragged into an edit-war. I am not focused on finding RS for the origin of the concept of Holy Cities. You are focused on denying that the Jewish Encyclopedia got it right. You also have provided no evidence for your contention other than your personal opinion. Articles are written by people who read sources, not by people who are full of opinions, and rules. I'll put it back in due course (I'm not one to hurry) unless you can come up with a substantial sourced reason for denying what the JE article affirmed.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, for weeks, been "complaining" about and "stressing" the exact same problems. As for the source, you did not "prove me wrong"; the source was still dubious. This article is about Hebron, not the concept of Four Holy Cities in Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I might add that on leads, this highly repetitive section violates the indications.

The most famous historic site in Hebron sits on the Cave of the Patriarchs. Although the site is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam also accept it as a sacred site, due to scriptural references to Abraham. According to Genesis, he purchased the cave and the field surrounding it from Ephron the Hittite to bury his wife Sarah, subsequently Abraham Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah were also buried in the cave (the remaining Matriarch, Rachel, is buried outside Bethlehem). For this reason, Hebron is also referred to as 'the City of the Patriarchs'.

Why is no one complaining of that? I see details re Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem here. What has that to do with Hebron. I took it out once, back it goes. Consistency, consistency, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reduplication in lead

needs to be sorted out, as leads above all must adhere to criteria of succinctness.This is a rather difficult one to decide, one or the other must go, or, as I would prefer, the two be melded. We need full collegial imput here, before proceeding, since it is a point of some delicacy. A small point on the second quote, repeating 'Judaism' (or any other word) in the same line is stylistically shoddy. Something like 'Hebron is also called 'the City of the Patriarchs' in Judaism, as is the second of its Four Holy Cities.' Suggestions?Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(a para 1) Located in the Biblical region of Judea, it is the second holiest city in Judaism, after Jerusalem

(b para 2) For this reason, Hebron is also referred to as "the City of the Patriarchs" in Judaism, and it is the second of the four holiest cities in Judaism.

I'll be bold.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Zedakiah ben Shomron

or, I presume, Rav Zedakah ben Shomron ha-Bavli. I've searched for this for a year and have failed to come up with any information. I thought I had in an on-line Chinese encyclopedia, until I realized it was a translation of the Wiki article. I have found over 25 references throughout Hebron's history to a 'keeper of the cave' identified as a Moslem. Since this Karaite testimony is crucial and fascinating, obviously it can't stand as 'citation needed' for donkey's ages. Either in the coming month someone comes up with the source from which the original editor took it (these things are easy to check for anyone with access to Hebrew sources, suffice it a few historical dictionaries on Karaites or rabbinical figures) or it goes out, preferably into the Talk Hebron section for future reference. 20/10/2008 Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has still to come up with a source for this rather unlikely claim. I am therefor removing it. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Norwegians shot by Palestinians

Apart from the fact this shouldn't be in this article, but shifted, if wisdom prevails (these things figure more than Abraham, the Crusaders or David), to the appropriate fork dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Hebron, I removed this (subsequently restored by Canadian Monkey) because as sourced, it is inadequate (120,122) are the UK Daily Telegraph and ABC (Australia) news channeling a TV report from Israel quoting anonymous Israeli sources, within several hours of the incident. The TIPH note 121 does not cite who was responsible.

(a) West Bank killing to be investigated = The Palestinian Authority is to investigate the deaths of two European observers shot and killed near Hebron in the West Bank. The two victims have been named as Catherine Berruex of Switzerland, and Major Cengiz Toytunc from Turkey. Another Turkish observer from the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), Captain Huseyin Ozaslan, was wounded in the incident on a road used mainly by Jewish settlers near Halhoul, just north of Hebron. Captain Huseyin Ozaslan told Israel radio that a man dressed in Palestinian police uniform stood in the middle of the road firing at their vehicle. "We told him that we are from the TIPH and he didn't care, he kept on shooting towards us," Captain Ozaslan said. Conflicting versions This is the first time that TIPH observers have been killed since it was set up in 1994. Switzerland and Norway, the joint heads of the TIPH mission, have called for an investigation to be carried out by Israel, the Palestinian Authority and TIPH to "clarify as quickly as possible the circumstances of this drama." Earlier, the Palestinian leadership said in a statement that the Israeli army had opened fire on the car. "The Israeli army bears full responsibility for this crime," it said.

(2) TIPH: Witnesses to The Occupation Khalid Amayreh al-Jazeera

TIPH mission has not been free of tragedies. On 26 March 2002, during the heydays of al-Aqsa Intifada, a Palestinian guerilla attacked the observers’ patrol, which was travelling on a bypass road, used mainly by Jewish settlers and Israeli troops. Two observers were killed in the ambush: Catherine Berruex, a Swiss, and Turget Cengiz Toytunic, a Turk. The Palestinian attacker who shot the two, reportedly told his Israeli interrogators he mistook the observers for paramilitary Jewish settlers.

(3) Advisory: TIPH reports "no information on the shooting" of two of its personnel This gives a complex textual reconstruction of the various outflows of information on the incident with no conclusion.

(4) On the wiki page (a laughing stock) Temporary International Presence in Hebron We read:-

'On 26 March 2002 two observers, Catherine Berruex and Turgut Cengiz Toytunç were killed by two Palestinian gunmen. An Israeli military court found a Palestinian man guilty of the murders, in September, 2003. Israeli authorities said that three people were involved in the killing.'

There is no source (unless my scurrying eyes missed it). I hate newspaper articles immediately reporting anything, and prefer solid reliable sources some time after the event. If the TIPH wiki page info is correct, and a trial did take place, that is the proper source for such a passage, and a newspaper reference of quality to the trial is what is required. That is why I do not regard the Telegraph or ABC reports as utilisable.

Personally, I intend to replace all newspaper cites in this and many articles with book sources eventually.

A final point. Cordesman in his Asymmetric Book (from memory p.135) has an instance of settlers in Hebron beating up savagely U.S.peace observers. Just as that should not be on the Hebron page but on the fork, neither should the Norwegian observers' death be here, however sourced.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No Norwegian observers have been killed in Hebron! Ever. (I would have heard about it!) (Those killed were in fact from Switzerland and Turkey.) Therefore, using anything as a source which has the head-line: Two Norwegian observers killed near Hebron: Israeli TV, ABC, or: Two Norwegian observers killed near Hebron is clearly problematic.

Here are a couple of other sources that could be used:

• Palestinians blame Israel for TIPH killings 27 Mar 2002, ("Aftenposten" is the largest "serious" newspaper in Norway)
• Six years since two TIPH observers were shot dead in Hebron

But, yes; basically I agree with you, Nishi, that it should´t be part of *this* article at all. Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)