Talk:Old City of Hebron

DYK

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Old City of Hebron

• ... that the Old City of Hebron (pictured) became the third World Heritage Site in the State of Palestine in 2017? Source: Palestine: Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tayseer Sboul

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 11:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC).

• Starting review: Alex2006 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - n
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article complies with almost all the requirements for DYK, but I see two problems: the first is that at the moment it is out of scope: it does not deal about the historic center of Hebron, but above all about the Israel occupation of the historic center of Hebron. It is not even explained why UNESCO considers it as a World Heritage Site. I think that first of all we need an "history" section where to put the info about the occupation, and then the article needs to be expanded, or to be renamed. Moreover, it is not completely neutral; for example, in the last sentence of the introduction, the source used (haaretz) is a liberal, left wing Israel newspaper. It would be good to know also the point of view of the government about the reason for the expulsion of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. Alex2006 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are severe POV problems with this article:

• The article it doesn't mention all the controversy and criticism surrounding of site recognition by UNESCO [1]

 Now added to article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• It only gives a small one sentence about Jewish community while omitting its rich history and what happened to her along the history

 Per discussion below, covered adequately at Hebron#History.. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• It give POV explanation to the security measure by IDF from one side POV source without mention terrorist activities by Palestinian groups.

 Per discussion below, covered adequately at Hebron#History.. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

--Shrike (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Alessandro57 and Shrike: for your comments. I focused my efforts when building this article on setting out the main sights, the divisions of the city, the current legal status, and finding good maps (the maps bit being the most time consuming...) All these points are good and fair, but this article is not up for WP:FA so it isn’t expected to be a fulsome account of all the political and historical complexities. These points are all addressed in great detail in the parent article at Hebron.

How can we address your POV concerns without turning this into a very long and complex article and without duplicating all the information at Hebron?

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The point of view of the government about the reason for the expulsion of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron seems to be explained here. I say "seems to be" because it is "a liberal, left wing Israel newspaper":) Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Selfstudier:, then this point of view can be added (with its reference) to the article, and a point is solved. @Onceinawhile:, anyway, if, as you affirm, the "political and historical complexities" of Hebron are fully addressed in the article about the city, there is no need to repeat them here. Then I would focus the scope of this article on the historic center, writing more about the cultural and art treasures of the center itself, and maybe mentioning the controversy arisen because of the site recognition by UNESCO. Political and historical problems can be addressed through a redirect to the Hebron article or one of its sections. Alex2006 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree I suggest removing the TIPH part, the UNESCO controversy should discussed from all angles also a connection to Jewish people should be mentioned explicitly.I think also if we want the hook about the Unesco the controversy should be part of the hook -Shrike (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The observer group was originally set up following the well known massacre at the Ibrahimi mosque and since Israel is now insisting that it be included in the proposed annexation map being drawn up by an Israeli-US committee, it seems pertinent to retain the TIPH material in some (perhaps amended) form.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what precisely you mean by "UNESCO controversy", do you refer to the U.S./Israel objection to the listing? If I recall there were only 3 votes against the proposal. However, I agree with the reviewer that it should be explained why UNESCO decided to list it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: would you mind taking a look at the revised article and let me know if you would like any further changes? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Nothing really has changed the article use the same POV language usage of partisan sites like +972 and Betzelem while no sites with opposites POVs provide only half truths for example it does mention IDF security measures and the Hardship of Palestinian Arabs but didn't say why they where in force. IMO in current form the article could not be promoted --Shrike (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see the reason why UNESCO inserted the historic center in the List of the heritage sites: this should be mentioned in the article. Moreover, I don't think that writing "covered adequately at Hebron#History" on this page solves the POV problem, since we cannot expect that a reader jumps by herself from this article to the one about Hebron: you should at least provide two redirects in the article explaining that if someone wants to know the Jewish history of the site and wants a non - POV explaination of the security measure by IDF should go to the main article (and, of course, it would be much better to have some information also here about these issues). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There were two aspects to the listing, the listing itself and the contemporaneous "in danger" listing (which is supposedly why the listing was expedited). I will see what can be found for both aspects. I do think we should be a little careful that do not mix up religion with nationality. The "Jewishness" is a religious thing (ie the comparative is Muslim/Christian). A listing is inscribed along with a nationality (usually, the Old City was proposed by Jordan and is not categorized under any country). In this case, that is Palestinian and not Israeli. So when Netanyahu is quoted as saying "[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/07/unesco-recognises-hebron-as-palestinian-world-heritage-site “This time they decided that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is a Palestinian site, meaning not Jewish, and that it’s in danger." it is this that is the POV position ie wrongly comparing Palestine with Jewish (a country with a religion). This mischaracterization is the basis of all of the Israeli complaints. Shrike, all sources are biased, should you actually have access to these mysterious non partisan sources then why not add them to the article or are you simply content to complain about the sources that don't agree with your own POV?Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Selfstudier:, I wanted to ask the same: ;-) @Shrike:, why don't you work together with the author of the article and try to reach a compromise? Alex2006 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I try to make it less POV but I think its nominator responsibility to make the article to meet the DYK standards. --Shrike (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I had to read the ICOMOS report to try and verify the real reason for inscription so what follows is OR. If I had to summarize the report, ICOMOS were forced to consider the application on an expedited basis based on Palestinian allegations of a threat to the site and while they did conclude that the property was under threat they were not convinced (that is, the case was not sufficiently made) that the listing was otherwise justified and sought a field visit to take that forward. Then that field visit never happened because they were refused permission and subsequently UNESCO passed a resolution inscribing the property onto the list of sites in danger based on what they had (ie what I just described). Locating secondary sources describing this might be a bit of a problem but I will have a go anyway. In the meantime, I directly linked the report (and the submissions) in the article text, at least people can read it for themselves (these are however, primary sources).Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I located a couple of secondary sources to document the above, I think that should clarify the "why" of the listing, that it was essentially a political decision based on the information available at the time.Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I was asked to come over and have a look at this nomination. Politics aside, the article seems terribly slanted toward the so-called State of Palestine and also the Israeli "occupation" and "settlers". It also has only one paragraph talking about the actual buildings, while paragraph after paragraph decries the "occupation". If you are talking about the Old City of Hebron, you cannot ignore the millenia-old Jewish presence and rely on a link to Hebron. (Anyway, I don't even see a link to Hebron#History, which itself is a very long section in the latter article.) The third paragraph under "UNESCO nomination" seems to be talking about another issue, "Controversy". It also makes no sense to quote The Jerusalem Post so extensively. Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Take a look at Old City (Jerusalem), which I refer to often in my writing. This is a much better example of an "Old City" article—history, archaeology, buildings, population, and UNESCO status. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• There have been no significant edits to the article since Selfstudier's back on March 9, and no post here by nominator Onceinawhile since March 7, and a failure to address a ping on their talk page a week ago leads me to believe that this nomination has been abandoned. In any event, this is now the oldest extant DYK nomination, and significant action needs to be taken very soon to address the issues noted by Yoninah on April 11 if the nomination is to continue. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nominator has made over twenty edits since the last post, and none of them were here or to the article. This nomination has been abandoned, and I am marking it for closure. If a response is made before this closes, the nomination can continue if there is clear intent to address the issues raised in a timely manner. I'm sorry this hasn't worked out. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think this is the right decision unfortunately. This has been gnawing away at me for a while now, but the debates needed to get there would need more time and effort than I should allow at this point. Shrike's comments could have been resolved on their own, despite his stated unwillingness to work on the article, but when Alessandro57 in good faith asked Yoninah to comment, it made things much more difficult. I found the use of inverted commas in Yoninah's post to describe "occupation" and "settlers" to be poorly judged, as that type of writing is usually associated with extremist nationalism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: huh? I was just pulling words out of the article and separating them off with quote marks. Next time I'll put them in green, okay? Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: ok, thank you for clarifying. I hope you can understand how it can cause offense; imagine talking about 1980s South Africa and being perceived to be belittling "apartheid". I don't know if you have ever had the pleasure of visiting, but Hebron is a living advertisement for the depravity of ethnonationalism. It is widely considered a microcosm of the entire conflict.

The one other reason I was reticent to work on achieving neutrality here is because in the last couple of months a new editor has been WP:HOUNDING a number of editors he disagrees with. And lo and behold, after I commented here 10 hours ago, he turns up at the article and deletes a large chunk of it without discussion.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP--Shrike (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, the problematic editor, whom you reverted, has been blocked as a sock. But the issues don't disappear for all that, as Shrike's comment would seem to indicate, and the issues raised by Yoninah about overall coverage. Shall we still go ahead and close this, or would you like to try to address the issues over the next few days? Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @BlueMoonset: I appreciate the encouragement. OK I will have a quick go now. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The issues were not solved by giving a green tick and saying it covered in some other article is not enough This should be included in the article.Also in my opinion TIPH part should be trimmed it current size article as it gives to much space compares to issues like archaeology --Shrike (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Shrike: I will implement your comments (add more on the history of all communities in the city (without overwhelming the article), remove sites like like +972 and Btselem and Jerusalem Post where possible, add more on the archaeology and buildings)

I think we need a discussion about due weight for the occupation side of the article. It is the most high profile element of the Old City, both in sources (put Hebron Old City into google books and you will see more than half of the top hits are about the settlement and occupation) and in practice (it drives every element of life there, including the huge depopulation, and the subsequent rehabilitation and UNESCO listing), and the nature of the occupation in Hebron's Old City differs from anywhere else in the conflict, and anywhere else in the world. If we are going to get this over the line we need to agree what is due weight here. Your views would be appreciated, ideally as specifically as possible.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, this nomination has now been open for over three months, and its time is running out. I see that you made a number of edits on April 14 (and one on April 15), but haven't done anything since. (There's a discussion from yesterday on the article's talk page about improving the article's lede, but it hasn't been incorporated into the article yet.) That's basically another week lost. Let's give a final deadline date of May 31; if this nomination isn't ready to go by then (allowing for some minor final details to be tied up), then we should close it. Thanks for your time. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thank you for the multiple chances you have given this nomination. I was hoping that Yoninah or Shrike would engage with my comment above, as without discussion we will not resolve the concern they have raised. Shrike in particular is very enthusiastic about repeating his directional point of view, but when asked to be specific or to actually work on the article, he goes quiet. Anyway, I think we have run out of time, so I have no objection to closing the nomination. Thank you very much for your support throughout this time. The topic of the article is a fascinating subject, albeit it seems a surprisingly under-researched one. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, thank you for letting me know. I'll close the nomination shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• The problem that I mention earlier still was not fixed. Right now article reads like political manifest about the conflict all the political staff should be trimmed if want this article to be ever ready for DYK --Shrike (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This nomination should be closed. It no longer fits any reasonable definition of "new". buidhe 03:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing the nomination. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Denying the city's Jewish character"

@Shrike: you have provided a couple of non-specialist sources which make the claim that UNESCO "denied the city's Jewish character". Neither of these sources explain the rationale for the claim nor provide their own citations. Can you explain what you think they mean? The nomination text is there for all of us to see.

It strikes me that these claims are WP:FRINGE at best, as it contradicts what we can all see with our own eyes. We are allowed to rely on what we can see right in front of us.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would go a step further, I pointed out that one of these sources was being misrepresented by him and he not only reverted my removal on those grounds he ignored the point altogether (claiming that footnotes are OK and breaching BRD) and continued to misrepresent the source until you fixed it for him. Strikes me that this is at the very least, unhelpful editing on his part. You might describe the author of this "work" as an antisemitism expert, Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld is 82, founding director of the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism at Indiana University and the publisher of all 5 of his books is Indiana University Press the material being rearranged scholarly essays edited by him. In my opinion, this does not qualify as an RS for the subject matter here.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this nonsense talking point is an extrapolation of Netanyahu's claim that "This time they decided that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is a Palestinian site, meaning not Jewish". This is absurd, as Palestinian nationalism has always considered Judaism as part of the fabric of the country (their beef being with political Zionism). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that the US and Israel were anti the listing before there was ever a resolution to complain about and the not paying their dues/leaving UNESCO in high dudgeon and now the after the fact complaining is just one more part of the pattern of US/Israel/Palestine relations ever since UNESCO accepted Palestine as a State party. In fact I think what we ought to do here is try to find sources that present this truth.Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a small section which gives a short overview of the politics; note it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with US/Israel objections to Palestinian statehood. The post fact posturing about denying Jewish links and all that is just a cover for the diplomatic reality.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good source with some of the longer history. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's all bs; Palestine joined some other UN organizations like UNCTAD and US is still funding them. I suppose the problem they have is that since the UNESCO thing, there was 67/19 so Palestine IS a state.Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

1990 and 1994 laws

@Selfstudier: something is confusing here. The two laws are shown here: [2] Yet the 1994 law used the exact same text from S. 875 in 1989. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK I have found it shoehorned in at H.R. 3743, H.R. 5368, H.R. 2295 and finally H.R. 2333. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I need to check and make sure it was the 94 bill that was used as the basis (the source says "1990s" which could be both or either)Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes the last one was enacted in 1994, but it originated in 1989 at the same time as the 1990 law. If you look at HR3743 from 1989-1990 congress above, which became law, it includes the exact text of the 1994 law. I think its position in the law - perhaps the enforcement around it - is what changed over time. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is confirmed here: Beattie, Kirk (3 May 2016). Congress and the Shaping of the Middle East. Seven Stories Press. p. 287 online. ISBN 978-1-60980-562-3. ...1989 Senate and House efforts like Senate bill S 763, which were designed to ensure the PLO's "compliance with commitments to stop terrorist activities and to recognize Israel's right to exist," in addition to Senate Resolution 875 and House Resolution 2145, both of which contained language similar to that found in the public laws of 1990 and 1994. Sen. Robert Kasten, Jr. (R-Wl) was the primary sponsor of S 875, and Rep. Tom Lantos sponsored HR 2145. In a nutshell, recognition by any UN body of the Palestinians' right to statehood or their achievement of statehood status would trigger a suspension of US funding to the "offending" UN body under these laws. (I'll just note in passing that it was Sen. Kasten who was to be a major recipient of campaign funds that AIPAC's President David Steiner was soliciting from one Haim Katz. Katz surreptitiously taped and released to the public the conversation, much to AIPAC's embarrassment. The conversation can be found on-line and makes for an interesting read.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, sources refer to both laws having been applied (CRS report), the differences between the two are more than the obvious, the first one applies to some subset of UN organizations and the second one instead refers to affiliates of the UN. Subsequently there have been arguments back and forth (unresolved till now) about the precise applicability of the second one to the case of Palestine (the first is in some respects redundant now). I think it's now a case of the "the horse has bolted" (Palestine has joined umpteen international orgs 2014 through 18) and the statehood question is going to get a test at the ICC shortly (and possibly another at the ICJ at some point).Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. What I have worked to establish clearly is that these laws were directed at Palestine, even though one of them doesn’t mention it. And to give readers the ability to find out how these absurd laws came about should they be interested. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Orly Noy

Who is Orly Noy? what expertise she have to have her opinion to be WP:DUE?--Shrike (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Secondary attribution + 2 primary verifications = DUE (I'm sure you looked it up for yourself but I'll provide it anyway Orly Noy Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Again please explain why her opinion is important.And why her blog is WP:due? Shrike (talk)

I have explained why it is DUE (it's at least as DUE as that ascribed to Netanyahu which is contradicted by her and her view is confirmed by two primary sources whereas that of Netanyahu is merely an assertion so I have tagged that for undue weight).Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

TIPH

Where does it say that it was expelled because it has issued the report? --Shrike (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

it says "after", not "because". I assume you are implying it is synth, so to clarify, I have added another ref and separated the run on sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

US and UNESCO

This material belongs in the UNESCO article, but has no direct relationship to the Old City of Hebron, or to the nomination of the latter to UNESCO. It does not belong in this article. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As part of the dyk process, Shrike complained about there being no reference to the "controversy" which apparently means the US/Israeli complaining about the vote etc etc. So this all became necessary to explain the US and Israeli opposition followed by their exit stage left. Now it is in there and there is no dyk to fret about, I see no reason to disturb the status quo.Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is dealt with in the section, w/o this paragraph about the US. It details the Israeli objection, its refusal to allow UNESCO members in, etc.. There's no need to mention the US funding decision with regards to UNESCO, which has nothing to do with this article. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The US funding decision has everything to do with the US/Israeli objections which in effect are just objections to Palestine in and of itself and which is why the funding was cut in the first place. The Hebron listing is just a continuation of the same thing. And the pair of them leaving in a huff is also the same thing. It is all of a piece, a connected whole.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this level of detail is needed here. Feel free to start a RfC if you want this content included.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is already included (status quo) and your view about the LoD is not a good reason for removing properly sourced material. Of course, you could start an RFC asking whether it should stay.Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is WP:ONUS. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the material was just added, fine but it has been there for a while and under dyk scrutiny without any complaint and you still need a good reason to remove properly sourced material even if that was not the case.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This information has been in there for a long time and consensus is required to change that. I think it could benefit from some copy editing though. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Mamluk vs Ottoman

We have two conflicting sources on whether the city is mostly Mamluk or mostly Ottoman:

Anita Vitullo, a freelance writer, published in 2003 in the Journal of Palestine Studies, writes that "The majority of the buildings are Ottoman-era from the eighteenth century along with some half dozen Mamluk structures."

The 2017 UNESCO nomination document, written by Alaa ShahinHebron's City Planner and Sandrine Bert Geithan Independent archaeologist, peer reviewed by Professor Nazmi Al Jubeh[3] and Giovanni Fontana Antonelli[4], says: "Today, the historic town centre is dominated by the Mamluk architecture style built between 1250 and 1517. However, the Ottoman Period (1517-1917) brought numerous architectural additions... Mamluk architecture is predominant in Hebron/Al-Khalil’s historic centre... Most of the public and religious buildings that are still intact date back to this period... During the Ottoman Period, the development of the town spread to the peripheral areas, which were then unoccupied. In the old neighourhoods, upper level extensions were added to the preexisting residential buildings. Few new public or religious buildings were erected; instead the Mamluk monuments were maintained and restored."

These seem to contradict each other. The UNESCO nomination document does mention on page 148 The Conference of Historic and Architectural Heritage of Hebron/Al-Khalil in Paris in 2011, stating that "Bringing together a panel of international experts, this meeting aims at going further in the historic information and analysis about the Mamluk inheritance in the Arab cities and in Hebron/ Al-Khalil in particular." It may be that research came out of this conference, which would explain the changed emphasis. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

See if I can find out anything about that, meanwhile here is some stuff perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article.Nur Masalha (15 August 2018). Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History. Zed Books. pp. 178–. ISBN 978-1-78699-275-8.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is written in 1994, you could call her an expert of some sort, I would say."Much of the Mamluk town survives: many of the buildings mentioned by the fifteenth-century traveler Mujir al-Din in his book on the people of Hebron were catalogued in 1987. There are also significant buildings from the Ottoman period (1517-1917), as well as some of mixed Mamluk and Ottoman ancestry."The Old City of Hebron Can It be Saved? Patricia Sellick DOI: 10.2307/2538213 Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence of article

There is something seriously wrong with the second sentence of the article. I have no idea what it is meant to say, or I would fix it myself.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: thanks - i'd be grateful for any ideas of how to simplify it. It is supposed to say that:

• Hebron is thought by archaeologists to have originally started elsewhere, at Tel Rumeida, which is not within today's Old City. That was in "biblical times" i.e. pre-Greek.
• Human settlement began in today's Old City location in Greek or Roman times
• Today's Old City became the center of overall Hebron in the Abbasid times

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you have largely done the rewrite in your answer. Doing a bit of cut and paste from the above and the article, I get the following:

The Old City of Hebron (Arabic: البلدة القديمة الخليل) is the historic city centre of Hebron in the West Bank. The Hebron of antiquity is thought by archaeologists to have originally started elsewhere, at Tel Rumeida, which is X miles/kilometres outside today's Old City. This earlier settlement is thought to have started in X [insert approx date here], before the establishment of the cities of bronze age Greece [have I got this right?]. Today's Old City was settled in Greek or Roman times (circa [put date range in - may need to define only with which centuries]). It became the center of the overall Hebron site during the Abbasid Caliphate. [another approximate date needed, as previously]

It is recognized as a World Heritage Site.

Not sure if I have got the facts right, but chopping the facts down into smaller chunks seems to do something. I am sure what I am suggesting could be improved, anyway.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: thank you - this is excellent. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no opposition to this lead only if a Jewish connection were added as Hebron is one of holiest city in Judaism --Shrike (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to find out when, and on what evidence, it was decided that biblical Hebron was on Tel Rumeida only. It is odd, because the Old City itself has never been excavated. When Hammond excavated Tel Rumeida in the 1960s, there was a ban on any excavation within 1km of the Cave of the Patriarchs.

I have looked in a few tourist books: p98 of this 1942 tourist book says "The ancient city was situated on the hill of Rumeida, to the south-west, around the ruined Mosque of Deir el Arba'in". Baedeker 1876: "The modern Hebron lies in the narrow part of a valley descending from the N.W.; and, unless it be assumed that the ancient city was situated higher up on the slope to the K., it was one of the few towns of Palestine that did not stand on a hill. The hill on the S.W. side rises about 3000 ft. above the sea-level.", whereas Baedeker 1894: "Ancient Hebron lay to the W., opposite the modern town, on the olive-covered hill Rumeideh, N.W. of the Quarantine. On this hill are ruins of old cyclopean walls and modern buildings called Der el- Arba in, ‘the monastery of the forty’ (martyrs): within the ruins is the tomb of Jesse (Isai), David’s father. At the E. foot of the hill is the deep spring of Sarah, Ain Jedideh. Modern Hebron lies in the narrow part of a valley descending from the N.W. (3018 ft. above the sea-level) and, unless it be assumed that the ancient city extended further along the hill to the E., is one of the few towns of Palestine that are not built on a hill."

Important scholarly sources I have found so far:

• Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Discovering Hebron: The City of the Patriarchs Slowly Yields Its Secrets, BAR 31:05, Sep-Oct 2005.
• Philip C. Hammond, David's First City - The Excavation of Biblical Hebron, 1964: PrincSemB 58,2 (1965) 19-28

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think I have (part of) the answer. In Biblical Researches in Palestine, Robinson writes:[5]

Thus far there is nothing to excite a doubt as to the identity of the site of the ancient and modern city. Arculfus near the close of the seventh century, found the place without walls, exhibiting only the vestiges of an ancient desolated city; although a multitude of people yet lived there in miserable dwellings scattered in the valley, partly within and partly without the ruins of the former walls. Yet Benjamin of Tudela, after A. D. 1660[presumed typo for 1160], affirms, that the ancient city was situated on a mountain, and was then desolate and deserted; the city of that day being in the valley. Brocardus, a century later, repeats this account, with more particulars; according to him, the ancient city was on the hill north of the slope on which we encamped, three bow-shots west of north from the modern town, where nothing was then visible except large ruins. This story is copied by writers of the following centuries; and the idea seems to have become current, that the ancient city lay upon the hill. Yet none of the travellers of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, speak of any ruins there, on their own knowledge. We were not aware of this old report at the time of our visit; and therefore did not examine the hill in question. My companion has since informed me, that according to his impression, the site of a former village was spoken of on that hill, similar to several others in the neighbourhood of Hebron; but with the remark that there were no remains there of importance. Had we then known the circumstances above related, we should certainly have gone upon the hill, and ascertained the facts for ourselves. The later researches of friends show conclusively, that there is nothing on that hill to counterbalance the mention of "the valley of Hebron" in the book of Genesis, and the strong evidence of the ancient pools.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Another from the PEF Survey of Palestine:[6]

The ancient Jewish cemetery on the north side of the hill, called er Rumeidy, west of the town, is interesting. It contains at least 500 tombs, each covered with a stone five or six feet long. This cemetery is now disused, and appears to be very ancient. The curious tradition of the Mugharet edh Dhukkaah is noted in Section C.

It seems to have been supposed from an early period that ancient Hebron was not on the site of modern Hebron. The 'Onomasticon' makes the place near Drys (er Rameh). The Itin. Hierosol. gives this distance as 2 Roman miles. Sta. Paula (385 a.d.) visits the tombs of the Patriarchs, the oak, and then ' ascends ' to Hebron. Theodorus (in sixth century) finds the oak 4 Roman miles from the Spelunca Duplex, or cavern of the Patriarchs, and this cavern 2 miles from Hebron. Arculphus (700 A.D.) found the place in ruins, and west of the tombs of the Patriarchs. Ssewulf (1102 a.d.) gives the same account, the tombs being in a strong castle and the town in ruins. Benjamin of Tudela (i 163 a.d.) calls this castle St. Abraham, and speaks of the old city as on a hill and in ruins. Marino Sanuto (132 1 a.d.) places the old Hebron north of the cavern of Adam ('Ain el Judeideh), and north-west of Ebron Nova, in which he places the Spelunca Duplex. He also speaks of it as 'ad dextram Mambre.

The Oak or Terebinth of Abraham has been shown in two different sites. It seems probable, though not certain, that the present site is that shown from the twelfth century down.

So both Robinson and the PEF were conscious of the historical commentary that the original city was on a hill, but neither concluded that it was. That must have happened in the 1880s or 1890s.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Rabbi Jacob, The Messenger of Rabbi Jechiel of Paris (1238-1244): On the road-side there is Halhul, and another Saints' Cave, and in Hebron is the cave of Machpelah, where the Patriarchs are buried. Modern Hebron is near the cave ; ancient Hebron is at the top of the hill, where there are Jewish graves, and on one side there is a cave where Jesse is buried, but some say Joab, and in Hebron is also the grave of Abner, the son of Ner. (Adler, Jewish Travellers in the Middle Ages, p120) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Franciscus Quaresmius: "Leaving the church of the Forty Holy Martyrs, and directing one's step towards Hebron as far as a stone's throw, to the right of the church is shown a beautiful terebinth tree... The terebinth is on the top of the next to the place where old Hebron was built" (Pringle, Churches of the Crusader Kingdom, p.203)

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A David Ben-Shlomo talks about the various excavations (including his own, re Tel Hebron archaeological park refers, ugh) https://www.academia.edu/30600076/Tel_Hebron_during_the_Late_Roman_Early_Byzantine_Period and there is some material in Sharon as well.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)