Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Hebron

< Template:Did you know nominations
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)

DYK toolbox

Old City of Hebron

(
)
Old City of Hebron
Old City of Hebron

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

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Old_City_of_Hebron&oldid=1018857039"